In the Apostle Creed, Jesus descended into hell

[Gorgias]

2nd paragraph

It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.

And, of course, the context of that quote is that it’s prior to the introduction to this reflection – that is, it’s setting the stage and explaining the history of the thought on limbo.

In the conclusion (paragraph 102):

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12).

There’s mention of hope, there’s mention of a lack of an answer in Revelation, and there’s mention that there is no sure knowledge. What there’s not, in a document dedicated to the question of limbo, is any mention of limbo as a potential answer to the question.

You’re really out on a limb if you read this and conclude that limbo is still in play…

That would depend on your definition of hell.

I guess my definition of hell is in line with the one provided by the Church (CCC 1033, 1035):

This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” … The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity.

The definition of hell I gave puts non-heavenly locations as a type of hell.

Which implies that the definition of hell you gave isn’t compatible with the Church’s definition. I can call a pig a “princess”… but that don’t make it so! :doh2:

Correct, but it is not heaven, therefore a ‘type’ of hell’ in that there is suffering and separation from God, though only temporary.

No… Purgatory isn’t heaven – that’s the point. Is there suffering? There’s purification; traditionally, that’s been characterized in various ways that suggest suffering, but that’s not a doctrine of the Church.

It’s not a “type” of hell, any more than it’s a “type” of earthly existence. It’s a process of purification. Period. The souls in Purgatory can pray for us, you know…! The souls in Hell… not so much. The souls in Purgatory are in the hands of God. The souls in Hell… in the hands of a different power. The typology of Purgatory doesn’t fit into any of the realities of Hell!

This could be taken as my ecclesial humor (I try to keep things light)

LOL… OK, then…!

but it also makes sense (using our definition of hell given above) since the mass is where heaven touches earth.

Well, I’m still not willing to say that it’s helpful to use your definition of hell, since it stands in conflict with the Church’s definition (and if I had to bet on the reliability of a definition, I think I’d stand with the Church). In any case, just because God allows heaven and earth to touch, in the context of the Divine Liturgy / Mass, that doesn’t imply that God allows hell to touch earth in any way…!

 

[Evan]

In all your responses, you use ‘hell’ when referring to the ‘hell of the damned’. If there is a hell of the damned, then the must be another or the qualifier would not be needed.

Obviously, Jesus did not descend to the ‘hell of the damned’ but to ‘hell = fringe of hell (or limbo) reserved for the fathers’

As I said above, most everything you have is correct when you redefine hell to be the ‘hell of the damned’. Something I did not do. If you reject my definition of hell, then complain my description of hell does not meet your definition, you are doing a disservice to this discussion.

The reason I am using this definition of hell is due to the title of this thread.

BTW limbo for the infants is still an option. No answer was given in the document and no support for other options was found to be any stronger. All the presented information was speculative and no decision was made. They could not disallow limbo, verify it’s existence, or anything in between. As in many articles of faith, we don’t know the answer, so do not exclude possibilities because you don’t want them to be true.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Doesn’t your Bible talk about Abraham and Moses and Elijah being in heaven before Jesus died?

Elijah didn’t die and was carried into heaven. Same for Enoch.

Abraham and Moses died. The place where the righteous awaited for the Messiah was called Abraham’s Bosom.

 

[Macneill321]

The harrowing of hell…
This is an interesting subject for me, and this is my first post. Thanks to all who contributed so well!

I reflect on the works of Bl. John Paul II in his ideas of just what heaven, purgatory and hell are. In the ways of a mystic, he discerned that they are not places, but states of being. In short, we judge ourselves; where we spend eternity depends on our own choices in life and “in articulo mortem” See what Father Groeschel (EWTN) says about all that may be packed into that ultimately private and intimate moment with God.

I believe that the Church’s position after Vatican II settled in reflects Jesus’ Mercy- The Divine Mercy- in the treatment of the unbaptized, just as we now construe a suicide- we do not judge the person, always allowing for God’s judgement first; His judgement is always just, and always comes second to His Mercy. Read St. Faustina’s diary to learn about Mercy. That, of course, understandably to babies. Consider Jesus’ rebuke of the apostles when they tried to “protect” him from the little children. “it is such as these who will inherit the Kingdom of God.” Mercy!

 

[Gorgias]

In all your responses, you use ‘hell’ when referring to the ‘hell of the damned’. If there is a hell of the damned, then the must be another or the qualifier would not be needed.

That’s the point. The qualifier isn’t needed. There’s hell. Period. (There was also a “limbo of the fathers” and the term “sheol” has merit, too, but I would say that the disservice being done in this thread is in the inventing of names and in the creation false distinctions …

From the catechism (#632-33, all emphases mine):

The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection. This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.

Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

Obviously, Jesus did not descend to the ‘hell of the damned’ but to ‘hell = fringe of hell (or limbo) reserved for the fathers’

There’s no distinction; there’s no “fringe of hell”.

If you reject my definition of hell, then complain my description of hell does not meet your definition, you are doing a disservice to this discussion.

No – I’m trying to bring this discussion back into line with the terms that the Church uses.

BTW limbo for the infants is still an option.

… just not one of the options given by the ITC. Another option not mentioned by the ITC is that babies turn into little pink elephants in the afterlife, and blow rainbows out of their trunks. Of course, you think the first unmentioned option is one that the document endorses. Whatever.

so do not exclude possibilities because you don’t want them to be true.

I might rephrase that as “do not include possibilities that official Church documents don’t present as possible, because you want them to be true”.

 

[Pete_Holter]

According to the Apostle Creed, Jesus descended into hell when he died.

Last night my husband and I were discussing this with our adult son. Our son said at Jesus’ death there were four stages of hell:
1st stage: Limbo
2nd stage: The bosom of Abraham and the patriarchs where all virtuous went at their death before Jesus came to release them
3rd stage: Purgatory
4th stage: Place of the damned.

Our son was told this at a recent catechism class he attended at his parish. He also said Limbo still exits and that the souls there will not get to heaven but it is a place of happiness. I thought I read recently that Limbo is not part of dogma or doctrine.

Has anyone heard of this?

Hi Colleen!

This is just a guess, but it sounds like your son’s catechist may be presenting his instruction using the framework of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. This catechism lists three “abodes of hell” in connection with its teaching on Christ’s descent into hell. Since the “1st stage” of your son’s list – Limbo – would really be considered a subset of the “4th stage” – the hell of the condemned – this would explain the difference between the “three abodes” as described in the catechism and the “four stages” as presented by your son. You can read this section of the catechism here: “He Descended into Hell, the Third Day He Rose Again from the Dead.”

Have a blessed night!

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[Evan]

There’s no distinction; there’s no “fringe of hell”.

The word limbo means fringe and it refers to the fringe of hell. Since, in disagreement with post #20 and the ITC, you have eliminated a theological option the ITC found viable, I guess the limbo of the fathers (which no longer exists) then, through some private revelation(?), there are no other limbos? (fringes of hell)

Another option not mentioned by the ITC is that babies turn into little pink elephants in the afterlife, and blow rainbows out of their trunks. Of course, you think the first unmentioned option is one that the document endorses. Whatever.

Now you’re getting nasty, so this is my last post on this subject. When argument fails, use hyperbole and denigration. In math we call this proof by intimidation.

Truth is difficult to descern when no revelation is given and it cannot be derived from material things. We will never know this side of heaven. Take Care

 

[Gorgias]

The word limbo means fringe and it refers to the fringe of hell. Since, in disagreement with post #20 and the ITC, you have eliminated a theological option the ITC found viable, I guess the limbo of the fathers (which no longer exists) then, through some private revelation(?), there are no other limbos? (fringes of hell)

Well, hold on a second – the ITC mentions, prior even to its introduction, that limbo “remains a possible theological hypothesis.” However, in its conclusion, limbo doesn’t even merit a mention; rather, “serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved” is the only option that’s mentioned. I fail to see how you equate that with an ITC endorsement of limbo!

Now you’re getting nasty, so this is my last post on this subject. When argument fails, use hyperbole and denigration.

Or reductio ad absurdum. To be fair, I was getting exasperated, and so I apologize that you so tried my patience that I became somewhat uncharitable. The point still holds, though – if your viewpoint wasn’t mentioned in the conclusion, how do you rationalize that the document validates or even acknowledges it, in the end?

In math we call this proof by intimidation.

And, although it’s dangerously close to reductio ad ridiculum, I contend that the hyperbole was meant to illustrate that both “conclusions” are not supported by the document.

Truth is difficult to descern when no revelation is given and it cannot be derived from material things.

True; nevertheless, holding on to a pet theory, when the relevant documentation only notes its existence in a historical review, but fails to give it even the least bit of credence… well, that’s a difficult argument to hold to, don’t you think?