"Strange" teachings of John Paul II

[RSiscoe]

RSiscoe:

How many times have I argued with you, by quoting a strange teachings of John Paul II, or the new Catechism, and you have said that I must

believe those strange teachings (which contradict 2000 years of Catholic belief) since they are “official”.

Dave:

Firstly, you’ve never shown any “strange teaching” of the magisterium to contradict 2000 years of Catholic belief. Merely claiming that it is so is unconvincing.

.

Then let me provide a “strange teaching” of John Paul II. But actually, this goes far beyond being merely “strange” – it is an explicit contradiction of 2000 years of Catholic teaching. John Paul II explicitly denies that Jesus’ soul “descended into hell”, claiming that the phrase from the creed merely means that His body was buried in the tomb.

First let us begin by reading what the Catholic Church teaches about this article of the Creed, so as not to be deceived by what follows. The first quote is taken from the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

**
Catechism of Trent:

First Part of this Article: “He Descended into Hell”

**

In the first part of this Article, then, we profess that immediately after the death of Christ **His *soul ***descended into hell, and dwelt there as long as His body remained in the tomb; and also that the one Person of Christ was at the same time in hell and in the sepulchre. Nor should this excite surprise; for, as we have already frequently said, although His soul was separated from His body, His Divinity was never parted from either His soul or His body.

"Hell"

As the pastor, by explaining the meaning of the word hell in this place may throw considerable light on the exposition of this Article, it is to be observed that by the word hell is not here meant the sepulchre, as some have not less impiously than ignorantly imagined; for in the preceding Article we learned that Christ the Lord was buried, and there was no reason why the Apostles, in delivering an Article of faith, should repeat the same thing in other and more obscure terms.

Hell, then, here signifies those secret abodes in which are detained the souls that have not obtained the happiness of heaven….”

Now let us read the EXACT contrary as spoke by John Paul II:
JohnPaulII:
“…the Apostles’ Creed… says of Jesus “He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified… and was buried”…. That article of faith ends… with the words: "…and <was buried…

“To these final words of the article on the passion and death of Christ is linked in a certain way the following article which says: “<He descended into hell”>. …

“As is evident from the texts quoted, the article of the Apostles’ Creed, “he descended into hell”, is based on the New Testament statements , after his death on the Cross, into the “region of death”, into the abode of the dead", which in Old Testament language was called the “abyss”. If the Letter to the Ephesians speaks of “the lower parts of the earth”, it is because the earth receives the human bodyafter death, and so it received also the body of Christ who expired on Calvary, as described by the Evangelists (cf. Mt 27:59 f, and parallel passages; In 19:40-42). a real , including the final moment which is generally a part of the whole process:

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

**

"It is a confirmation that this was a real, and not merely an apparent, death. His soul, separated from the body, was glorified in God

, but his body lay in the tomb as a <corpse.>

During the three (incomplete) days between the moment when he “expired” (cf. Mk 15:37) and the resurrection, Jesus experienced the state of death", that is, the , as in the case of all people. This is the primary meaning of the words “he descended into hell”; they are linked to what Jesus himself had foretold when, in reference to the story of Jonah. he had said: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so " (Mt 12:40).

Death and glorification

“This is precisely what the words about the descent into hell meant: <the heart or the womb of the earth.> … If death implies the separation of the soul from the body, it follows that in Christ’s case also there was, on the one hand, the body in the state of a corpse, and on the other, the <heavenly glorification of his soul from the very moment of his death.> The First Letter of Peter speaks of this duality when, in reference to Christ’s death for sins, he says of him: “<Being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (1 Pt 3:18). Soul and body are therefore in the final condition corresponding to their nature, although on the ontological plane the soul has a relationship to be reunited with its own body. The Apostle adds however: “<In spirit (Christ) went and preached to the spirits in prison>” (1 Pt 3:19). This seems to indicate metaphorically the extension of Christ’s salvation to the just men and women who had died before him.

“Obscure as it is, the Petrine text confirms the others concerning the concept of the “descent into hell” . It is Christ—laid in the tomb as regards the body, but glorified in his soul admitted <to the fullness of the beatific vision of God*>*—who communicates his state of beatitude to all the just whose state of death he shares in regard to the body….” General Audience given on January 11, 1989 **

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

Let us compare what the Catholic Church teaches, and has always taught, wiht what John Paul II believes.

Catechism of Trent: “In the first part of this Article, then, we profess that immediately after the death of Christ **His *soul ***descended into hell, and dwelt there as long as His body remained in the tomb;

John Paul II: It is a confirmation that this was a real, and not merely an apparent, death. His soul, separated from the body, was glorified in God, but his body lay in the tomb as a <corpse.>

**John Paul II: **<In spirit (Christ) went and preached to the spirits in prison>" (1 Pt 3:19). This seems to indicate metaphorically the extension of Christ’s salvation to the just men and women who had died before him.

John Paul II: “This is precisely what the words about the descent into hell meant: … the body in the state of a corpse, and on the other, the <heavenly glorification of his soul from the very moment of his death.>

Catechism of Trent: “, it is to be observed that by the word hell is not here meant the sepulchre, as some have not less impiously than ignorantly imagined.”

Now, who are we to believe? The brand new teaching of John Paul II, which is contrary to what the Church has always taught, or should we believe what the Church has always taught?

The Pope is not above the Church. He is the leader of the Church, but not above the Church. The Pope, therefore, is bound be believe AND teach what the Church has always taught. He has the power to define a dogma of the faith infallibly, but he has no authority to teach contrary to what the Church has always taught. On the contrary, the Pope is bound to the teachings of the Church just as any other member of the Church is. Should a Pope reject a teaching of the faith, that has been defined de fide, he looses the faith and become a heretic just like anyone else.

Now the question arises: Does the erroneous teaching of John Paul II (as quoted above) contradict an infallible dogma, or only the ordinary magisterium of the Church, which he, like all other Catholics, is bound to submit to?

 

[MariaG]

No offense, but a link provided to the documents you cite would be much more useful, (as well as follow forum rules ) so we could read where you got these sources as well as the source itself.

Thanks. I personally need to go for now, but I am sure others will get back to you.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[RSiscoe]

MariaG:

No offense, but a link provided to the documents you cite would be much more useful, (as well as follow forum rules ) so we could read where you got these sources as well as the source itself.

Thanks. I personally need to go for now, but I am sure others will get back to you.

God Bless,
Maria

You are right. It was taken from the EWTN site. Here is the link.

64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ZWP4WE6nLfsJ:www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP890111.HTM+burial+John+Paul+I&hl=en

The following is a link to the Catechism of Trent:

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed05.htm

 

[jordan]

RSiscoe:

It seems to me you are reading into words of the Holy Father something that is not there. The Catholic understanding of what “descended into Hell” means has not changed.

Bear in mind that if you are confused by something in the volume of stuff you quoted, the extemporaneous choice of words in a general audience in January 1989 don’t trump the Catechism Pope John Paul II signed, which doesn’t change Church teaching one bit. There can be development in doctrine, but not some new and revolutionary doctrine. There is nothing the Church now teaches that overturns what was taught before.

Read the current Catechism of the Catholic Church:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1R.HTM

If you’ve still got an issue, let me know.

jb

 

[Benadam]

RSiscoe:

You are right. It was taken from the EWTN site. Here is the link.

64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ZWP4WE6nLfsJ:www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP890111.HTM+burial+John+Paul+I&hl=en

The following is a link to the Catechism of Trent:

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed05.htm

I don’t believe the Pope is denying an article of faith. He is pointing out that as second person of the trinity it isn’t reasonable to believe that Christ could experience an existence seperated from His own being. Hell as an existence seperated from God isn’t the meaning of His descent into hell.
The Popes reference to the passage that mentions Christ preaching to the souls in prison as a metaphore isn’t a denial of that revelation but an invitation to a mystery that all we know for sure of is that His humanity experienced seperation , His Body was buried and His soul was, is, and always will be divine and one in Being with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Hildebrand]

RSiscoe:

Now, who are we to believe? The brand new teaching of John Paul II, which is contrary to what the Church has always taught, or should we believe what the Church has always taught?

The Pope is not above the Church. He is the leader of the Church, but not above the Church. The Pope, therefore, is bound be believe AND teach what the Church has always taught. He has the power to define a dogma of the faith infallibly, but he has no authority to teach contrary to what the Church has always taught. On the contrary, the Pope is bound to the teachings of the Church just as any other member of the Church is. Should a Pope reject a teaching of the faith, that has been defined de fide, he looses the faith and become a heretic just like anyone else.

Well for starters, the statement made was during a “general audience”. For the pope to proclaim an infallible statement, it must be Ex Cathedra.

*Ex Cathedra: *Literally “from the chair”, a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff.

newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm

Since a statement made in a general audience most likely does not qualify as *Ex Cathedra, *then there is no need to worry. He did not try to proclaim anything new. It is probably is misunderstanding or misstatement.

God Bless Pope John Paul II :crying:

 

[JimG]

I think you draw an incorrect conclusion from the Popes meditation given at this particular general audience. He makes the point that Christ truly died, and his corpse lay in the tomb. The very definition of death is the separation of soul from body. That happened to Jesus at his death. Death can occur only in his human nature, however. The Second Person of the Trinity is a divine Person with both a divine and human nature. Separation of his human soul from his human body does not in any way affect his divinity. It is not incumbent on the pope, nor necessary, to make all this explicit in a weekly audience devoted to a singular reflection.

Perhaps you take the word “metaphorical” in a different way than the Pope intended. At the very outset of his reflection he says: “It should also be mentioned straight-away that the word “hell” does not mean the hell of eternal damnation, but the abode of the dead which is in Hebrew and in Greek (cf. Acts 2:311.”
This is in accordance with the way the doctrine has always been understood.

But what does it mean that he descended to the abode of the dead? Can the souls of the dead be said to be in a “place” as bodies are in a place? The pope relates it to Christ taking upon himself our human nature so completely that he is able to share even our experience of death, the separation of human soul from human body. He further relates it to the fact that the events of redemption transcend space and time, affecting all of humanity, even those who have come “before” his earthly ministry and are dead at that time. Two quotes from the pope’s address:

“In this is manifested and put into effect of Christ’s sacrificial death which brought redemption to all, even to those who died before his coming and his “descent into hell”, but who were contacted by his justifying grace.”

“This verse also, though not easy to interpret, confirms the concept of the “descent into hell” as the ultimate phase of the Messiah’s mission. It is a phase “condensed” into a few days by the texts which try to present in a comprehensible way to those accustomed to reason and to speak in metaphors of space and time, but immensely vast in its real meaning of the extension of redemption to all people of all times and places, even to those who in the days of Christ’s death and burial were already in the “realm of the dead”.”
That extension of Christ’s sanctifying power was the whole purpose of his descent to the dead. The Pope obviously believes that extension of his sanctifying power took place, and it was unique to Christ. Were it not for the “descent into hell” those who had gone before could not have been “contacted by his justifying grace,” to quote the Pope.

Finally, keep in mind that this is a homiletic reflection on a particular theological issue, given by the Church’s chief pastor—not at encyclical, doctrinal teaching or new declaration. The pope is as much entitled to give theological reflections as any other theologian in the Church. And it does not contradict the catechism of Trent.

 

[RSiscoe]

jordan:

RSiscoe:

It seems to me you are reading into words of the Holy Father something that is not there. The Catholic understanding of what “descended into Hell” means has not changed.

Bear in mind that if you are confused by something in the volume of stuff you quoted, the extemporaneous choice of words in a general audience in January 1989 don’t trump the Catechism Pope John Paul II signed, which doesn’t change Church teaching one bit. There can be development in doctrine, but not some new and revolutionary doctrine. There is nothing the Church now teaches that overturns what was taught before.

Read the current Catechism of the Catholic Church:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1R.HTM

If you’ve still got an issue, let me know.

jb

Yes, thank you for that. I fully understand that Church teaching does not change - nor can it change.

I am not saying Church teaching has changed, I am saying that, in the quote I provided from John Paul II, he does not believe Church teaching. He teaches something brand new which is explicitly contrary to what the Church teaches.

The Church teaches that when the Creed says Christ “descended into hell”, it means his soul descended into the lower regions of the earth, known as “Limbo”, to release the soul of the Just who were detained there. John Paul II said that Christ’s soul did not descende into hell, but that the term “descended into hell” means that his body was buried in the tomb. Contrary to what the Church teaches, John Paul II said that Christ’s soul went strait to heaven, while his body lie in the tomb. This is contrary to what the Catechism of Trent taugth.

You may want to read the link I provided. It is not very long. Then, after reading what John Paul II believes, read what the Catechism of Trent teaches. They are the exact opposite.

John Paul II often speaks ambiguously. His words can usually be understood to mean one of several things. Although many of his teachings seem to be false, since he uses such ambubuous language, you can’t tell for sure. However, his denial of Jesus’ soul descending into hell is an explicit contradiction to Catholic teaching.

It is very clear.

 

[RSiscoe]

JimG:

I think you draw an incorrect conclusion from the Popes meditation given at this particular general audience. He makes the point that Christ truly died, and his corpse lay in the tomb. The very definition of death is the separation of soul from body. That happened to Jesus at his death. Death can occur only in his human nature, however. The Second Person of the Trinity is a divine Person with both a divine and human nature. Separation of his human soul from his human body does not in any way affect his divinity. It is not incumbent on the pope, nor necessary, to make all this explicit in a weekly audience devoted to a singular reflection.

Perhaps you take the word “metaphorical” in a different way than the Pope intended. At the very outset of his reflection he says: “It should also be mentioned straight-away that the word “hell” does not mean the hell of eternal damnation, but the abode of the dead which is in Hebrew and in Greek (cf. Acts 2:311.”
This is in accordance with the way the doctrine has always been understood.

But what does it mean that he descended to the abode of the dead? Can the souls of the dead be said to be in a “place” as bodies are in a place? The pope relates it to Christ taking upon himself our human nature so completely that he is able to share even our experience of death, the separation of human soul from human body. He further relates it to the fact that the events of redemption transcend space and time, affecting all of humanity, even those who have come “before” his earthly ministry and are dead at that time. Two quotes from the pope’s address:

“In this is manifested and put into effect of Christ’s sacrificial death which brought redemption to all, even to those who died before his coming and his “descent into hell”, but who were contacted by his justifying grace.”“This verse also, though not easy to interpret, confirms the concept of the “descent into hell” as the ultimate phase of the Messiah’s mission. It is a phase “condensed” into a few days by the texts which try to present in a comprehensible way to those accustomed to reason and to speak in metaphors of space and time, but immensely vast in its real meaning of the extension of redemption to all people of all times and places, even to those who in the days of Christ’s death and burial were already in the “realm of the dead”.”That extension of Christ’s sanctifying power was the whole purpose of his descent to the dead. The Pope obviously believes that extension of his sanctifying power took place, and it was unique to Christ. Were it not for the “descent into hell” those who had gone before could not have been “contacted by his justifying grace,” to quote the Pope.

Did Christ’s soul descend into “hell” (Limbo), or did it not? John Paul II said it did not. The Church teaches that Our Lord’s soul did indeed, really and truly, descend into hell.

John Paul II, based on what he said in the general audience, does not believe that. On the contrary, he believes that Christs soul DID NOT descend into hell, but that it was immediately glorified in heaven.

John Paul II: “This is precisely what the words about the descent into hell meant: … the body in the state of a corpse, and on the other, the <heavenly glorification of his soul from the very moment of his death.>

That is an explicit contradiction to what the Church teaches:

Catechism of Trent: “In the first part of this Article, then, we profess that immediately after the death of Christ **His *soul ***descended into hell, and dwelt there as long as His body remained in the tomb;

There is another quote from Trent that applies to what you wote above:

“He Descended”
We are not to imagine that His power and virtue only, and not also His soul, descended into hell; but we are firmly to believe that His soul itself, really and substantially, descended thither, according to this conclusive testimony of David: Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.

 

[RSiscoe]

Benadam:

I don’t believe the Pope is denying an article of faith. He is pointing out that as second person of the trinity it isn’t reasonable to believe that Christ could experience an existence seperated from His own being. Hell as an existence seperated from God isn’t the meaning of His descent into hell.

That is not what the Pope is talking about. The word hell can mean “seperation from God”, but that is not what it means in the Creed. The term hell refers to the center of the earth, within which is located the hell of the damned, purgatory, and Limbo. When Our Lord descened into hell, his soul descended into the portion known as Limbo to release the souls of the just.

The Pope taught that Our Lord’s soul DID NOT descened into hell, but that the phrase “descended into hell” means that his body was buried in the tomb (exactly what the Catechism of Trent said was incorrect).

The Popes reference to the passage that mentions Christ preaching to the souls in prison as a metaphore isn’t a denial of that revelation but an invitation to a mystery that all we know for sure of is that His humanity experienced seperation , His Body was buried and His soul was, is, and always will be divine and one in Being with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

After the Pope very clearly taught that Jesus soul did not descend into hell, he explained that the scripture that says “In spirit (Christ) went and preached to the spirits in prison>” (1 Pt 3:19), as being a metaphor. He said it seems to indicate a metaphoriacal extension of Christ’ salvation to the just, since he had just denied that Our Lord’s soul descended into hell.

**

**<In spirit (Christ) went and preached to the spirits in prison>" (1 Pt 3:19). This seems to indicate metaphorically the extension of Christ’s salvation to the just men and women who had died before him.

---

“Obscure as it is, the Petrine text confirms the others concerning the concept of the “descent into hell” . It is Christ—laid in the tomb as regards the body, but glorified in his soul admitted <to the fullness of the beatific vision of God*>*—who communicates his state of beatitude to all the just whose state of death he shares in regard to the body."

---

This is a contradition to what the Catechism teaches. It specifically teaches that Christ’s soul really and truly went to preach to hell. The descent into hell was not merely an “extension of salvation” by which Our Lord “communicate his state of beatitude”. The soul of our Lord really and truly descended into hell.

[Catechism of Trent]"We are not to imagine that His power and virtue only, and not also His soul, descended into hell; but we are firmly to believe that His soul itself, really and substantially, descended thither, according to this conclusive testimony of David: Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.

Again, John Paul II explicitly contradicts that.

John Paul II: “This is precisely what the words about the descent into hell meant: … the body in the state of a corpse, and on the other, the <heavenly glorification of his soul from the very moment of his death.>

 

[JimG]

Actually, I do not see any contradiction between Christ’s soul descending into hell (i.e.–the abode of the dead) and its immediate glorification.

As a divine Person, Christ always enjoyed the beatific vision by reason of his divine nature. At the conclusion of his earthly life, his human body and soul were separated in death. His human soul, now separated from his body, immediately enjoys the fullnes of the beatific vision (just as would we if we died in a state of grace). Indeed how could his soul be deprived of the beatific vision, since he in his Person and in his divine nature IS the beatific vision?

But his soul–as a human soul, before his resurrection–goes on to “preach to the souls of the dead” bringing them the gospel which he had already brought to earth. That task being completed, his soul is reunited with his body at the resurrection. Later he ascends–body and soul–into heaven.

As the Pope says in this talk:

It is Christ—laid in the tomb as regards the body, but glorified in his soul admitted —who communicates his state of beatitude to all the just whose state of death he shares in regard to the body.

 

[RSiscoe]

JimG:

Actually, I do not see any contradiction between Christ’s soul descending into hell (i.e.–the abode of the dead) and its immediate glorification.

As a divine Person, Christ always enjoyed the beatific vision by reason of his divine nature. At the conclusion of his earthly life, his human body and soul were separated in death. His human soul, now separated from his body, immediately enjoys the fullnes of the beatific vision (just as would we if we died in a state of grace). Indeed how could his soul be deprived of the beatific vision, since he in his Person and in his divine nature IS the beatific vision?

But his soul–as a human soul, before his resurrection–goes on to “preach to the souls of the dead” bringing them the gospel which he had already brought to earth. That task being completed, his soul is reunited with his body at the resurrection. Later he ascends–body and soul–into heaven.

As the Pope says in this talk:

It is Christ—laid in the tomb as regards the body, but glorified in his soul admitted —who communicates his state of beatitude to all the just whose state of death he shares in regard to the body.

Do you believe that the term “descended into hell” refers to Our Lord’s body being buried in the grave? Or does it refer to His soul descending into Limbo?

 

[JimG]

RSiscoe:

Do you believe that the term “descended into hell” refers to Our Lord’s body being buried in the grave? Or does it refer to His soul descending into Limbo?

Where is Limbo? As a Catholic I believe that the souls of the just who had died before Christ were in “limbo” or the abode of the dead. Christ in his humanity shared that fate with them. I also believe that “limbo” or the abode of the dead is not a “place,” since souls do not take up space. By the very fact that Christ’s body was in the grave, his soul was in the abode of the dead. But because he was a divine person, his soul was also “in” heaven since he enjoyed the beatific vision.

 

[jordan]

RSiscoe:

I am not saying Church teaching has changed, I am saying that, in the quote I provided from John Paul II, he does not believe Church teaching. He teaches something brand new which is explicitly contrary to what the Church teaches.

You may want to read the link I provided. It is not very long. Then, after reading what John Paul II believes, read what the Catechism of Trent teaches. They are the exact opposite.

John Paul II often speaks ambiguously. His words can usually be understood to mean one of several things. Although many of his teachings seem to be false, since he uses such ambubuous language, you can’t tell for sure. However, his denial of Jesus’ soul descending into hell is an explicit contradiction to Catholic teaching.

It is very clear.

RSiscoe:

I had read the link you provided prior to responding the first time. You seem to have a problem with the word “metaphorically,” which is probably a translation in the English version of the Observatore Romano for a “general audience” most likely conducted in another language. Thank God we are not bound to believe our personal interpretations of confusing translations of a general audience published in a periodical (even OR).

If you had posed a direct question to the Holy Father (may perpetual light shine upon him), and said, “are you then saying that during the period from when He “gave up His spirit” until He rose from the dead, Our Lord’s soul did not manifest itself in the “abode of the dead”, Sheol, Hades, etc.?,” I’m certain that he would categorically deny that that is what he said, meant, or believed.

I think you are making much ado about nothing, and since my CCC (2nd ed.) includes , on the cover, the words “promulgated by Pope John Paul II”, this is what he taught, this is what the Church teaches, this is what we should believe. No conflict with the Catechism of Trent.

jb

 

[RSiscoe]

jordan:

RSiscoe:

I had read the link you provided prior to responding the first time. You seem to have a problem with the word “metaphorically,” which is probably a translation in the English version of the Observatore Romano for a “general audience” most likely conducted in another language. Thank God we are not bound to believe our personal interpretations of confusing translations of a general audience published in a periodical (even OR).jb

JB,

Actually the “metaphor” statement was not primarily what I was pointing out. The problem I was pointing out is that the Pope does not believe that the term “descended into hell” means that Jesus’ soul descended into Limbo. He said the term means his body was buried in the tomb. That is exactly what the Catechism of Trent said it DID NOT mean.
C of Trent:

As the pastor, by explaining the meaning of the word hell in this place may throw considerable light on the exposition of this Article, it is to be observed that by the word hell is not here meant the sepulchre

, as some have not less impiously than ignorantly imagined…

 

[jordan]

RSiscoe:

JB,

Actually the “metaphor” statement was not primarily what I was pointing out. The problem I was pointing out is that the Pope does not believe that the term “descended into hell” means that Jesus’ soul descended into Limbo. He said the term means his body was buried in the tomb. That is exactly what the Catechism of Trent said it DID NOT mean.

Do you KNOW what the Pope believes? His body WAS buried in the tomb. Where was the Christ’s SOUL not?..He is God! The “abode of the dead” was separated from God until the Messiah had accomplished His mission. God was with God, and God was now made manifest to the dead for the first time in human history.

634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead."483 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption. (CCC)

jb

 

[RSiscoe]

jordan:

Do you KNOW what the Pope believes? His body WAS buried in the tomb. Where was the Christ’s SOUL not?..He is God! The “abode of the dead” was separated from God until the Messiah had accomplished His mission. God was with God, and God was now made manifest to the dead for the first time in human history.

jb

I’m not sure if I understood. Christ body was buried in the tomb: that is true. But the term “descended into hell” does not refer to Christ’s body being buried in the tomb like John Paul II taught. The term “descended into hell” means that Our Lord’s Soul (not body) descended into Limbo, where the souls of the just were detained.

That is what literally took place when Our Lord died. Christ’s literal souls really and truly descended into the lower regions of the earth in order to release the souls that had been detained there. When Christ’s body was in the tomb, His soul WAS NOT in heaven glorified. It was in the center of the earth - Limbo.

 

[Benadam]

That is not what the Pope is talking about. The word hell can mean “seperation from God”, but that is not what it means in the Creed. The term hell refers to the center of the earth, within which is located the hell of the damned, purgatory, and Limbo. When Our Lord descened into hell, his soul descended into the portion known as Limbo to release the souls of the just.

The Pope taught that Our Lord’s soul DID NOT descened into hell, but that the phrase “descended into hell” means that his body was buried in the tomb (exactly what the Catechism of Trent said was incorrect).

The Pope taught that life and existence is experienced. Heaven is a state of existence rather than a place. The body it’self is experienced and communicated the truth of the fall to Adam and Eve according to his theology of the body. It’s conceivable that the Body of Christ could communicate it’s incorruptibility and history of life, to the waiting souls. The body is a pattern of the life it lead as is the soul. The Popes meditation has to be viewed with those metaphysical realities he held.

After the Pope very clearly taught that Jesus soul did not

descend into hell, he explained that the scripture that says “In spirit (Christ) went and preached to the spirits in prison>” (1 Pt 3:19), as being a metaphor. He said it seems to indicate a metaphoriacal extension of Christ’ salvation to the just, since he had just denied that Our Lord’s soul descended into hell.
The Pope is not clearly denying these things he is attempting to define them more clearly. Saying that salvation is brought to the souls in hell by means of an extension is not a denial it is just true, it is an extension of salvation. Salvation was accomplished in time in the state of life. Theological language speaks of the state of souls as falling or rising. Could Christ’s soul descend or fall?

---

---

This is a contradition to what the Catechism teaches. It specifically teaches that Christ’s soul really and truly went to preach to hell. The descent into hell was not merely an “extension of salvation” by which Our Lord “communicate his state of beatitude”. The soul of our Lord really and truly descended into hell.

Again you add the word ‘merely’ the Pope didn’t .

**

John Paul II: “This is precisely what the words about the descent into hell meant: … the body in the state of a corpse

**, and on the other, the <heavenly glorification of his soul from the very moment of his death.>

Sounds to me like clarifying something not denying something