"Strange" teachings of John Paul II

[clmowry]

This seems to me a whole lot like my saying: “Those cloulds are white.” and then someone claiming I said “The sky isn’t blue.”

Where exactly does the Pope say “Christ did not desend into hell”?

Chuck

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?

 

[RSiscoe]

clmowry:

This seems to me a whole lot like my saying: “Those cloulds are white.” and then someone claiming I said “The sky isn’t blue.”

Where exactly does the Pope say “Christ did not desend into hell”?

Chuck

He didn’t say Christ didn’t descend into hell; what he said is that the phrase “descended into hell” means that Jesus’ body was buried in the grave. The Church has always taught that the phrase “descended into hell” doesn’t refer to the body, but to the soul descending into Limbo.

In fact, the Catechism of Trent explicitly taught that the phrase “descended into hell” DID NOT refer to Our Lord’s body being buried in the tomb. It called those who believe that “ignorant” and “impious”; yet that is exactly what John Paul II taught.
Catechism of Trent:

Originally Posted by 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….”

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Rsiscoe,

The Pope’s statement, even from your quote is sufficient to end the debate.
JPII did not teach that the word hell meant – solely, only, completely, or any other intensifier – the sepulcher.
The sepulcher relates only to the body.
In JPII’s ‘precise’ definition, both the body and the spirit are considered (TWO aspects).

Can you prove that Trent’s dogma means that word sheol/hell had absolutely nothing to do with the corpse in the grave?
Or did the declaration of Trent have the lesser precision of merely showing that hell is not identical to grave.

JPII’s ‘precision’ is not a repetition about Jesus Dying.
It is a note on the compound state of that death – body in the tomb, and spirit unable to animate the body. e.g. the spirit was preaching to those in prison, NOT the body.

Someone reading Trent from your quotes might come to the conclusion that Jesus’ body decended to hell and he preached there in the flesh.

Trent condemns as impious asserting that the word Hell is equivalent to the sepulchure for at least one obvious reason – no one was imprisioned in the tomb for Jesus to preach to.
The suggestion would be that Jesus didn’t do anything for the three days.

JPII didn’t claim the sepulcher is identical to hell, he has a compund definition.
If I try to understand PJPII’s definiton of Hell, I understand two things: The seperation of body and spirit, and the availability of the spirit for another action (glory).
If I was ignorant, I might wonder what that glory is, but that doesn’t mean I would be confused by the Pope’s definition. I am more likely to be confused by Trent’s, since Sheol to the common person always includes a diposable corpse.

Jesus wasn’t sent across the river Styx on a raft!

 

[RSiscoe]

I have to admit that I was a little confused by your post. I appreciate the fact that you tried to intepret what John Paul II wrote so that it was not contrary to the faith.

Now, let me try to go through each point of your post…
Huiou Theou:

Rsiscoe,

The Pope’s statement, even from your quote is sufficient to end the debate.

I hope you read the entire writing of John Paul II. I had a hard time deciding exaclty which parts to quote from, since one really needs to read the entire writing to see what he is saying.

JPII did not teach that the word hell meant – solely, only, completely, or any other intensifier – the sepulcher.
The sepulcher relates only to the body.(TWO aspects).

Yes, that is right. He said that hell referred to the earth, which is true. But then he said that since Our Lord’s body was buried in the earth (hell), that means he “descended into hell” (since his body was buried in the earth). He explicitly said that the term “descended into hell” referred to Our Lord’s body being buried in the eath, which is contrary to what the Church teaches.

Can you prove that Trent’s dogma means that word sheol/hell had absolutely nothing to do with the corpse in the grave?

How about this: “it is to be observed that by the word hell [sheol] is not here meant the sepulchre, as some have not less impiously than ignorantly imagined.” (Catechism of Trent)

Or did the declaration of Trent have the lesser precision of merely showing that hell is not identical to grave.

What John Paul II said is the exact contrary of what Trent said. Now lets at least be honest.

JPII’s ‘precision’ is not a repetition about Jesus Dying.
It is a note on the compound state of that death – body in the tomb, and spirit unable to animate the body. e.g. the spirit was preaching to those in prison, NOT the body.

What he said was that the term “descended into hell” referred to Our Lord’s body being buried in the grave. That is not true. The term “descended into hell” referrs to Our Lord’s souls descending into Limbo to release the souls of the just who were contained there.

Since the Bible clearly discusses this “descent into hell” by saying the Jesus preached to the souls in prison, John Paul II tried to explain this away by saying it was merely a “metaphor” that showed our Lord’s beatitude extending to the souls in Limbo. But this too was exlicitly contradicted by Trent, when it said: “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,”(Catechism of Trent).

Someone reading Trent from your quotes might come to the conclusion that Jesus’ body decended to hell and he preached there in the flesh.

Why would they think that when it clearly says that his “soul” descended into hell, while His body lay in the tomb.
C 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

Trent condemns as impious asserting that the word Hell is equivalent to the sepulchure for at least one obvious reason – no one was imprisioned in the tomb for Jesus to preach to.
The suggestion would be that Jesus didn’t do anything for the three days. JPII didn’t claim the sepulcher is identical to hell, he has a compund definition.

I agree. At the beginning of the writing he explained that hell referred to the earth - not necessarily the sepulchre only. However, after saying that, he said that since the sepulchre is in the earth, the term “descended into hell” means that Our Lord’s body was buried in the “earth” (the sepulchre). He said that that is what the term referred to.

If I try to understand PJPII’s definiton of Hell, I understand two things: The seperation of body and spirit, and the availability of the spirit for another action (glory).

The seperation of the body and spirit is not hell. The seperation of the spirit from grace can be called hell. I have no idea how “the availability of the spirit for another action” can be called “hell”. I would almost understand that statement to mean that the spirit is in a state of “hell” when it is seperated from the body. If that is what you mean then you are saying that a soul which is in heaven is in a state of “hell”.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I think you are misinterpreting 2 points. First, you are assuming that the Pope is equating earth to Hell(punishment), and that Jesus went there. According to Catholic theology, all were in Sheol - a Spiritual limo of sorts - neither punishment nor reward. When the Holy Father writes that Jesus’ body went to the earth, he means just that, even though we know Christ wasn’t buried but laid in the tomb. Christ’s soul descended into the abode - called Hell in English - but Sheol in Hebrew (a limbo of sorts) and pulled up the Saints into righteousness.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Secondly, this is the Pope’s exact writing:

1. This is precisely what the words about the descent into hell meant: By on the cross, Jesus had delivered his spirit into the Father’s hands: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” (Lk 23:46). 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 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.

1. 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 —who communicates his state of beatitude to all the just whose state of death he shares in regard to the body.

The Letter to the Hebrews describes his freeing of the souls of the just: “Since… the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage” (Heb 2:14-15). As dead—and at the same time as alive “forevermore”—Christ has a the keys of death and Hades" (cf. Rev 1:17-18). 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.

Now reading in context we can see that the Holy Father is juxtaposing the image of Christ’s death and those of the early Fathers and the Beatific Vision. At this stage, there was/is no Hell (as punishment), only Hell as Sheol (limbo).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

From Rsiscoe

Now lets at least be honest.

Yes, I agree, lets. Honesty first.
PJPII did not say the exact opposite of what Trent said.

From Rsiscoe

I had a hard time deciding exaclty which parts to quote from, since one really needs to read the entire writing to see what he is saying.

Michael Thomas’ approach is of great value. Quote enough to get the complete idea.

From Rsiscoe

Yes, that is right. He said that hell referred to the earth, which is true. But then he said that since Our Lord’s body was buried in the earth (hell), that means he “descended into hell”

Nope. The Womb or Heart, not merely the Earth, not merely the sepulcher. Heart is not necessarily a physical place.
When I compare your version against Michael Thomas’ quote, it is hard to follow your comments. Where does the pope say “descent into hell” means the body was buried? I can’t find that. All I find is:

“descent into hell” .

From PJPII

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 The First Letter of Peter speaks of this duality

Again, The pope (Peter) speaks of two things not one.
And note, PJPII implies the laying of the body in the tomb, but is NOT explicit about it. He is interested in the total state of Jesus body AND spirit.

From Rsiscoe / Trent:

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

All I see is that Trent condemns speaking of the word ‘hell’ in the solitary sense of the sepulcher. Sheol does not mean the mere lowering of a body into a tomb. It means MORE.

From Rsiscoe on the clarity of Trent:

Why would they think that when it clearly says that his “soul” descended into hell, while His body lay in the tomb.

Well here is the relevant part of the quote:

… and also that the one Person of Christ was at the same time in hell and in the sepulchre.

An Ignoramus reading Trent might think Jesus bilocated!
His soul seperate from his body was in sheol/hell.
Show and tell time! – this is my body –
Hmmm… these translations are hard to follow.

See, here it is again,

… but we are firmly to believe that His soul itself, really and substantially, descended thither,"…

The substance! ( in the mind of the quasi-ignorant )
Substance is ‘stuff’. Maybe it is the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity.
(ignorance is bliss).

And the reason for condemning the popes statement?
Rsiscoe:

But, let’s say that a person who did not understand what the phrase “descended into hell” means. And …] they read what the Pope wrote. They would end by believing something that the Church has never taught.

Not necessarily, but if they did it isn’t limited to reading the Pope.
Let a Feenyite read Trent.

The seperation of the body and spirit is not hell … I would almost understand that statement to mean that the spirit is in a state of “hell” when it is seperated from the body.

The seperation of body and spirit is good definition of hell/sheol.
The power of Sin and death is the seperation of the body from the spirit. It is the rebellion of the one agaist the other.
While the body and spirit are seperated, the spirit suffers loss.
In truth there is no seperation of body and spirit in the heaven of heavens.

This is also a way of saying that Jesus redeemed those in sheol by solidarity with their state.

If that is what you mean then you are saying that a soul which is in heaven is in a state of “hell”.

Heaven is known by the presence of Divinity:Jesus went to hell.
Since you are using Trent as the standard and ignoring PJPII,
Tell me, In what way did Jesus ‘descend’ to a ‘state’?

This is mysterious!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Rsiscoe,

Just to let you know, my @$%@% ISP service is intermitten. I keep trying to connect but can’t connect long enough to be of any value. The tech should be out in the next couple days to troubleshoot.

Just so you know I am not purposefully ignoring the thread.

 

[RSiscoe]

Huiou Theou:

From Rsiscoe

Yes, I agree, lets. Honesty first.
PJPII did not say the exact opposite of what Trent said.

From Rsiscoe

Michael Thomas’ approach is of great value. Quote enough to get the complete idea.

From Rsiscoe

Nope. The Womb or Heart, not merely the Earth, not merely the sepulcher. Heart is not necessarily a physical place.
When I compare your version against Michael Thomas’ quote, it is hard to follow your comments. Where does the pope say “descent into hell” means the body was buried? I can’t find that. All I find is:

From PJPII

Again, The pope (Peter) speaks of two things not one.
And note, PJPII implies the laying of the body in the tomb, but is NOT explicit about it. He is interested in the total state of Jesus body AND spirit.

From Rsiscoe / Trent:

All I see is that Trent condemns speaking of the word ‘hell’ in the solitary sense of the sepulcher. Sheol does not mean the mere lowering of a body into a tomb. It means MORE.

From Rsiscoe on the clarity of Trent:

Well here is the relevant part of the quote:

An Ignoramus reading Trent might think Jesus bilocated!
His soul seperate from his body was in sheol/hell.
Show and tell time! – this is my body –
Hmmm… these translations are hard to follow.

See, here it is again,

The substance! ( in the mind of the quasi-ignorant )
Substance is ‘stuff’. Maybe it is the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity.
(ignorance is bliss).

And the reason for condemning the popes statement?
Rsiscoe:

Not necessarily, but if they did it isn’t limited to reading the Pope.
Let a Feenyite read Trent.

The seperation of body and spirit is good definition of hell/sheol.
The power of Sin and death is the seperation of the body from the spirit. It is the rebellion of the one agaist the other.
While the body and spirit are seperated, the spirit suffers loss.
In truth there is no seperation of body and spirit in the heaven of heavens.

This is also a way of saying that Jesus redeemed those in sheol by solidarity with their state.

Heaven is known by the presence of Divinity:Jesus went to hell.
Since you are using Trent as the standard and ignoring PJPII,
Tell me, In what way did Jesus ‘descend’ to a ‘state’?

This is mysterious!

This is becoming too confusing. The writing needs to be read in its entirety. When various paragraphs are seperated and discussed out of relation to the whole, there becomes too much that needs to be discussed before a point can be made.

One point that has been addressed, but I have not yet responded to pertains to the following quote:

"laid in the tomb as regards the body, ut glorified in his soul admitted <to the fullness of the beatific vision of God*>"*.

and this…

"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.>

When read in context, this clearly indicates that the body was in the tomb while the soul was in heaven. He does not use the word “heaven”, but rather the term “the fulness of the beatific vision of God”. If that does not describe heaven I don’t know what does.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

Now, the person of Jesus always possessed the beatific vision - even when he was walking on the earth. This is discussed in many places, including the Summa of St. Thomas. Since Jesus always possessed the beatific vision, he would have obviously also possessed it when he was in Limbo. But the Pope makes a distinction between the beatific vision that Our Lord possessed, and that which he was “admitted to”, when he came into “the FULLNESS of the beatific vision”. To anyone who is honest this term is implying heaven. But if one is still not clear that this is what he means, the later on he says the following:

"With the entrance of Christ’s soul into the beatific vision in the bosom of the Trinity, the “” of the just who had descended to the realm of the dead before Christ, finds its point of reference and explanation. … This is the “truth” that can be drawn from the biblical texts quoted and which is expressed in the article of the Creed which speaks of the “descent into hell”."

In the above quote he is more specific, for he says that the soul of Christ entered into “the beatific vision in the bosom of the Trinity”. Now this is more clear: It shows that when he says the body was in the tomb, but the soul was “glorified” he means that the soul of Christ was “in the bosom of the Trinity”. Now, the soul of Christ WAS NOT in the bosom of the Trinity when he was in Limbo. What desceneded into Limbo was the soul of Christ. This confirms that the Pope is saying that while our Lord’s body was in the grave, his soul was in heaven - “in the bosom of the Trinity”.

Now, if John Paul II really was saying that while Christ’s body lay in the tomb, his soul was in heaven (and not Limbo), he would have a problem. Why? Because St. Peter clearly says that Jesus “went to preach to the souls in prison”. This clearly shows that while Our Lord’s body lay in the tomb, his soul was in Limbo “preaching”.

Obviously this verse concerned John Paul II. So, what did He do? He said it was merely a metaphor, and that it was “obscure”. But it was neither a metaphor, nor was it obscure. It is very clear: Christ’s soul descended into Limbo and preached to the souls detained there. It is only obscure if one does not believe this.

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.
6. 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 ."

Anyone who honestly read what the Pope wrote (the whole thing) will see what he is saying. “itsjustdave” who this post was initially addressed to, certainly saw what the Pope meant. Notice, in his response to me, instead of claiming that I interpreted the Pope incorrectly, he tried to defend what the Pope said; that is, he tried to defend the Pope saying that the term “descended into hell” referred to our Lord’s body being buried in the tomb. See post # 39.

Now, he may try ot change that now that he has researched the topic (which I’m sure he has) and has seen that such a statement is indefensible, but at first he clearly understood what the Pope was saying and did not deny it.

I think anyone who honestly read the writing will see. Here is a test that each of us can do. Let’s give the writing to a friend who we believe does not know what the phrase “descended into hell” means, and ask them to read it and tell us what they think it means. It will be very interesting to see what they think the Pope was teaching.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

To those who know what the true teaching of the Church is, they may be able to attempt to twist what is being said so that it somehow corresponds with the truth; but to a person who does not already know what the Church teaches, they will surely be misled into believeing that the term “descended into hell” refers to our Lord’s body being laid in the tomb, while his soul was in heaven.

And that is the unfortunate case with many modern writings, such as the new Catechism. If one already knows what the Church teaches, they can usually find a way to interpret certain misleading passages of the Catechism so that it corresponds with the truth. But for the average person who does not already know what the Church teaches, the new Catechism is often misleading on the “obvious” level - the surface meaning.

The uncatechized will read what it says and believe the most obvious meaning, which sometimes false, even though someone who knows the faith can find a way to interpret the same passage so that it is not contrary to the teaching of the Church. But those who interpret it according to the “obvious” meaning, will often reject what the Church has always taught. When someone tries to explain the truth to them (and even quotes a past Pope and Councils), they will quote the new Catechism as their authority, and reject what the Church has always tauhgt. And it is true that very often, the surface meaning does seem to agree with their erroneous understanding, even though the passages can almost always be interpreted the so that it corresponds with what has always been taught. That is why many people recommend the older Catechism, which are very clear.

So, as a test, let’s each do this: let’s print out the writing of John Paul II and give it to a few people to read. Then we will ask them what the Pope is saying. But we need to be sure they do not already know what the Church teaches. Let them approach this with no previous understading of the doctrine, and see what they think he means. Then let’s report back with the results.

 

[mlchance]

RSiscoe:

To those who know what the true teaching of the Church is…

Which, presumably, Pope John Paul II did know, and in all likelihood quite a bit better than either you or I.

RSiscoe: More Catholic than the Pope.

http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

RSiscoe:

I did not find this argument on a website.

If you would read what the Pope wrote for yourself - very clearly and slowly - you will see exactly what he means. He says that hell is the abode of the dead, as you said. He also says that it is in the earth. But he then goes on to say that the phrase “descended into hell” means that Our Lord’s body was buried in the earth. In otherwords, hell is located in the earth, and Our Lord’s body was buring in the earth: that is what “descended into hell” means - that His body was buried in the earth.

He says nothing about the location of Hell, and there is no reason to suppose it has to be in the middle of the earth, or that it is. Fr. Schouppe mentions the location of Hell, referring back to St. Thomas. but neither of them treat its being in the centre of the earth as more than a deduction based on theological reasoning.​

And as the earth may very well be destroyed, that would be awkward - it would involve the destruction of Hell, which is eternal. So, Hell is not in the middle of the earth. Trying to render the unseen world comprehensible by talking of them as though they could be reached if one travelled far enough or long enough, or by the right sort of vehicle, or by going in the right direction, is dangerously apt to make them merely material, and then laughable. ##

That is false. In fact, it is exactly NOT what the term “descended into hell” means". It means his souls dscended into Limbo, not that His body was buried.

Read it again, and you will see for yourself.

In your post you quoted these words, with your emphases:​

"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 body af****ter 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: "

Nowhere in the above passage does the Pope say that “the phrase “descended into hell” means that Our Lord’s body was buried in the earth.” What he does do is make a general statement - “the earth receives the human body after death” - and then say, perfectly correctly, that the earth received the body of Christ. He is following the Gospels in saying this. The Body of Christ was not a phantom; He truly suffered, and it was truly buried after His death. It does not follow that Christ’s Soul was where His Body was - but that does not hinder his Body being united hypostatically to to His Soul even in death.

The crucial thing is, that to say, “He descended to the dead” is not in contradiction to saying, that His body was buried; the Pope is not affirming what the Tridentine Catechism explicitly denies - he is rather pointedly denying the same thing the Tridentine Catechism does. What he does do, is affirm both that the body of Christ was buried, and, that He descended into the place of the dead. He even quotes the Creed Theological texts are usually very carefully worded - they oughtn’t to be made to assert what they don’t.

FWIW, the Catechism was not inerrant; Pius XII corrected its teaching on the “porrection of the instruments” - in plain English, on its teaching about what constitutes the matter of ordination to the priesthood. The “instruments” were the chalice and paten, until 1947 - after & since, the matter has been the laying on of hands, as it was until the 9th century or so. So it can be corrected. Pius XII is not generally reckoned to be a raging liberal monster. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

John_Henry:

I don’t have much time to cast my not-so-apostolic weight around right now. I will say, though, that it is a plain truth that JPII believed that Christ’s soul descended into hell. As others have said, he promulgated the CCC, which in no way contradicts the Roman Catechism.

The primary issue here, as far as I can see, seems to be the juxtaposition of “descended into hell” with “heavenly glorification of his soul from the very moment of his death”. To say that JPII personally believed that Jesus didn’t descend to hell in his soul entails an assumption that the two juxtaposed statements contradict one another. But I do not see that this is necessarily the case.

Why could not Jesus’ soul descend to hell (Sheol/Hades) in a glorified state? To be in a state of “heavenly glorification” does not necessarily mean that one who posseses such a state is sitting in a “place” called Heaven and is therefore excluded from the “place” called Sheol. “Heavenly glorification” here refers more to Jesus’ nature than his location. From his death, he is glorified. This means nothing as regards what actions he subsequently carried out (i.e., descent into hell).

From His death - or from His Resurrection ? Since the Blessed will be raised in glory, and since the Resurrection of Christ is the Pattern & the Cause of theirs, it seems more likely that His Body & Soul were raised in Glory, and that, by contrast, His Soul somehow shared in the humiliation of death that we undergo. Our souls are not glorified before they are raised: their resurrection in union with their bodies as whole persons united with Christ is that glorification.​

But maybe speculation on the time of the glorification of Christ is just what St. Paul warns against in 1 Corinthians 15. In which case, feel free to ignore this post ##

 

[RSiscoe]

## He says nothing about the location of Hell, and there is no reason to suppose it has to be in the middle of the earth, or that it is. Fr. Schouppe mentions the location of Hell, referring back to St. Thomas. but neither of them treat its being in the centre of the earth as more than a deduction based on theological reasoning.

And as the earth may very well be destroyed, that would be awkward - it would involve the destruction of Hell, which is eternal. So, Hell is not in the middle of the earth. Trying to render the unseen world comprehensible by talking of them as though they could be reached if one travelled far enough or long enough, or by the right sort of vehicle, or by going in the right direction, is dangerously apt to make them merely material, and then laughable. ##

In your post you quoted these words, with your emphases:​

"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 body after 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: "

Nowhere in the above passage does the Pope say that “the phrase “descended into hell” means that Our Lord’s body was buried in the earth.” What he does do is make a general statement - “the earth receives the human body after death” - and then say, perfectly correctly, that the earth received the body of Christ. He is following the Gospels in saying this. The Body of Christ was not a phantom; He truly suffered, and it was truly buried after His death. It does not follow that Christ’s Soul was where His Body was - but that does not hinder his Body being united hypostatically to to His Soul even in death.

The crucial thing is, that to say, “He descended to the dead” is not in contradiction to saying, that His body was buried; the Pope is not affirming what the Tridentine Catechism explicitly denies - he is rather pointedly denying the same thing the Tridentine Catechism does. What he does do, is affirm both that the body of Christ was buried, and, that He descended into the place of the dead. He even quotes the Creed Theological texts are usually very carefully worded - they oughtn’t to be made to assert what they don’t.

FWIW, the Catechism was not inerrant; Pius XII corrected its teaching on the “porrection of the instruments” - in plain English, on its teaching about what constitutes the matter of ordination to the priesthood. The “instruments” were the chalice and paten, until 1947 - after & since, the matter has been the laying on of hands, as it was until the 9th century or so. So it can be corrected. Pius XII is not generally reckoned to be a raging liberal monster. ##

What do you think the following statement means?

"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.>

And do you think the following verse is a mataphor?

“In spirit (Christ) went and preached to the spirits in prison” (1 Pt 3:19).

Was that a metaphor, or did it literally happen. Did Christ literally dscended in spirit to “preach”, or not? I say it literally happened. John Paul II said it was a metaphor. What do you think? Since a metaphor means something that is “not literal”, it cannot be both. Either it literally happened, or it is a metaphor. What do you personally think?

Regarding where hell is located. I am going to try and “locate” an interesting story of what several Russian scientists found when they drilled 9 miles strait down into the earth. At that point they encountered a hollow area (their drill started spinning wildly). They then put a microphone down the hole and became so fearful at what they heard, they immediately abandoned the project. These scientists were all athiests.

I’ll see if I can find the story.

 

[Bob_Bobber0]

He could not have “decended into hell”

Hell is a place without God, for Him to go there it would not be Hell, and Hell is there, therefore, he did not “decend to hell.”

 

[RSiscoe]

Bob_Bobber0:

He could not have “decended into hell”

Hell is a place without God, for Him to go there it would not be Hell, and Hell is there, therefore, he did not “decend to hell.”

Bob,

Thank you for your comment. Did you read the link I provided to the writing of John Paul II? To me, the Pope is agreeing with you - that Jesus did not literally descend into hell.

Did you read what the Pope said? If so, what do you think he was saying? If not, would you mind reading it (its not very long) and giving me your opinion as to what he meant?

Here is the link: 64.233.167.104/search?q=cach…+ Paul+I&hl=en

Thank you.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Rsiscoe,

I’m afraid you’re guilty of disobeying St. Paul’s injunction not to war over words. The INTENT of the belief expressed in the words “He descended into Hell” is what you are completely neglecting. It is NOT whether Jesus actually descended into some PLACE. Not at all. The teaching of that passage points to the fact that the salvation provided by Jesus extended to those righteous souls whose bodies died before the advent of the Messiah and previously did not have a chance to hear the Gospel. This is why JP2 of blessed memory specifically attaches the phrase to I Peter 3:19.

Now, unless you can somehow prove that JP2 of blessed memory contradicts the TEACHING expressed by the phrase “He descended into Hell” – and that teaching is NOT that he descended to some PLACE – then your complaint is really for naught.

God bless

 

[RSiscoe]

GAssisi:

Dear Rsiscoe,

I’m afraid you’re guilty of disobeying St. Paul’s injunction not to war over words. The INTENT of the belief expressed in the words “He descended into Hell” is what you are completely neglecting. It is NOT whether Jesus actually descended into some PLACE. Not at all. The teaching of that passage points to the fact that the salvation provided by Jesus extended to those righteous souls whose bodies died before the advent of the Messiah and previously did not have a chance to hear the Gospel. This is why JP2 of blessed memory specifically attaches the phrase to I Peter 3:19.

Now, unless you can somehow prove that JP2 of blessed memory contradicts the TEACHING expressed by the phrase “He descended into Hell” – and that teaching is NOT that he descended to some PLACE – then your complaint is really for naught.

God bless

GAssisi,

Thank you for those comments. I found them very interesting.

Did you read the Pope’s writing? I think you may have. If you didn’t, would you mind reading it and tell me what he is saying.

I have always thought that the term “descended into hell” meant that Jesus’ soul literally went into hell. Based on your understanding of what the Pope said, have I been mistaken? Does the term “descended into hell” actually only refer to a certain power of God which “reached down” to the depths of the earth to those who were in Limbo? Is that what is actually meants
And if Jesus didn’t literally “descend into hell” what happened to His soul when he died. What do you think, and what did John Paul II say?

Please give me your understanding of what the Pope meant.

Thank you very much for your time.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear RSiscoe,

From my reading of the text you provided, JP2 of blessed memory is stating that LITERALLY the phrase “He descended into Hell” refers to His body dying. However, JP2 is just as consistent and adamant in stating that the phrase “He descended into Hell” has another METAPHORICAL, and EQUALLY RELEVANT meaning, namely, that He in His divinity went to provide the souls in Hades (the original Greek word; or Hell or Limbo, as you will) the salvation that they were awaiting. In truth, Hell or Hades or Limbo is not “down there.” It is a spiritual realm that has no tactile location. Thus, “descending” into Hades or Hell or Limbo is actually a metaphorical representation of the action of Christ as He obtains the souls awaiting Him for salvation.

God bless