"Strange" teachings of John Paul II

[RSiscoe]

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

Let me make sure I understand: The term “descended into hell” has two meanings:

1.) it mean that our Lord died?

2.) It also has a metaphorical meaning, which is that Our Lord’s Divinity extended to the soul is Haydes, or Limbo, but not “down there”.

So basically, Our Lord did not actually “literally” descend into hell. The term, rather implies that he literally died (seperation of body and soul), and also that it extended to the souls in Haydes or limbo.

Do I understand this correctly?

 

[mjdonnelly]

From what I understand, he didn’t descend into hell as we know it, but something more akin to purgatory, because of the souls that were there being kept out of heaven.

The writers then just didn’t know how to express it.

 

[RSiscoe]

Well, I don’t think GAssisi is going to respond. I think, after his last post, he read through the thread and saw that what he was saying was completely incorrect.

But notice how he interpreted what the Pope said. He interpreted it just like I said a person would, who did not already know what the phrase meant. I wish he would have responded one more time so I could have quoted the Catechism of Trent, and asked him to explain which was correct (since the Catechism of Trent explicitly contradict what he was saying). In fact, even the New Catechism (whcih I was going to quote) affirms wht the Church has always taught (although it is a little ambiguous at times). But I think GAssisi read through the thread and decided to log off. I can’t blame him for that.

But this just proves my point. We don’t have to ask a friend to read the writing, like I suggested yesterday, someone just did, and he interpreted what the Pope said just like I said someone would.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear RSiscoe,

Well, it’s a little more complicated than that. The statement “He descended into Hell” is not just a literal statement that He died (indeed, the Creed already professes that earlier). The deeper LITERAL sense of the passage, according to JP2 of blessed memory is that His Soul was SEPARATED from His Body. This is the unique insight into this passage that the previous two verses (“died, and was buried”) do not fully comprehend. WHILE His body literally descended into the earth, His Soul in the power of His divinity broke the bonds of death and granted salvation to all those who awaited salvation previous to His coming. This SIMULTANEOUS approach to those souls is metaphorically described as “descending into Hell” though Jesus’ Soul did not really “descend” since Hell or Hades or Limbo is not really “down there” in the sense that he had to descend (as in “go down”) to it.

Does that explain it better?

God bless

 

[RSiscoe]

mjdonnelly:

From what I understand, he didn’t descend into hell as we know it, but something more akin to purgatory, because of the souls that were there being kept out of heaven.

The writers then just didn’t know how to express it.

The Catechims explains it for us.
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. In this sense the word is frequently used in Scripture. Thus the Apostle says: At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and in hell; and in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter says that Christ the Lord is again risen, having loosed the sorrows of hell.

Different Abodes Called Hell"

These abodes are not all of the same nature, for among them is that most loathsome and dark prison in which the souls of the damned are tormented with the unclean spirits in eternal and inextinguishable fire. This place is called gehenna, the bottomless pit, and is hell strictly socalled.

Among them is also the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth. The truth of this doctrine, founded, as holy Councils declare,’ on Scripture, and confirmed by Apostolic tradition, demands exposition from the pastor, all the more diligent and frequent, because we live in times when men endure not sound doctrine.

Lastly, the third kind of abode is that into which the souls of the just before the coming of Christ the Lord, were received, and where, without experiencing any sort of pain, but supported by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoyed peaceful repose. **To liberate these holy souls, who, in the bosom of Abraham were expecting the Saviour, Christ the Lord descended into hell. **

"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…

Continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

Catechism of Trent:

Why He Descended into Hell

To Liberate The Just

Having explained these things, the pastor should next proceed to teach that Christ the Lord descended into hell, in order that having despoiled the demons, He might liberate from prison those holy Fathers and the other just souls, and might bring them into heaven with Himself. This He accomplished in an admirable and most glorious manner; for His august presence at once shed a celestial lustre upon the captives and filled them with inconceivable joy and delight. He also imparted to them that supreme happiness which consists in the vision of God, thus verifying His promise to the thief on the cross: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

This deliverance of the just was long before predicted by Osee in these words: O death, I will be thy death; O hell, I will be thy bite; ’ and also by the Prophet Zachary: Thou also by the blood of thy testament hast sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water; and lastly, the same is expressed by the Apostle in these words: Despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them in himself.

But the better to understand the efficacy of this mystery we should frequently call to mind that not only the just who were born after the coming of our Lord, but also those who preceded Him from the days of Adam, or who shall be born until the end of time, obtain their salvation through the benefit of His Passion. Wherefore before His death and Resurrection heaven was closed against every child of Adam. The souls of the just, on their departure from this life, were either borne to the bosom of Abraham; or, as is still the case with those who have something to be washed away or satisfied for, were purified in the fire of purgatory.

To Proclaim His Power

Another reason why Christ the Lord descended into hell is that there, as well as in heaven and on earth, He might proclaim His power and authority, and that every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.

And here, who is not filled with admiration and astonishment when he contemplates the infinite love of God for man! Not satisfied with having undergone for our sake a most cruel death, He penetrates the inmost recesses of the earth to transport into bliss the souls whom He so dearly loved and whose liberation from thence He had achieved.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

CCC:
Catechism of the Catholic Church

ARTICLE 5
**“HE DESCENDED **INTO HELL. ON THE THIRD DAY HE ROSE AGAIN”

631 Jesus "**descended **into the lower parts of the earth. He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens."476 The Apostles’ Creed confesses in the same article Christ’s descent **into **hell and his Resurrection from the dead on the third day, because in his Passover it was precisely out of the depths of death that he made life spring forth:

Christ, that Morning Star, who came back from the dead, and shed his peaceful light on all mankind, your Son who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.477

Paragraph 1. Christ Descended into Hell

632 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.478 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.479

633 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.480 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”:481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he **descended **into hell."482 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.483

634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead."484 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.

635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live."485 Jesus, “the Author of life”, by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage."486 Henceforth the risen Christ holds “the keys of Death and Hades”, so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth."487

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

CCC:

Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. The earth trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began. . . He has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him - He who is both their God and the son of Eve. . . "I am your God, who for your sake have become your son. . . I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell

. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead."488

IN BRIEF

636 By the expression “He **descended **into hell”, the Apostles’ Creed confesses that Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil “who has the power of death” (*Heb *2:14).

637 In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.

 

[RSiscoe]

GAssisi:

Dear RSiscoe,

Well, it’s a little more complicated than that. The statement “He descended into Hell” is not just a literal statement that He died (indeed, the Creed already professes that earlier). The deeper LITERAL sense of the passage, according to JP2 of blessed memory is that His Soul was SEPARATED from His Body. This is the unique insight into this passage that the previous two verses (“died, and was buried”) do not fully comprehend. WHILE His body literally descended into the earth, His Soul in the power of His divinity broke the bonds of death and granted salvation to all those who awaited salvation previous to His coming. This SIMULTANEOUS approach to those souls is metaphorically described as “descending into Hell” though Jesus’ Soul did not really “descend” since Hell or Hades or Limbo is not really “down there” in the sense that he had to descend (as in “go down”) to it.

Does that explain it better?

God bless

Read my posts, #64, 65, 66, and 67. They show what the Church teaches: that Our Lord’s soul really and truly “literally descend into hell”. It was not a metaphoric, but a literal descent.

The phrase actually means what it says. Let me know what you think of the quotes found in those posts.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear RSiscoe,

The statements from the CCC do not contradict JP2’s statements, and JP2’s statements do not contradict the CCC. Note that the CCC states that the statement from the Creed states that Jesus spent time in the realm of death. All JP2 is saying is that this interpretation is the METAPHORICAL sense of the passage “descended into Hell,” while the LITERAL sense is that it denotes the separation of Christ’s Body (which went into the “depths of the earth”) and His Soul (which went to save the souls in Hades/Hell/Limbo).

Perhaps you are confused with the term “metaphorical.” This term does not apply to the fact that Jesus went to spend time in the realm of death – that reality is NOT a metaphor. The term applies to the statement “descended into Hell.” Do you understand?

God bless

 

[RSiscoe]

GAssisi:

Dear RSiscoe,

The statements from the CCC do not contradict JP2’s statements, and JP2’s statements do not contradict the CCC. Note that the CCC states that the statement from the Creed states that Jesus spent time in the realm of death. All JP2 is saying is that this interpretation is the METAPHORICAL sense of the passage “descended into Hell,” while the LITERAL sense is that it denotes the separation of Christ’s Body (which went into the “depths of the earth”) and His Soul (which went to save the souls in Hades/Hell/Limbo).

Perhaps you are confused with the term “metaphorical.” This term does not apply to the fact that Jesus went to spend time in the realm of death – that reality is NOT a metaphor. The term applies to the statement “descended into Hell.” Do you understand?

God bless

Let’s compare what you wrote to what the Catechism says:

GAssisi:

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.

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

GAssisi:

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.

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***,

“His soul itself, really and substantially, descended thither”.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

GAssisi:

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.

But clearly you now see that the phrase “descended into hell” does indeed refer to a place.

Catechism of Trent: “Another reason why Christ the Lord descended into hell is that **there **, as well as in heaven and on earth, He might proclaim His power and authority, and that every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.”

Notice that the Catechism mentions three places, heaven, earth, and “under the earth”

CCC #631 Jesus “descended into the lower parts of the earth. He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens."476

Catechism of Trent**: “Hell, then, here signifies those secret abodes in which are detained the souls that have not obtained the happiness of heaven… These abodes are not all of the same nature, for among them is that most loathsome and dark prison in which the souls of the damned are tormented… This place is called gehenna, the bottomless pit, and is hell strictly socalled. “Among them is also the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment… Lastly, the third kind of abode is that into which the souls of the just before the coming of Christ the Lord, were received, and where, without experiencing any sort of pain, but supported by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoyed peaceful repose.** To liberate these holy souls, who, in the bosom of Abraham were expecting the Saviour, Christ the Lord descended into hell.

GAssisi:

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.

Certainly you now see that this is not what the Church teaches. The term “descent into hell” really and truly means that Our Lord’s soul went down into the earth, to a place known as Limbo. It was not a metaphorical “descent”, but a literal descent, as the Catechism of Trent taught. – “we are firmly to believe that His soul itself, really and substantially, descended thither”.

What John Paul II taught – as you understood it – is contrary to what the church teaches. Therefore, it qualifies as a “strange teaching” - one which could easily mislead a person into believing that our Lord’s soul “itself” did not “really and substantially, descend thither”.

 

[Writer]

mjdonnelly:

From what I understand, he didn’t descend into hell as we know it, but something more akin to purgatory, because of the souls that were there being kept out of heaven.

The writers then just didn’t know how to express it.

Right, except that Purgatory is understood to be a part of heaven as opposed to situated adjacent to hell’s real estate…

 

[ReadJohn6]

for·est (fôrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifst)

1. A dense growth of trees, plants, and underbrush covering a large area.

Snap out of it pal. We’re on the same team…now grab some bench!

“Fight the good fight.”

Karol Wojtyla, pray for RSiscoe…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

Hey, my internet service is working again!! Now for my dissertation length reply

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, an angel is “in a place” by the application of his power to the place. Non-corporeal substances are not “contained” by the place they are in, but more correctly said to "virtually contain" the thing or place by their their angelic power. Similarly, St. Thomas implies that Christ’s beatified soul is “in a place” by the application of His power to the place. His power virtually contains the thing or place by the power of His beatific soul. But Christ’s soul can be said to apply power *per suum effectum *(through His effect) and *per suum essentiam *(through His essence). The Catholic Church condemened the teaching, arguably held by Peter Abelard, that it was only Christ’s power that descended into hell. Was St. Thomas resurrecting a condemned proposition when he stated that Christ soul was “in the place” of the hell of the damned and the prison of the just? Observe,

"Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, penetrated to all the lower parts of the earth, not passing through them locally with His soul, but by spreading the effects of His power per suum effectum] in a measure to them all: yet so that He enlightened only the just [per suum essentiam]: because the text quoted continues: “And I will enlighten all that hope in the Lord.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica, *III, 52, 2)

Is ambiguity, either by St. Thomas or John Paul II an occassion for misunderstanding? Probably. But misunderstanding is no excuse for dissent from the Vicar of Christ.

St. Thomas contends that Christ’s soul, descended into hell by application of his power per suum effectum, to both the hell of the damned and the prison of the just. Yet, also asserted that Christ’s soul, *per suum essentum et effectiam *descended into the prison of the just. It was by the application of his essential and effective power, according to Christ’s soul, that “He visited ‘interiorly by grace,’ according to His Godhead.” (ibid.)

God’s power is everwhere by His effect, but not necessarily everywhere by His essence. So too with Christ’s human soul, as it is united hypostatically to the Divine essence. Yet, it is certain that Christ’s soul can be in more than one place per suum essentiam et effectum, unlike angelic essence, as a consequence of the hypostaic union with the Divine essence (e.g., real presence in the Eucharist, per suum essentiam et effectum).

Therefore, Christ soul after bodily death and before resurrection can rightly be said to be “in the place” of damned, the place of the limbo of the fathers, and the place of heaven, all simultaneously, but in a different sense, without denying 2000 years of Catholic doctrine.

By ascending into heaven Christ acquired no addition to His essential glory either in body or in soul, according to St. Thomas. Thus, Christ soul can be rightly said to already be “in the place” of heavenly glory, per suum essentiam. That Christ was in the hell of the damned per suum effectum is asserted by St. Thomas. Morevover, St. Thomas asserts that Christ’s soul was “in the place” of the limbo of the fathers per suum essentiam et effectum.

The above is how I understand St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching in his Summa Theologica. I can get you specific references if you like, but didn’t want to clutter the post with lots of quotations and loose the main thrust of the discussion.

Did John Paul II teach contrary to this? The only thing that John Paul II seems to assert that may not have been asserted by St. Thomas, but seems to reasonably follow from St. Thomas’ discussion and passages of Sacred Scripture, is that Christ’s soul was in heaven and limbo per suum essentiam.

It seems clear from the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, *that John Paul II does not deny that Christ’s soul descended into hell, the realm of the dead. John Paul II affirms, “**In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him. **(CCC 637).” In what sense did this happen, seems to be the question.

to be continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued …

In his General Audience teaching, John Paul II states, “The Apostle [Peter] 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.” In other words, he is not denying Christ’s soul “went and preached to the spirits in prison” but instead is describing what he thinks Peter means by this. He asserts that Peter is speaking metaphorically when he says Christ’s soul “went and preached to the spirits in prison.” Peter’s words are a figure of some deeper theological truth. He is not denying, in my view, that Christ soul descended into hell per suum essentiam. The metaphor pertains to Peter’s words, the figures he uses to describe this theological truth.

1 Peter 3:19 has not been interpreted in the same manner “everywhere, always, and by all” in the history of Catholicism nor has it been definitively interpreted. So I don’t see how John Paul II’s teaching is contrary to Catholic doctrine of the past 2000 years. For example, St. Augustine taught that 1 Peter 3:19 was a metaphor or figure which meant the “prison” of the body while on earth, and the “preaching” was that of the Godhead and the Patriarch and Prophets of Judaism.

Under the papacy of St. Pius X, the following article describes “descended into hell” of the Creed in this manner:

*descended into hell … *was no doubt a remembrance of I Peter, iii, 19, as interpreted by Irenaeus and others, which caused their insertion. ( CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Apostles’ Creed )

Yet, according to St. Thomas’ testimony, 1 Pet 3:19 had not always been interpreted by the Church in the same sense:

[St. John] Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): “As He evangelized them who are upon the earth, so did He those who were in hell”; not in order to convert unbelievers unto belief, but to put them to shame for their unbelief, since preaching cannot be understood otherwise than as the open manifesting of His Godhead. which was laid bare before them in the lower regions by His descending in power into hell.

[St.] Augustine however, furnishes a better exposition of the text in his Epistle to Evodius quoted above, namely, that the preaching is not to be referred to Christ’s descent into hell, but to the operation of His Godhead, to which He gave effect from the beginning of the world. Consequently, the sense is, that “to those (spirits) that were in prison”–that is, living in the mortal body, which is, as it were, the soul’s prison-house–"by the spirit" of His Godhead “He came and preached” by internal inspirations, and from without by the admonitions spoken by the righteous: to those, I say, He preached “which had been some time incredulous,” i.e. not believing in the preaching of Noe, “when they waited for the patience of God,” whereby the chastisement of the Deluge was put off: accordingly (Peter) adds: “In the days of Noe, when the Ark was being built.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica, *III, 52, 2)

St. John Damascene seems to describe 1 Pet 3:19 differently that does St. Augustine. St. Thomas perfers St. Augustines “metaphor” to St. John’s. Both claim “preaching” above as a metaphor for the “open manifesting of His Godhead” but in different ways and in different contexts. John Paul II seems to describe preaching in the same metaphorical sense. I don’t conclude that either St. John, St. Augustine, or John Paul II are denying the creedal statement “he descended into hell” in its authentic meaning, given the context of their other writings. Yet it is clear that each do not hold the same interpretation of 1 Pet 3:19. Is this the same thing as denying what has been taught by the Catholic Church for 2000 years? I don’t think you’ve proven your claim.

The question described by John Paul II really pertains to HOW, IN WHAT SENSE did Christ’s soul “descend into hell” and “preached to the spirits.” Also, could Christ’s soul be said to be in more than one place simultaneously, by its effective power? It seems clear that this is certainly true, according to St. Thomas, as Christ soul was in the place of the damned and the prison of the just per suum effectum, at the same time. How about per suum essentiam? If the body blood soul and divinity is “in place” in every tabernacle in the Catholic Church, in essence, then it seems that this too is true. Does the Church deny that Christ’s soul was “in the place” of heaven, per suum essentiam? I’ve not found evidence of this.

to be continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Taking what John Paul II asserts in his Catechism and in the discussion presented in before the General Audience, John Paul II seems to be asserting that Christ’s soul was in heavenly glory per suum essentiam] simultaneous to being “in the place” of limbo of the fathers. This is no more contrary to Catholic teaching than St. Thomas asserting that Christ soul was “in the place” of the hell of the damned and the limbo of the fathers simultaneously.

“A thing is said to be in a place in two ways. First of all, through its effect, and in this way Christ descended into each of the hells, but in different manner. For going down into the hell of the lost He wrought this effect, that by descending thither He put them to shame for their unbelief and wickedness: but to them who were detained in Purgatory He gave hope of attaining to glory: while upon the holy Fathers detained in hell solely on account of original sin, He shed the light of glory everlasting.
In another way a thing is said to be in a place through its essence: and in this way Christ’s soul descended only into that part of hell wherein the just were detained. so that He visited them “in place,” according to His soul, whom He visited “interiorly by grace,” according to His Godhead. Accordingly, while remaining in one part of hell, He wrought this effect in a measure in every part of hell, just as while suffering in one part of the earth He delivered the whole world by His Passion.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica, *III, 52, 2)

**“He descended into hell” means Christ’s beatified soul, “by application of His essence and power to the place”, and not merely per suum effectum, but also per suum essentiam, “virtually contained” the souls of the just in limbus paternum, thereby visiting them “interiorly by grace,” according to His Godhead. **

 

[RSiscoe]

Dave:

By ascending into heaven Christ acquired no addition to His essential glory either in body or in soul, according to St. Thomas. Thus, Christ soul can be rightly said to already be “in the place” of heavenly glory, per suum essentiam [through His essence]. That Christ was in the hell of the damned per suum effectum [through His effect] is asserted by St. Thomas. Morevover, St. Thomas asserts that Christ’s soul was “in the place” of the limbo of the fathers per suum essentiam et effectum [through His essence and effect].

The above is how I understand St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching in his Summa Theologica. I can get you specific references if you like, but didn’t want to clutter the post with lots of quotations and loose the main thrust of the discussion.

Did John Paul II teach contrary to this? The only thing that John Paul II seems to assert that may not have been asserted by St. Thomas, but seems to reasonably follow from St. Thomas’ discussion and passages of Sacred Scripture, is that Christ’s soul was in heaven and limbo per suum essentiam.

I have much to say about your post and about what St. Thomas said, but first, I need an answer to the question I asked in an earlier post: In your opinion, what is Pope John Paul II saying? Above you say he “seems” to be saying that Christ’s soul is in heaven and Limbo by His essence. To me he seems to be saying Christ’s soul was in heaven by His essence, but in Limbo by His effect. You seem to think John Paul II is saying that Christ’s soul is in two places at once. Please clarify what you think he means.

In your earlier post (I think #39), you gave the impression that you iterpreted John Paul II the way I did: as saying that Our Lord’s soul did not literally descend into hell in His essence, but only in its effect. Is that how you originally interpreted what the Pope wrote?

So, before we continue, I really need to know what you think John Paul II meant. Did He mean Christ’s soul was in two places at once in His essence? If not, what did he mean - where was Our Lord’s soul in His essence. And please be honest and tell me how you really interpreted what the Pope said, and don’t try to twist it into another meaning. I really think that your post #39 showed that you interpreted what the Pope said exactly the way I did, for instead of claiming that I misinterpreted the Pope, you claimed that the traditional teaching of the Church was not “infallible”. Let me repost part of your earlier post here:
Dave post #39):

fides catholica

, by virtue of the ordinary universal magisterium?

1. What evidence do you have that suggests “descended into hell” means as you say it means [that Christ’s soul literally descended into hell], and has been taught as such for 2000 years? Surely you are not suggesting that the Catechism of Trent is that which was taught for the past 2000 years, are you? [RSiscoe: here you are admiting that the Catechism of Trent confirms what I said]
2. Do you know what year the first extant creedal statement included “descended into hell”?
3. Do you know what year the first extant commentary exists which expounds upon the creedal statement, “descended into hell?”
4. Is the first extant commentary that expounds upon the creedal statement “descended into hell” a teaching that has been taught “everywhere, always, and by all” for the past 2000 years?
5. Is the first extant commentary that expounds upon the creedal statement “descended into hell” a definitive teaching (de fide definita) of the magisterium or infallible/immutable based upon the constant universal teaching of the ordinary magisterium (fides catholica)?
6. If not de fide in either of the above means, does the magisterium have the authority to propose a non-definitive doctrine contrary to non-definitive doctrines of the past? If so, do Catholics owe to this proposed magisterial doctrine, their religiousum obsequium of intellect and will according to canon law?

So, clearly, you were setting yourself up to argue against what the Church has always taught (and what the Catechism of Trent taught), in favor of what the Pope taught. That certainly seems to show that your initial “surface” understanding of what the Pope taught was contrary to what the Catechism of Trent taught.

But surely, after you wrote that post, while “your internet was down”, you studied up on the matter and saw that this was indefensible. So you approached it from another angle.

So before we go on, please tell me what you think John Paul II meant - how do you interpret it. Also, in case you have changed what you think, please tell me honestly what you originally thought he was saying. And please be honest.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In your opinion, what is Pope John Paul II saying?

He’s saying that “descended into hell” primarily means that Jesus died (separation of body and soul). He’s also saying that Christ’s beatified soul, by the essential and effective power applied to the souls of the just in prison, visited the just in prison by “internal grace” according to the Godhead (per suum essentiam et effectum). Additionally, Christ’s beatified soul was also in heavenly glory per suum essentiam.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Perhaps you can finally answer my question: Where is it that John Paul II has rejected 2000 years of Catholic teaching?

By definition, if a teaching has been taught everywhere always and by all, it is infallible immutable dogma. You implied by your claim that John Paul rejected such a dogma. Can you be more specific?

Surely St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. John Damascene all disagree as to the metaphorical meaning of 1 Peter 3:19, from whence “descended into hell” derived. Why is it a heresy that John Paul II should now offer his theological understanding of that passage?

That he understands Christ human soul to have descended into hell is taught by John Paul II’s Catechism of the Catholic Church. To claim that he opposes his own Catechism is nothing more than polemical subterfuge, in my opinion.