John Paul II's Error Regarding Christ's Descent Into Hell

[StevusMagnus]

Fr. Paul Kramer, B. Ph., S.T.B., M. Div., S.T.L. (Cand.); The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy
 
 

The Pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra, but he is otherwise quite capable of making even the gravest of errors against the doctrine of the Faith. That a pope can personally fall into error in matters of faith, there can be no doubt. We know from history that it has already happened before. That Pope John Paul II had fallen into objective Christological heresy there can also be no doubt.
 
 For Pope John Paul II, Christ's "descent into hell" refers not to His soul but his body. Elaborating on his understanding of the words, "He descended into hell", the Pope, in his General Audience of January 11, 1989, explained: "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... Christ passed through a real experience of death...He was placed in the tomb. 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...Jesus experienced the a state of death", that is, the separation of body and soul, as in the case of all people. This is the primary     meaning of the words "he descended into hell"..." [204]
 
 [204] "...it is to be observed", says the Roman Catechism, "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 learnt 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."
 
 If that is not clear enough, JPII continues, "This is precisely what the words about the descent into hell meant: the heart or the womb of the earth." In his belaboured exposition, the Pope explained "the words 'He descended into hell';...are linked to what Jesus himself had foretold when... He had said: 'For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth' (Mt 12:40)."
 
 The Pope elaborated further, "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...". "...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." [205]
 
 [205] The proposition that "there was...the heavenly glorification of His soul from the very moment of His death", is heretical. The Roman Catechism explains that in the Article 'He descended into hell', "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."
 
 By contrast, the Catholic understanding of the Article of Faith, "He descended into hell" is as follows. The Fourth Lateran Council professed: "Firmly we believe and we confess simply...the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ...having suffered on the wood of the Cross and died, descended into hell...But he descended in His soul..." The Profession of Faith teaches tha the "descent into hell" does not refer to the body but to the soul.
 
 For John Paul II, the soul did not descend into hell but "...in Christ's case also there was...the heavenly glorification of His soul from the very moment of His death." Now one thing is certain, hell is not the same thing as heaven. The Profession of Faith says He "descended into hell...He descended in His soul". John Paul II says there was "the heavenly glorification of His soul from the very moment of His death."
 
 How does the Pope explain the words of St. Peter: "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...With the entrance of Christ's soul into     the beatific vision in the bosom of the Trinity, the 'freeing from     imprisonment' of the just who had descended to the realm of the dead before     Christ, finds its point of reference and explanation."
 
 The Pope explained further, "In this is manifested and put into effect the salvific power 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."
 
 The Pope's explanation clearly expresses the heresy of Peter Abelard, whose condemned proposition reads: "That the soul of Christ did not descend to hell by itself but only by power." It is also a most grievous and impious error to say that Christ's soul entered into the Beatific Vision, as though He were not already in full posession of the Beatific Vision from the first instant of his Conception in the womb of His most holy Mother. The Church has formally censured the error that "It is not established that there was in the soul of Christ while living among men the knowledge which the blessed and the comprehensors have [cf. Phil. 3:12,13]." [208]
 
 [208] Roman Catechism: "For God gave not to Him, as to others adorned with holiness and grace, His Spirit by measure, as St. john testifies (Jn 3:34), but poured into His soul the plenitude of all graces so abundantly that of His fullness we have all received."
 
 When the Church professes that "He descended into hell", what is meant is that Christ's soul went to 'Limbo' - "the place of rest and natural happiness, where the souls of the just who died before the coming of Christ were kept in expectation of their redemption and triumphant entry with Our Lord into heaven on the day of His ascension. This place or state of existence is generally called Limbo..."
 
 The same manual (Manual of Instruction in Christian Doctrine, 1908) continues:
 
 1. It is certain that He went to Limbo, which by His presence became a paradise. It was of this abode that the words addressed to the good thief were spoken: "This day thou be with Me in paradise" (St. Luke 23:43).
 
 2. It is also considered certain that He descended into Purgatory, to console and enlighten the holy souls, and to tell them of their expected redemption. This would seem to be implied by the words of Ecclesiasticus (24:45) "I will penetrate to all the lower parts of the earth, and will behold all that sleep, and will enlighten all that hope in the Lord."
 
 Pope Innocent III explains that a Pope can fall into heresy:
 
 "The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore, (should a pope 'lose his savour) could cast him out or trample him under foot - since of the pope it is said 'gather thy flock into thy fold'? Truly, he should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God.
 
 Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: "If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men."
 
 If the Pope and the bishops fall into heresy or schism, as nearly all of them did during the Arian heresy, the Catholic may wonder what he must do in order to remain safe from the poisonous contagion of error. "What shall then the Catholic do", St. Vincent of Lerins asks, "if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What other choice can he make if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty." "Hold firmly," says St. Thomas, "that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church."

[QuisUtDeus]

With all due respect to Fr. Kramer and the alphabet soup after his name, he's way off mark here....

I'm going to deal with a section at a time until we beat it to death.

Here's the first set of claims:

Fr. Paul Kramer, B. Ph., S.T.B., M. Div., S.T.L. (Cand.); The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy

For Pope John Paul II, Christ's "descent into hell" refers not to His soul but his body. Elaborating on his understanding of the words, "He descended into hell", the Pope, in his General Audience of January 11, 1989, explained: "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... Christ passed through a real experience of death...He was placed in the tomb. 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...Jesus experienced the a state of death", that is, the separation of body and soul, as in the case of all people. This is the primary meaning of the words "he descended into hell"..." [204]

[204] "...it is to be observed", says the Roman Catechism, "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 learnt 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."

Let's start with this.  Fr. Kramer and you want to ignore the definition JP2 gives lines before in the same audience:

It should also be mentioned that the word "hell" does not mean the hell of eternal damnation, but the abode of the dead which is sheol in Hebrew and hades in Greek (cf. Acts 2:31).

Does JP2 say hell is the sepulchre?  No, he says it is the "abode of the dead", "sheol", "hades".  Though you and Fr. Kramer attempt to twist it to make it sound like he is referring to the tomb as hell by making selective quotes, that isn't the case at all.

And that distortion is so perverse, that it distorts the words of the Apostle which JP2 quotes directly.

St. Paul says "Now that he ascended, what is it, but because he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?"  Is St. Paul referring to hell or to the sepulchre?  By your and Fr. Kramer's logic, it would be that he is referring to being buried, but we know that isn't the case.

When you read what JP2 said in context, what he is actually doing is clarifying that St. Paul does not mean the sepulchre.

Also in the Letter to the Ephesians there is a text which asks a significant question in reference to a verse of Psalm 68: "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men" (Ps 68:19). "In saying, 'he ascended,' what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things" (Eph 4:8-10). In this way Paul seems to link Christ's "descent" into the abyss (among the dead, of which he speaks in the Letter to the Romans), with his ascension to the Father, which begins the eschatological "fulfillment" of all things in God.

Hell, sheol, hades was traditionally held to be in the middle of the earth, and that is why St. Paul refers to hell by the phrase "the lower parts of the earth".  The Pope clearly sees this because he refers to St. Paul's statement about the "lower parts of the earth" as meaning the abyss or "among the dead".  He in fact equates the lower parts of the earth with the abyss.  The exact opposite of what you and Fr. Kramer would like people to believe.

If that is not clear enough, JPII continues, "This is precisely what the words about the descent into hell meant: the heart or the womb of the earth." In his belaboured exposition, the Pope explained "the words 'He descended into hell';...are linked to what Jesus himself had foretold when... He had said: 'For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth' (Mt 12:40)."

The Pope is quoted in a way to be deliberately misleading.  Let's look at the exact statement which has been quoted out of order so that Fr. Kramer can prove his point.

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 separation of body and soul, as in the case of all people.

No heresy there.

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 will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mt 12:40).

No heresy there.  If you died before Christ, your body stayed in the tomb and your soul "descended into hell" or went to the "lower parts of the earth" or "the heart of the earth" or sheol or hades or the Abyss. 

This is precisely what the words about the descent into hell mean: the heart or the womb of the earth.

Absolutely.  We have St. Paul's word to verify that.  And anyone who was willing to give a Pope the benefit of the doubt would realize that the heart or womb of the earth is being used here the same way St. Paul used it:  to represent the abyss - where your soul goes.

The Pope elaborated further, "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...". "...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." [205]

[205] The proposition that "there was...the heavenly glorification of His soul from the very moment of His death", is heretical. The Roman Catechism explains that in the Article 'He descended into hell', "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."

More deliberate creative quoting.  Here's the statement in context:

Obscure as it is, the Petrine text confirms the others concerning the concept of the "descent into hell" as the complete fulfillment of the gospel message of salvation. It is Christ—buried in the tomb as regards the body, but glorified in his soul, which had been 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.

The Pope doesn't say: "the concept of the "descent into hell'...It is Christ - laid in the tomb as regards the body" as you and Fr. Kramer claim.  What he says is:

the concept of the "descent into hell" as the complete fulfillment of the gospel message of salvation.

And it has to be the complete fulfillment because the Sacrifice on the Cross applies to all times and all places including those who died before Christ.

If need be, I'll pick up with "heavenly glorification" after this is hashed out.

[StevusMagnus]

Chris Ferrara and Thomas Woods, The Great Facade

...This is not to say that one cannot find, at a level below the universal Magisterium, numerous apparent propositional contradictions between pre- and postconciliar teaching concerning a number of lesser matters, and neo-Catholics are at their most unreasonable when they deny this...It is no use ignoring such things as the following: ...

While the constant teaching of the Church, reflected in the Apostles' Creed and even the new Catechism (sec. 631, et seq.), is that after the Crucifixion and before the Resurrection, the Soul of Christ descended into Hell (sheol, or the Limbo of the Fathers) to deliver the souls there into Heaven, John Paul asserted in his audience address of January 1, 1989, that this teaching means only that Christ's Body experienced death and was placed in the earth (i.e., the Tomb), while His soul was glorified in Heaven.

As John Paul stated on that occassion: "His soul,     separated from the body, was glorified in God, but his body lay in the tomb as a corpse...Jesus experienced the a state of death", that is, the separation of body and soul, as in the case of all people. This is the primary     meaning of the words "he descended into hell"...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.

Thus, the descent of Christ into hell, according to this address, means merely Christ's bodily descent into death and His entombment in the ground, not any literal descent into the region of Hell (sheol) where the souls of the just were waiting for the redemption. This novel opinion was in no way imposed on the Church.

[QuisUtDeus]

Chris Ferrara and Thomas Woods, The Great Facade

...This is not to say that one cannot find, at a level below the universal Magisterium, numerous apparent propositional contradictions between pre- and postconciliar teaching concerning a number of lesser matters, and neo-Catholics are at their most unreasonable when they deny this...It is no use ignoring such things as the

[StevusMagnus]

Yes, JPII identifies "hell" in the Creed as distinct from the Hell of the damned and mentions it as synonymous with Sheol. That's irrelevant. For he further goes on to relate Christ's body in the tomb (not in hell, but metaphorically is, in a sense, to JPII  in "hell", since "hell" here was analogized to being under the earth and belly of the whale, etc.) and His soul in Heaven (not in hell) and then goes on to speak of Christ freeing the souls in hell metaphorically.

With the entrance of Christ's soul into     the beatific vision in the bosom of the Trinity, the "freeing from     imprisonment" of the just who had descended to the realm of the dead before     Christ, finds its point of reference and explanation.

The entrance of Christ's soul into the beatific "bosom of the Trinity" (error, since his soul accessed the Beatific Vision from conception) somehow, in and of itself freed the souls of the dead, without Christ's soul actually venturing down there as Tradition teaches.

I think, in a noble effort, you are placing your own thoughts, views, and interpretations into the text to try to transform the evident meaning into something orthodox in order to save Papa from apparent error after the fact. As Ferrara, Woods, and Fr. Kramer point out, the apparent contradiction is evident. As Ferrara and Woods state, our friends, the neo-Catholics, are at their most unreasonable when they deny these obvious contradictions. Trads are better than that and can admit that there are apparent contradictions as JPII's teaching here tends to materially oppose Catholic Tradition. Otherwise we'll turn into Dave Armstrongs, defending Koran kissing.
 
  Rome is free to tell us how these apparent contradictions can be resolved, but until then I think it is futile to deny there is an apparent material contradiction here.

[StevusMagnus]

It should surprise you that Fr. Kramer's pals accept his position?  They're even misquoting the Pope the same way. 

I have no knowledge if the three ever met, much less are friends. In any case, it's irrelevant to their arguments. They are not "misquoting" the Pope. Are three men with advanced degrees going to intentionally ignore a portion of the readily available historical record to make a fallacious point and then publish it, for the world to see their evident misrepresentation?

Or could there possibly be an error in your reasoning?

Are you going to defend the original position as stated by Fr. Kramer against my charges of deliberate misinterpreation and misrepresentation, or are you going to appeal to his comrades as making his statement somehow authoritative?

I was posting the Ferrara & Woods quotation as you were writing your response. I did not see it until after my post. I just responded.

[Schatz]

They are not "misquoting" the Pope. Are three men with advanced degrees going to intentionally ignore a portion of the readily available historical record to make a fallacious point and then publish it, for the world to see their evident misrepresentation?

Maybe. But then again, maybe they do it unintentionally.

Or could there possibly be an error in your reasoning?

What would that error in his reasoning be?

[INPEFESS]

Wow! The original discussion of the Primacy has really strayed off topic. First, we're discussing whether Christ reigns within the Papal office of Peter executed through his person or whether this authority is manifested in an inseperable conjunction of the two; now, we're discussing John Paul II's theology on the Nicean Creed.

If the intention is determine the Truth to the legitimacy of the SSPX's position, we must first ask ourselves if this provides for the furtherance of the above mentioned determination. Are we saying that if, according to the Magesterium, JPII denies this dogma, then it is obvious that there is most certainly a distinction between the seat's mortal occupant and the Primacy? Or are we just contending for contention's sake?

[7HolyCats]

The entrance of Christ's soul into the beatific "bosom of the Trinity" (error, since his soul accessed the Beatific Vision from conception) somehow, in and of itself freed the souls of the dead, without Christ's soul actually venturing down there as Tradition teaches.

Thank you. I too was about to mention the fact that His human soul, by virtue of the hypostatic union, possessed the Beatific Vision from the moment of His incarnation.

As for "venturing down"...indeed that's what's meant by the creed, but what "venturing down" actually means for a disembodied soul which should not be thought of locally or as spatial...I dont necessarily know, and John Paul may had a valid way to describe it; His separation from the body freeing the souls in Limbo from their bondage.

Thinking of it in terms of local motion and spatial "regions" is traditional, but must needs be only by analogy given the immaterial, non-spatial nature of the soul.

The souls of the Old Testament saints werent literally waiting underground in the material earth, but rather the spiritual "underground," sheol. Which, more accurately than being thought of as a spatial material location or "place"...may be more precisely described as that state of being which is death (the unnatural separation of soul and body) without Christ. Death without Christ, but with no positive punishment either.

However, when Christ entered into death, it necessarily destroyed such a state for the Just, because then they did have Christ among their number and so were by that very fact admitted with Him into paradise. Then it was, by definition, death with Christ.

Imagining a spatial journey into some underground cavern for a given length of time...is a valid analogy for thinking of the harrowing of hell, but really...the causality might have admitted Christ to such a state for a logical instant, but His very presence made such a state disappear, by definition, for the just. Because the lack of Christ/God in death was the essential feature of such an afterlife, and by entering into our death...well, death obviously no longer lacked Christ.

[StevusMagnus]

They are not "misquoting" the Pope. Are three men with advanced degrees going to intentionally ignore a portion of the readily available historical record to make a fallacious point and then publish it, for the world to see their evident misrepresentation?

Maybe. But then again, maybe they do it unintentionally.

Yes, all three men with advanced degrees in theology, law, and history with a lifetime of apologetic work are going to simply "miss" a quote and/or just not read JPII's address in full. This address was given in 1989 and multiple examinations of it have taken place. Your assertion is unreasonable.

Or could there possibly be an error in your reasoning?

What would that error in his reasoning be?

That JPII somehow said Christ descended in soul to hell by saying he did not.