Do you understand the significance of your statement? You have now stated that the Pope could have been in error when he said stated that the primary meaning of the term "He descended into hell" is that Jesus experienced the a state of death", that is, the separation of body and soul. There is no significant difference between your position (the Pope could have been in error), and Fr. Kramer's position (the Pope was in error if you look at what the Church has always taught), for purposes of this debate.
The difference for the purposes of this debate is Fr. Kramer is saying he was erring on a
doctrinal point.
I do not deny he
could have been since he wasnt speaking ex cathedra, I just merely dont think he was, in fact, erring in this case. There are probably plenty of true examples in history, but I think this one is just chasing shadows.
What was going through the Apostles' heads when including a given clause in the creed is not a dogmatic issue. Him getting that wrong is as unimpressive and unimportant as if he said the capital of the US is New York. The dogmatic issue is the
clause itself as intended by God, and his interpretation is not heterodox.
Are you aware that "Paradise" typically meant "Limbo of the Fathers" and not heaven?
That's how later people have interpretted it, mainly to explain that clause. But identifying them as the same isnt what Aquinas does, or he wouldnt have contrasted them:
Accordingly, the thief descended locally into hell with Christ, because it was said to him: "This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise"; still as to reward he was in paradise, because he enjoyed Christ's Godhead just as the other saints did.
That "still" implies a contrast between "locally" and "as to reward". The construction here is basically an "on the one hand...on the other hand". If we were to reverse the order and mention paradise first, it might sound something like, "As to reward he was in paradise,
even though he was locally in hell".
Aquinas seems to contrast the two states. If they had simply meant the same thing, he wouldnt have had to reconcile them like this.
You are vague by your use of the term "grace". They did not have Sanctifying Grace. They were under the condemnation of Original Sin. And they certainly were not partakers of the Redemption before Cavalry.
They
did have sanctifying grace, most definitely! Aquinas says:
Original sin was taken away in circumcision, in regard to the person; but on the part of the entire nature, there remained the obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven, which obstacle was removed by Christ's Passion. Consequently, before Christ's Passion not even Baptism gave entrance to the kingdom. But were circumcision to avail after Christ's Passion, it would give entrance to the kingdom.
All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred, and that the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on Romans 4:11. But this is impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace, according to Romans 3:2: "Being justified freely by His grace," etc.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4070.htm#article4And Catholic Encyclopedia agrees:
St. Thomas holds that circumcision was a figure of baptism: this retrenches and restrains the animal man as that removed a part of his body -- which physical act indicated the spiritual effect of the sacrament (De Sac., Summa, III, Q. lxx, a. 1). He gives three reasons why the organ of generation rather than any other was to be circumcised:
- Abraham was to be blessed in his seed;
- The rite was to take away original sin, which comes by generation;
- It was to restrain concupiscence, which is found especially in the generative organs (III, Q. lxx, a. 3).
According to his teaching, as baptism remits original sin and actual sins committed before its reception, so circumcision remitted both, but
ex opere operantis, i.e. by the faith of the recipient, or, in the case of infants, by the faith of the parents. Infants that died before being circumcised could be saved, as were those who lived prior to the institution of circumcision, and as females were even after its institution, by some sign -- the parents' prayer, for instance -- expressive of faith. Adults did not receive the remission of all the temporal punishment due to sin as in baptism: -- "Adulti, quando circumcidebantur, consequebantur remissionem, non solum originalis peccati, sed etiam actualium peccatorum; non tamen ita quod liberarentur ab omnireatu p næ, Sicut in baptismo, in quo confertur copiosior gratia" (III, Q. lxx, a. 4).
The main points of the teaching of the Angelic Doctor were commonly held in the Church, even before the days of St. Augustine, who with other Fathers maintained that circumcision was not a mere ceremony, but a sacramental rite. (Cf.
City of God XVI.27)
Now
you are the heretic, materially. Please, at least learn your traditional theology before trying to critique someone else's. Talk about a heterodox pot calling the papal kettle black...
And they certainly were not partakers of the Redemption before Cavalry.
They were not partakers of the
Beatific Vision causatively prior to Calvary (not "cavalry"). They
were, however,
partakers of
redemption by the very fact that they had been given grace in circumcision. A grace dependent (like Mary's Immaculate Conception) on Christ's foreseen passion.
And it is even allowed to say that the grace of Adam and Eve and the Angels was all merited by the ("foreseen") action of Christ, this being the "Franciscan" or "Incarnationalist" opinion.
Let's review a few things. First, Peter and Paul did not observe what happened in the Limbo of the Fathers. So how did they know about it? Either the Holy Ghost dictated it to them, or more probable, Jesus Himself told them what happened.
I dont think Jesus necessarily told them. In the pious imagination, Jesus is often imagined as giving the Apostles catechism lessons, basically, before he ascends, detailing all the dogmas of the faith in a nice little package wrapped up with a bow. But that is unnecessary, and no where indicated in Scripture, the process of Revelation was less simplistic and more dynamic than that. And it does seem to undermine the role of the Holy Spirit. After all, "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth." If Jesus had just told them everything, that would have defeated the point.
So I see no evidence Christ personally recounted what happened when He died. It was likely inspired by the Holy Spirit. But the Catholic theology of inspiration is NOT "dictation" remember:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htmSo our Lord Himself chose the term "preach". He did not say He extended grace to them, or that He contacted them with grace. No, He told Peter that He had preached to the souls
Even assuming the "verbal inspiration" theory (ie, that the Holy Spirit mandated the specific words, and not just the substance behind them), which is definitely NOT required according to the 1917 Catholic Encylopedia article on "Inspiration",
of course Christ and Scripture are going to allow the inspired authors to use material metaphors for us, who, as you say, cannot comprehend non-spatial, non-temporal, non-material existence.
However, we do know that the souls of the damned are separated from the souls in Limbo, or the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven.
By difference in their state of being. Souls in heaven are separated from souls in Limbo not spatially, but by the possession by one of the beatific vision, and the lack of it by the other. Purgatory is distinguished by sure hope of heaven, but not yet, and temporal punishment. Hell, of course, by no hope of heaven and positive punishments too. Etc. They are not distinguished by location, but by the characteristic state of the souls in that state.
We even know that our Lord described heaven as having many rooms. So using the term "place" is appropriate.
Appropriate as a metaphor. Yes. All our speech about God is ultimately only by way of analogy. That doesnt make it untrue or invalid.
