In the Creed, when it says that Jesus “descended into hell”, I think it’s important to consider what is meant by “hell” here. Perhaps we need to consider that it could be like the Hades in Greek mythology. From a psychological perspective, descending into the deep, dark places is a going into our unconscious.
That's an interesting parallel/illustration, but even a cursory examination of the text shows it isn't what's being talked about. As for Greek mythology, even to Plato Hades was a place one went to, not a part of one's self.
Keep in mind that Jesus was fully human and fully Divine, so that descent into the unconscious can relate to the human journey. And when it is said that He “rose from the dead”, this “dead” can mean being dead from a spiritual perspective.
If you want to water it down, your last line works. But, again, that's not what the people who witnessed the Resurrection had to say about it; they said He ate, walked, talked....
I view Jesus (a Christ) as an avatar and if we view his life, death and conquering of death metaphorically, it may make more sense to us individually. Please note that I am not discounting the historical accuracy of these events; I’m just considering an additional perspective.
Metaphor tends to strip meaning from real events more than add to them. Descending into Hell isn't to be compared to some Freudian or Jungian attempt to get in touch with our dark subconscious; it is, rather, the sort of thing which ought to elicit a response akin to, "WTF? He went
where? Why the frak would He do that?" -- since Hell is, generally speaking, the last place anyone would want to go.
I fail to see what a metaphorical conquering of death is worth -- it doesn't change my life. What is it to be a metaphor
of, or
for? What greater thing is it meant to describe?
When I was younger, and under the grips of the Baltimore catechism, I’d frequently get into trouble by raising similar thoughts. And the women in black were teaching this, so you can probably guess what this “trouble” entailed.
That depends on what brand of women in black they were. I was familiar with some Franciscan women in black, whose disciplinary methods tended toward the verbal... in fact, toward Platonic dialogue.
I know that if I'd been in a class where a priest was talking like you are here, odds are I would have done what I did in/from Methodist confirmation: walked out. I wanted intellectual honesty and rigor, confronting what the record says, not something to water it down.
I wonder if anyone has left a R. Catholic church for that reason, instead of the usual sort of tyranny?
