1

The Catholic Church has traditionally affirmed the unconditional "immortality of the soul", with its final destination either to the blessedness of Heaven or to the eternal torments of Hell. Purgatory was meant to be for the souls of the elect, still in need of some "cleansing" or "purging".

On the other hand, there is the position of some theologians who, following suit from some theologians in the Protestant world, put the biblical faith in the resurrection in stark contrast with the traditional belief in the "immortality of the soul" (e.g. see Summary of Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?, Oscar Cullmann, 1955, @religion-online.org).

An authoritative document from the CDF, Letter on certain questions regarding Eschatology (Rome, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 17 May 1979, Franjo Cardinal Seper, Prefect) tries to "forestall the dangers that could threaten this faith in the minds of the faithful", regarding the "article of the Creed concerning life everlasting and so everything in general after death".

The document is worth reading in its entirely, in spite of its ambiguities. A simple, immediate statistic confirms the impression, that the CDF's main concern is to reaffirm the faith in the resurrection (6 times), whereas it uses the word soul (2 times) with full awareness of its having become problematic for the faithful ("the question is put of what happens between the death of the Christian and the general resurrection") and that the Catholic Church still uses it mainly because of pastoral and liturgical reasons ("the Church thinks that there is no valid reason for rejecting it; moreover, she considers that the use of some word as a vehicle is absolutely indispensable in order to support the faith of Christians").

It is worth noting that the expressions "immortality of the soul", or "immortal soul", are never used throughout the whole document ...

A more recent document, Some Current Questions in Eschatology (1992, International Theological Commission, under the leadership of Rev. Candido Pozo, S.J., with the approval of His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Commission) seems to resume a more traditional approach (in a "post-modern way, we may say ...), and a more balanced (albeit exorbitant) recourse to the words resurrection (151 times) and soul (68 times). Unnlike in the previous document, we see reappear the expressions "immortality of the soul" (1 time), and "immortal soul" (3 times).

In this document we can see the effort of skirting the pitfalls of Platonism ("Christian anthropology has characteristics proper to itself and quite different from the anthropology of the Platonic philosophers").


All the above being premised ...

Is there an element of ambiguity in the Catholic Church's position on eschatology?

Miguel de Servet
  • 496
  • 2
  • 10
  • As far as I understand it, paganism believed that the soul is immortal by nature, whereas Christianity believes that it is so by grace. –  May 27 '21 at 23:19
  • The obvious consequence of Christianity’s alleged belief in the immortality of the soul “by grace” is that it applies only to the elect. Are you ready to accept (and defend) the consequences? – Miguel de Servet May 27 '21 at 23:29
  • (I am not a Calvinist). –  May 28 '21 at 00:13
  • Good, then you should also have no problem with Hell not existing ... – Miguel de Servet May 28 '21 at 00:36
  • I'm testing the waters before attempting to answer. The Catholic Church base her teachings primarily on revealed truths, and secondarily on derived teachings which necessarily contain some speculations, resulting in the ambiguity perceived in various documents. The exact nature of the human soul belongs to the latter category, I think, but Resurrection of the Body, New Heaven and Earth, and Day of Judgment for the saved and unsaved belong to the former. Would an answer saying "yes, there is ambiguity on the latter category" and then listing the contents of both categories be acceptable? – GratefulDisciple May 28 '21 at 02:45
  • @GratefulDisciple Researching for my Question and then formulating it, when I spoke of "an element of ambiguity in the Catholic Church's position on eschatology" I had mostly in mind the instrumental, consciously non-scriptural way in which the Catholic Church uses notions like "soul", "immortal soul", "immortality of the soul", Hell, Heaven, Purgatory, in its documents, of which I have linked two. (BTW, their pastoral-liturgical use is virtually non-existent, by now, except for funerals). Also, whether the Catholic Church is successful in its "effort of skirting the pitfalls of Platonism". – Miguel de Servet May 28 '21 at 07:09
  • I skimmed through the 1992 document, which basically defended some understanding of the continuity of soul in the intermediate state to support the Biblical understanding of resurrection of the body as well as to continue support for the age-old practice of purgatory, praying for the dead, and invocation of saints. As you say, the document self consciously tries to "skirt the pitfalls of Platonism". I say it's successful and IS pretty much the present position. It also clarifies potential ambiguity with some of Aquinas's teaching regarding the "I". So, what answer are you seeking? – GratefulDisciple May 28 '21 at 14:01
  • @GratefulDisciple I am looking in detail into the 1992 document. Unlike you, I confirm so far my impression of ambiguity (which is present with a vengeance in the 1979 document, BTW). Ambiguity, indeed, "IS pretty much the present position". I am not sure what you mean by "Aquinas's teaching regarding the I". Ultimately, the strain between "conscious separate soul" and "resurrection of the whole person" will snap. – Miguel de Servet May 28 '21 at 14:09
  • The 1979 document is a direction to theologians containing 7 teachings to be preserved, so by its nature is not specific. I see the 1992 document as the theologians (ITC) doing their homework, coming up with specifics that are, in my view, consistent with those 7 teachings. Where do you see the discrepancy? I haven't read Cullmann's book yet, but because he's Protestant I anticipate agreement about resurrection of the whole person, day of judgment, and hell, but disagreement in soul's specifics that Catholic needs to preserve Purgatory, invocation of saints, and praying for the dead. – GratefulDisciple May 28 '21 at 16:26
  • @GratefulDisciple I am not sure what you mean by "the 1979 document ... is not specific". It is about eschatology, exactly like the 1992 doc. Where did I say that I saw a "discrepancy" wetween them? The 1992 doc is only even more ambiguous, in its trying (trying ...) to reconcile the "intermediate state of the soul" with the "resurrection at the parusia". Somethin' gotta give ... – Miguel de Servet May 28 '21 at 16:34
  • 1
    I replied to your latest comment in the chat. – GratefulDisciple May 28 '21 at 16:47

0 Answers0