Help in answering a Purgatory query of a non-catholic friend

[mullenpm]

This thread has clearly gone beyond with the OP requested and I fear he will never receive any help unless he joins in and asks his question again.

But until that happens; Sir Knight, why do you not believe in Scripture? How can you be arguing so strongly against what is clearly written in Luke. You are putting your own interpretation on what Gospel tells us = that the rich man was “buried in hell” or “the netherworld”

If you truly believe the rich man is indeed in Purgatory, I suggest you begin praying for his Soul.

 

[Vile_Servant]

He is obviously speaking figuratively ( *" … The rich man’s father was the devil … " *).

What no one can explain is how was the rich man was able to be concerned about his brothers’ well being even if it wouldn’t benefit him in any way when compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are forever cut off from His graces? Even the quotes from Church Doctors presented here by others bear that out.

Additionally, Church Teaching, scripture and church approved private revelation (all three) tells us that those in hell want others to join them even if it increases their own suffering so to answer that he wanted to spare himself additional suffering if his brothers joined him doesn’t fly.

If somebody can explain how he was able to show compassion for others when those in hell have no compassion, I’ll gladly admit my error in this matter. Until then, we’re just going around in circles as we’ve done in the past and I’ll bow out of this thread.

If you do not wish to listen to the explanations of three illustrious Saints and Doctors of the Church, then I doubt if you will be convinced even if the rich man himself were to rise from the dead to tell you where he went.

peace.

 

[ElizabethPH]

He is obviously speaking figuratively ( *" … The rich man’s father was the devil … " *).

What no one can explain is how was the rich man was able to be concerned about his brothers’ well being even if it wouldn’t benefit him in any way when compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are forever cut off from His graces? Even the quotes from Church Doctors presented here by others bear that out.

Additionally, Church Teaching, scripture and church approved private revelation (all three) tells us that those in hell want others to join them even if it increases their own suffering so to answer that he wanted to spare himself additional suffering if his brothers joined him doesn’t fly.

If somebody can explain how he was able to show compassion for others when those in hell have no compassion, I’ll gladly admit my error in this matter. Until then, we’re just going around in circles as we’ve done in the past and I’ll bow out of this thread.

Dives was evil/what you call compassion towards his brethren is not at all compassion but his attachment to evil and his futal attempt at saving that evil from eternal damnation which was where he was.

 

[Vile_Servant]

This thread has clearly gone beyond with the OP requested and I fear he will never receive any help unless he joins in and asks his question again.

But until that happens; Sir Knight, why do you not believe in Scripture? How can you be arguing so strongly against what is clearly written in Luke. You are putting your own interpretation on what Gospel tells us = that the rich man was “buried in hell” or “the netherworld”

If you truly believe the rich man is indeed in Purgatory, I suggest you begin praying for his Soul.

If the rich man was indeed in Purgatory (as Sir Knight claims), he would have wanted all his five sinful brothers to join him there to be purified and be saved. Why on earth would the “compassionate” rich man want his brothers to be damned by keeping them OUT of purgatory, thereby condemning them to hell?

 

[Vile_Servant]

Actually, it didn’t. The ONLY teaching we have about this is from a time when hell and the abode of the dead were used interchangeably. Case in point: in the creed we read that Jesus descended into “hell” and, as I already pointed out earlier, we know that is not possible because by definition, hell is the absence of God and as soon as Jesus entered hell, it would have stopped being hell. Thus, the Church Fathers MEANT that Jesus descended into the abode of the dead even though they said “hell”.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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

Therefore, “hell” (Sheol) - the abode of the dead, consisted of two parts; a) Abraham’s bosom, and b) the hell of damnation. Notice that Scripture does not call “purgatory” by any name, and Jesus’ audience did not know what purgatory was. Hence the rich man in the parable is in the hell of damnation.

 

[Vile_Servant]

If what you say is true, then the devil and his demons would not be trying to lead people into hell because for each new soul that they snatch, their suffering would increase and in order to spare themselves additional suffering, they would not want others souls to join them but we know from both scripture and church teaching that this is not so – the devil and his demons’ goal is to lead all who they can into hell –

Yes, St Thomas Aquinas taught in Summa Theologica , Question 98, Article 4, Objection 3;

*"Objection 3. Further, the damned do not desire the increase of their punishment. Now if more were damned, their punishment would be greater, even as the joy of the blessed is increased by an increase in their number. Therefore the damned desire not the damnation of those who are saved.

Reply to Objection 3. Although an increase in the number of the damned results in an increase of each one’s punishment, so much the more will their hatred and envy increase that they will prefer to be more tormented with many rather than less tormented alone." *

thus disproving your theory that the Rich Man was not acting out of compassion. He WAS concerned about his brothers above and beyond his own welface – thus showing that he was receiving graces from God which would not have been possible if he was in hell.

This is not correct. St Thomas Aquinas taught in Summa Theologica ,Question 98, Article 4, Objection 1 (which I have already quoted to you earlier in this thread) as follows;

*"Objection 1. It would seem that in hell the damned would not wish others were damned who are not damned. For it is said (Luke 16:27-28) of the rich man that he prayed for his brethren, lest they should come “into the place of torments.” Therefore in like manner the other damned would not wish, at least their friends in the flesh to be damned in hell.

Reply to Objection 1. So great will be the envy of the damned that they will envy the glory even of their kindred, since they themselves are supremely unhappy, for this happens even in this life, when envy increases. Nevertheless they will envy their kindred less than others, and their punishment would be greater if all their kindred were damned, and others saved, than if some of their kindred were saved. For this reason the rich man prayed that his brethren might be warded from damnation: for he knew that some are guarded therefrom. Yet he would rather that his brethren were damned as well as all the rest. "*

Why do you not accept St Thomas Aquinas’ teaching in its entirety?

 

[PJM]

=alitaptap;6375759]How can I convince my friend (non-catholic) asking me how can I explain the repentant thief on Calvary and Enoch the father of the oldest man recorded in the Bible who wasn’t died and took by God. How can I tell him that they go through the Purgatory?

Thanks.

Actually neither of these two likely did

As I recall God saw fit to “assume” Enoch body and soul into heaven. Therefor, God who is perfect and can’t allow one is has not been perfected into His Presence. There are Saints who too have did and gone directly to heaven.

A for the so called “good theif.” It is quite possible that God considered his last minute testimony as Martyrdom in Blood; one of the three form of Baptism. As he had no opportunity to sin; he would therefore have been washed in “the Blod of the Lamb” and both all of his sins as well as thpayback efects of those sins were errased.

 

[Vile_Servant]

Actually neither of these two likely did

As I recall God saw fit to “assume” Enoch body and soul into heaven. Therefore, God who is perfect and can’t allow one is has not been perfected into His Presence. There are Saints who too have did and gone directly to heaven.

There is no mention that Enoch was taken to heaven. Simply that God took him. It is more likely that Enoch, was taken by God to Abraham’s bosom, to await the coming of the Saviour who would open the gates of Heaven to the just. There have also been Saints who passed through purgatory on the way to heaven, without being detained therein.

As for the so called “good thief.” It is quite possible that God considered his last minute testimony as Martyrdom in Blood; one of the three form of Baptism. As he had no opportunity to sin; he would therefore have been washed in “the Blood of the Lamb” and both all of his sins as well as the payback effects of those sins were erased.

Even if the good thief was promised to with Christ that very day in paradise, and it was very likely that the good thief did not pass through purgatory at all, it did not exclude the possibility that the good thief did in fact spend a very short time (an hour, perhaps) in purgatory to complete his purification before going to paradise.

 

[inkaneer]

How can I convince my friend (non-catholic) asking me how can I explain the repentant thief on Calvary and Enoch the father of the oldest man recorded in the Bible who wasn’t died and took by God. How can I tell him that they go through the Purgatory?

Thanks.

Well for starters there is nothing in the scriptures that says Enoch went to Heaven. Instead in John 3:13 Jesus says:

“No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.”
[John 3:13

So from that I would say that Enoch was not in heaven. As for the Good thief, there is nothing to indicate he went to heaven either. Jesus says to him:

"And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
[Luke 23:43]

Jesus does not say heaven here. The Greek term ouranos is used to denote heaven in other Bible verses. In Luke 23:43 however, ouranos is not used. Instead the Greek word paradeisos is used. paradeisos was thought by later Jews to be the abode of the souls of the OT pious waiting for the resurrection. So these people did not go directly to heaven but to what Jesus described as the the “bosum of Abraham” to await the resurrection. We cannot determine any more than that from the scriptural evidence. Some believe that the “bosum of Abraham” was purgatory. Others say no it was a temporary state for the OT saints until the resurrection.

 

[kelvinf]

John 5:28-29:

Do not be surprised at this; the time is coming when all the dead will hear his voice and come out of their graves: those who have done good will rise and live, and those who have done evil will rise and be condemned

This passage should mean that there is nobody in heaven because the time is still to come when ALL the dead will… or how should one interpret it???

 

[kelvinf]

Well for starters there is nothing in the scriptures that says Enoch went to Heaven. Instead in John 3:13 Jesus says:

“No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.”
[John 3:13

So from that I would say that Enoch was not in heaven. As for the Good thief, there is nothing to indicate he went to heaven either. Jesus says to him:

"And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
[Luke 23:43]

Jesus does not say heaven here. The Greek term ouranos is used to denote heaven in other Bible verses. In Luke 23:43 however, ouranos is not used. Instead the Greek word paradeisos is used. paradeisos was thought by later Jews to be the abode of the souls of the OT pious waiting for the resurrection. So these people did not go directly to heaven but to what Jesus described as the the “bosum of Abraham” to await the resurrection. We cannot determine any more than that from the scriptural evidence. Some believe that the “bosum of Abraham” was purgatory. Others say no it was a temporary state for the OT saints until the resurrection.

So what about Elijah? 2 Kings 2:11:

As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

What is the difference between paradise and heaven then?
This is a dictionary definition of paradise:

a. The abode of righteous souls after death; heaven.
b. An intermediate resting place for righteous souls awaiting the Resurrection.

 

[inkaneer]

So what about Elijah? 2 Kings 2:11:

Quote:
As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

What is the difference between paradise and heaven then?
This is a dictionary definition of paradise:

Quote:
a. The abode of righteous souls after death; heaven.
b. An intermediate resting place for righteous souls awaiting the Resurrection.

Heaven does not always mean the heaven that we know. Paul speaks of a man who was caught up to the third heaven. That indicates two other heavens which traditionally has been interpreted as the first heaven being the sky, the second being space and the third being the abode of God. So Elijah may have been caught up into the sky, the first heaven. As for the dictionary definitions those only represent the current word usage but as word usage changes dictionaries change with them.

 

[kelvinf]

Heaven does not always mean the heaven that we know. Paul speaks of a man who was caught up to the third heaven. That indicates two other heavens which traditionally has been interpreted as the first heaven being the sky, the second being space and the third being the abode of God. So Elijah may have been caught up into the sky, the first heaven. As for the dictionary definitions those only represent the current word usage but as word usage changes dictionaries change with them.

That should be 2 Corinthians 12:2. The version of my bible calls it “highest” heaven.

Anyway, I have unfortunately not yet read the complete story of Elijah. So what happened to Elijah after that? Was he ever seen again?

If Elijah went up into the sky, what does that mean? People normally die or …(I don’t know)

The same language was used in the case of Jesus of Nazareth "… and was taken up into heaven? (Luke 24:51)
I understand the original translations might not be the same but how will an ordinary person (I mean someone who has never really studied scripture) get to know the difference when reading the bible?

 

[JRKH]

That should be 2 Corinthians 12:2. The version of my bible calls it “highest” heaven.

Anyway, I have unfortunately not yet read the complete story of Elijah. So what happened to Elijah after that? Was he ever seen again?

If Elijah went up into the sky, what does that mean? People normally die or …(I don’t know)

The same language was used in the case of Jesus of Nazareth "… and was taken up into heaven? (Luke 24:51)
I understand the original translations might not be the same but how will an ordinary person (I mean someone who has never really studied scripture) get to know the difference when reading the bible?

Elijah is mentioned by Jesus in Mt 17:3 and agian in verses 11 and 12 during and after teh transfiguration.

2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Eli’jah, talking with him.…

10 And the disciples asked him, “Then why do the scribes say that first Eli’jah must come?” 11 He replied, “Eli’jah does come, and he is to restore all things; 12 but I tell you that Eli’jah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of man will suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.

Peace
James

 

[inkaneer]

That should be 2 Corinthians 12:2. The version of my bible calls it “highest” heaven.

Anyway, I have unfortunately not yet read the complete story of Elijah. So what happened to Elijah after that? Was he ever seen again?

If Elijah went up into the sky, what does that mean? People normally die or …(I don’t know)

The same language was used in the case of Jesus of Nazareth "… and was taken up into heaven? (Luke 24:51)
I understand the original translations might not be the same but how will an ordinary person (I mean someone who has never really studied scripture) get to know the difference when reading the bible?

Read the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-40. He did not understand the scriptures and needed the help of the Church, in the form of Phillip, to explain them to him. This stuff about self study of scripture is a protestant lie and only proves what Peter said in 2Peter 3:15-16:

“. . . So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” [2Peter 3:15-16]

 

[kelvinf]

Elijah is mentioned by Jesus in Mt 17:3 and agian in verses 11 and 12 during and after teh transfiguration.

2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Eli’jah, talking with him.…

10 And the disciples asked him, “Then why do the scribes say that first Eli’jah must come?” 11 He replied, “Eli’jah does come, and he is to restore all things; 12 but I tell you that Eli’jah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of man will suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.

Peace
James

Yes, but I am still interested in knowing what happened to Elijah as mentioned in 2 Kings.

 

[kelvinf]

Read the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-40. He did not understand the scriptures and needed the help of the Church, in the form of Phillip, to explain them to him. This stuff about self study of scripture is a protestant lie and only proves what Peter said in 2Peter 3:15-16:

“. . . So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” [2Peter 3:15-16]

Thanks for the references. But I don’t know if you could still weigh in on the questions I asked?

 

[inkaneer]

Thanks for the references. But I don’t know if you could still weigh in on the questions I asked?

All we know of Elijah is what is written in the scripture. Many people have conjectured where he went but it is just conjecture. The only sure thing we know is what the scriptures say of him.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Sir Knight, why do you not believe in Scripture? How can you be arguing so strongly against what is clearly written in Luke. You are putting your own interpretation on what Gospel tells us = that the rich man was “buried in hell” or “the netherworld”

I do believe in scripture. Scripture and the early church writings used the term “hell” interchangeably with the abode of the dead in many places. Additionally, scripture teaches us that those in hell want others to join them even if it increases their own punishment. The church also teaches us that those in hell are forever cut off from God’s graces. Since the Rich man displayed the grace of compassion, the only logical conclusion is that he could not be in hell.

If you truly believe the rich man is indeed in Purgatory, I suggest you begin praying for his Soul.

I pray for ALL the souls in purgatory – I devote the fourth mystery of every rosary that I say for that intention.

 

[Sir_Knight]

If you do not wish to listen to the explanations of three illustrious Saints and Doctors of the Church, then I doubt if you will be convinced even if the rich man himself were to rise from the dead to tell you where he went.

Sorry, but that is a cop-out. I presented a logically thought out argument based on biblical & church concepts and instead of finding the flaw in that logical flow, you merely decided to dismissed it because you COULDN’T find any logical flaws in my argument.