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

[Vile_Servant]

Please explain why the Rich Man was concerned about his brothers when compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are forever cut off from God’s graces?

Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica, Question 98 : The will and intellect of the damned, Article 4:
"Whether in hell the damned would wish others were damned who are not damned?

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. "

(newadvent.org/summa/5098.htm#article4)

 

[Vile_Servant]

It’s covered in Fr. Benedict Groeschel’s book*, “A Still, Small Voice*”. I don’t have it in front of me. I read if at Barnes & Noble while waiting for my wife and daughter to finish shopping.

From Page 59 of “A Still, Small Voice” ;
“It is reported that Saint Catherine of Siena learned from a vision of the Virgin Mary herself that the Immaculate Conception was not true”.

None of Saint Catherine of Siena’s writings were cited by the author, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, to substantiate this claim in his book.

 

[Vile_Servant]

From the Vatican’s Website …"We must note that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the final destiny after the Last Judgement, but is taking up a notion found,* inter alia*, in early Judaism, namely that of an intermediate state between death and resurrection, a state in which the final sentence is yet to be pronounced.

This early Jewish idea of an intermediate state includes the view that these souls are not simply in a sort of temporary custody but, as the parable of the rich man illustrates, are already being punished or are experiencing a provisional form of bliss. There is also the idea that this state can involve purification and healing which mature the soul for communion with God. The early Church took up these concepts, and in the Western Church they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory"
What produces purification? Fire. It can both destroy AND purify without destroying…at the same time. Just as Paul said in 1 Cor 3: 12-15 A man will suffer loss but will ultimately be saved as one escaping through fire. Who’s the one suffering in fire?

From the same Vatican website;
“In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst.”

It’s quite clear that the Vatican also taught that the rich man in Jesus’ parable had irreparably ruined his soul and is in hell, not purgatory.

Yes, souls in purgatory suffer and are purified by fire; just as souls in hell are tormented by fire. In purgatory, souls are not only capable of love, they are also completely immersed in loving God and obeying His will.

 

[Sir_Knight]

From the same Vatican website;
"In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst."

It’s quite clear that the Vatican also taught that the rich man in Jesus’ parable had irreparably ruined his soul and is in hell, not purgatory.

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”.

 

[Sir_Knight]

From Page 59 of “A Still, Small Voice” ;
“It is reported that Saint Catherine of Siena learned from a vision of the Virgin Mary herself that the Immaculate Conception was not true”.

None of Saint Catherine of Siena’s writings were cited by the author, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, to substantiate this claim in his book.

You may be correct but I would like to think that he based this on something and didn’t just pull it in out thin air.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica, Question 98 : The will and intellect of the damned, Article 4:
"Whether in hell the damned would wish others were damned who are not damned?

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. "

(newadvent.org/summa/5098.htm#article4)

His OPINION is not consistent with the actions that we see as outlined in scripture and revealed to us in Church approved private revelation – that those in hell wish others to join them above all else even if it increases their own personal suffering.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Vile Servant
From Page 59 of “A Still, Small Voice” ;
“It is reported that Saint Catherine of Siena learned from a vision of the Virgin Mary herself that the Immaculate Conception was not true”.

Yesterday I tried doing a quick search on-line about this and found a couple of references to this same report but none that related back to or referenced a specific writing of St Catherine.
I would be interested in where this comes from too as I am currently working my way (slowly) through the “Dialogues” and after reading about 1/3 of the book I have seen no such reference.

Peace
James

 

[AmbroseSJ]

His OPINION is not consistent with the actions that we see as outlined in scripture and revealed to us in Church approved private revelation – that those in hell wish others to join them above all else even if it increases their own personal suffering.

St. Thomas Aquinas (a Doctor of the Church) is fully consistent with Scripture. Private revelations (even if approved) are meant only to be useful for pious reflection, and belief. IOW, they are NOT a source of doctrine. You are staking your entire argument on a mistaken impression that the rich man has compassion, which he doesn’t. The text from St. Thomas Aquinas fully refutes your contention that the rich man has compassion. No one in the Church, either in the past or all the way up untill now, has ever taught that the rich man had compassion. He is actually symbolic of a person with NO compassion. That is WHY he is in hell.

For you to argue that the rich man is in Purgatory is actually working AGAINST what Jesus is trying to teach by this parable. IOW you are working to destroy the parable that Jesus gave us with your argument. Jesus is trying to illustrate to us how damnable the rich man’s lack of compassion was, and you are denying that teaching of Jesus by saying the rich man WAS compassionate and will go to heaven!

Finally, I know you think this is a Scriptural proof of purgatory (because of some website) but it’s not. There are plenty of authentic proofs for purgatory. But no Church Father, Doctor, Saint or otherwise has EVER taught that the rich man was in purgatory, and that therefore this is proof of purgatory.

 

[ElizabethPH]

That would be incorrect. First off, there is nothing in the passage to indicate that the Rich Man was a source of bad example for his brothers. The brothers could have been a bad example for him. You can not draw a conclusion from an assumption.

Secondly, the demons draw people to hell despite the fact that their own suffering increases for every soul that goes down there as a result of their temptation showing that those in hell prefer the ruin of other souls EVEN IF it increases their own suffering.

Since the Rich Man wanted his brothers to be spared the same fate as he even though he would benefit nothing from it, showed that he cared about them – something not possible for someone in hell.

“But Abraham said to him (Dives): ‘They have Moses and the prophets (Dives 5 brethren); let them hear them.’ But he said: ‘No , father Abraham, but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance!’ Abraham said unto him: ‘If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise from the dead.’”

Dives was in Hell.

Besides it says clearly that he was in Hell. “Now it came to pass that the beggar died, and he was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. But the rich man also died, and he was buried in hell.” Found in Luke 16 19-31

 

[Sir_Knight]

“But Abraham said to him (Dives): ‘They have Moses and the prophets (Dives 5 brethren); let them hear them.’ But he said: ‘No , father Abraham, but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance!’ Abraham said unto him: ‘If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise from the dead.’”

Dives was in Hell.

Besides it says clearly that he was in Hell. “Now it came to pass that the beggar died, and he was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. But the rich man also died, and he was buried in hell.” Found in Luke 16 19-31

Did you read what I said earlier? The scripture writers and early church fathers used hell and the abode of the dead 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”.

 

[pepin1980]

The rich man is in hell, not purgatory. Souls in purgatory receive consolation, not so the souls in hell. The rich man wanted to warn his brothers, not out of compassion for them, but because he feared that his brothers would increase his own torment in hell should they end up there due to the rich man’s bad example.

This is exactly what Thomas Aquinas taught . Check out also This Rock, Volume 11, Issue 3:
“To say that the rich man must have been in purgatory because love cannot exist in hell is a conclusion based on an unsupportable premise. The Church does not teach that those in hell are bereft of all kinds of love. It is true that supernatural love of God cannot exist in hell, but a disordered love is involved in every mortal sin, and this perverse loving will remain.
What may appear as the rich man’s love and concern for his brothers may in fact be nothing more than self-interest. Thomas Aquinas asserted that the rich man knew that if his kin were damned his own suffering would increase. “[The damned’s] 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” (ST Supp.–III:98:4 ad 1).
Also according to Aquinas, the damned are consumed with envy for those who attain glory, even for their own kin, though perhaps to a lesser degree.
God does not purge people of all types of love before they enter hell, but in hell the separation from God and his divine love is accomplished forever, making supernatural love, or charity, impossible. Love of evil, however, remains.”

So the rich man is in hell - cannot be used as proof for purgatory.

 

[Sir_Knight]

St. Thomas Aquinas (a Doctor of the Church) is fully consistent with Scripture. Private revelations (even if approved) are meant only to be useful for pious reflection, and belief. IOW, they are NOT a source of doctrine. You are staking your entire argument on a mistaken impression that the rich man has compassion, which he doesn’t. The text from St. Thomas Aquinas fully refutes your contention that the rich man has compassion. No one in the Church, either in the past or all the way up untill now, has ever taught that the rich man had compassion. He is actually symbolic of a person with NO compassion. That is WHY he is in hell.

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 – 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.

Finally, I know you think this is a Scriptural proof of purgatory (because of some website) but it’s not. There are plenty of authentic proofs for purgatory. But no Church Father, Doctor, Saint or otherwise has EVER taught that the rich man was in purgatory, and that therefore this is proof of purgatory.

Since they used hell and abode of the dead interchangeably, you can not make that statement with complete certainty.

 

[ElizabethPH]

Did you read what I said earlier? The scripture writers and early church fathers used hell and the abode of the dead 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”.

Sorry I missed what you wrote earlier; I got as far as your post that I quoted and was compelled to post.

This passage also convinces me Dives was actually in hell. “And besides all this, between us and you there is fixed a great chasm, so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot; nor from thence come hither.”

The abode of the dead in parable is Abrahams bosom, in this case and hell is meant as hell, eternal damnation.

 

[Sir_Knight]

making supernatural love, or charity, impossible

I rest my case!

He was CONCERNED about his brothers’ well-being above and beyond his own. He had COMPASSION for them – which is a grace from God and those in hell do not receive any of God’s graces. And, as I have already explained, those in hell prefer others to be damned with them EVEN IF it increases their own suffering.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Sorry I missed what you wrote earlier; I got as far as your post that I quoted and was compelled to post.

This passage also convinces me Dives was actually in hell. “And besides all this, between us and you there is fixed a great chasm, so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot; nor from thence come hither.”

The abode of the dead in parable is Abrahams bosom, in this case and hell is meant as hell, eternal damnation.

The abode of the dead could also refer to purgatory in addition. Plus, if he was in hell, he would not see the righteous of God nor be able to talk to them. He DID talk to them and could see Abraham and Lazarus.

 

[JRKH]

Sorry I missed what you wrote earlier; I got as far as your post that I quoted and was compelled to post.

** This passage also convinces me Dives was actually in hell. “And besides all this, between us and you there is fixed a great chasm, so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot; nor from thence come hither.”**

The abode of the dead in parable is Abrahams bosom, in this case and hell is meant as hell, eternal damnation.

A passage that I also noticed but seems to have been overlooked in the general discussion.

Peace
James

 

[Sir_Knight]

A passage that I also noticed but seems to have been overlooked in the general discussion.

And that passage further proves that the Rich Man could not have been in hell. Those in hell are permanately cut off. How could those in heaven possibly enjoy heaven if they constantly heard a loved one crying out to them from hell?

So it shows they were in the same place. Different levels where one could not pass to the other but if you can see me and I can see you we are in the same place. If the Rich Man was in hell, he would not have been able to see nor communicate with Abraham and Lazarus.

 

[JRKH]

And that passage further proves that the Rich Man could not have been in hell. Those in hell are permanately cut off. How could those in heaven possibly enjoy heaven if they constantly heard a loved one crying out to them from hell?

According to St Catherine in the Dialogues, this is not a problem. Those in heaven cannot wish for anything that God does not wish for. Their wills being united to God. Therefore those in heaven, seeing a “loved one” go to hell are not disturbed by this asnymore than God is disturbed by his “children” going to hell.

So it shows they were in the same place. Different levels where one could not pass to the other but if you can see me and I can see you we are in the same place. If the Rich Man was in hell, he would not have been able to see nor communicate with Abraham and Lazarus.

This is an interesting perspective though I’m not completely sure about your logic.

Peace
James

 

[Vile_Servant]

His OPINION is not consistent with the actions that we see as outlined in scripture and revealed to us in Church approved private revelation – that those in hell wish others to join them above all else even if it increases their own personal suffering.

Very well, you do not believe St Alphonsus Liguori and St Thomas Aquinas, two of the greatest Doctors of the Church. Let us hear what St Anthony of Padua (yet another Doctor of the Church) has to say on this matter;

Then, father, I beseech thee that wouldst send him to my father’s house, for I have five brethren,that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. [Lk 16.27-28]

“Too late, this rich man would like to start being a teacher, when before he had had no time for learning or teaching. When he had lost all hope for himself, this rich man, burning in hell, took thought for his family, saying: Then, father, I beseech thee. Notice his father, his house and his five brothers. The rich man’s father was the devil, whom he took after. His house was the world and worldly folk, among whom are his five brothers, all those devoted to the five bodily senses. **The rich man sees that he has been damned **on account of these five senses, dear as brothers to him. So he, who has had no pity on himself, seeks to forewarn, by a kind of mercy, those still devoted to the senses. Sinners love their bodily senses like brothers; good people treat them as servants.”

(Sermon of St Anthony of Padua - First Sunday After Pentecost)

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.