Lazarus and the Rich Man: Purgatory or Hell

[Gorgias]

I think Hahn’s arguments are not fully developed. … There are indeed some weaknesses in what he argues; but those weaknesses are perhaps related to the audience he is speaking to. eg: He is giving an abbreviated compendium of his studies in a somewhat impromptu talk.

I got the same vibe, especially given that he misquotes Scripture…

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Au contraire!

If the result of ignoring the suffering of others is only ‘more purification’ – rather than ‘damnation’ – then Jesus’ message is reduced to “this is something you should do, but don’t worry about it – there’s no lasting ramification to mistreating the poor.” On the other hand, if the rich man is in hell, then Jesus’ message is consistent with His parable of the sheep and the goats: mistreatment of the poor is sufficient to condemn us to eternal torment.

It’s not only profitable, but essential to realize that Jesus is telling us that “love your neighbor as yourself” is an inseparable part of His message of salvation!

I don’t disagree with your last sentence whatsoever. I just think it is a distraction to focus on the question of hell vs. purgatory. The point is, we don’t want to be like the Rich Man.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

First of all, its a parable, not an actual event.

Neofight, you have absolutely no way to prove it’s a made up story.
That’s a gratuitous interpretation.
All verse numbers and chapter headings are additions to the bible by scholars of varying opinions. Popular passage headings are not part of the inspired text of the bible. They are not considered infallible church teaching. Every Catholic is free to to believe the event is actual. Scott Hahn clearly does. Asserting that it absolutely isn’t an actual event is condescending.

Secondly, it is teaching a lesson (although arguably not the central lesson) on baptism.

Fire is the torment of eternal damnation (and as the Economy of Salvation evolves, would be the means of purgation).

In the Rich Man’s case, fire is tormenting.

I am not arguing that fire isn’t tormenting him. I see no reason to disagree.

Jesus
was pointing out how Water (the allegory for baptism, which to be efficacious requires repentance for those above the age of reason …“Repent and be baptized”) provides the sanctifying grace that would allow us salvation instead of eternal torment like the Rich Man was realizing.

Be Glad!

There are things you have said here which I will need to think about.
Abraham was not saved by water. We have no proof whether the rich man had faith or not.
Presuming the man is damned to prove the question of whether he is in hell (and not just hades/sheol) would be inappropriate in an apologetics setting.

If the passage about Lazarus and the rich man is definitively about baptism (therefore hell); then Scott Hahn is in serious error

Consider CCC 633. vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm

The razor blade is whether or not the rich man is damned eternally.

All of us are “evil” in some sense. Only God is good. cf: Matthew 7:11, Mark 10:18. Even though the CCC is a faithful norm of teaching, it doesn’t actually say that the rich man is damned.

I think we need to check the ecumenical counsels, Florence, Trent, etc. and see if the passage we are discussing is ever used as proof text about Hell. Does a dogmatic teaching ever require us to believe that the rich man is damned.

 

[goout]

First of all, its a parable, not an actual event.

Secondly, it is teaching a lesson (although arguably not the central lesson) on baptism.

Fire is the torment of eternal damnation (and as the Economy of Salvation evolves, would be the means of purgation).

In the Rich Man’s case, fire is tormenting.

Jesus was pointing out how Water (the allegory for baptism, which to be efficacious requires repentance for those above the age of reason …“Repent and be baptized”) provides the sanctifying grace that would allow us salvation instead of eternal torment like the Rich Man was realizing.

Be Glad!

Most of the interpretations I have seen receive the passage as a warning against complacency and indifference to the suffering of others.

 

[Neofight]

Neofight, you have absolutely no way to prove it’s a made up story.
That’s a gratuitous interpretation.
Asserting that it absolutely isn’t an actual event is condescending.

I don’t have anything to say about your other comments, because I can’t get over your starting assumption.

Talk about condescending! How can anyone reduce this or any other scriptural parable, one of Christ’s major teaching methods, to be a "made up story". What an unfortunate statement.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I don’t have anything to say about your other comments, because I can’t get over your starting assumption.

Talk about condescending! How can anyone reduce this or any other scriptural parable, one of Christ’s major teaching methods, to be a "made up story".

I thought you reduced the parable, yourself. ?! What I did was make a direct inference.
You said:

First of all, its a parable, not an actual event.

An event which is not actual is “fictional”. Correct?? When you said the parable is “not an actual event” you basically told me the “parable” is fiction. AKA “a made up story.” If I am mistaken, please clarify.

I wrote about the story of the rich man and Lazarus having unusual features. The story has things in it which strongly suggest that it is some kind of real event. But you didn’t talk about any of my comments.

Your response to me: “first of all, it’s a parable, not a real event.”

I thought your response was surprisingly “condescending.” When someone ignores my remarks entirely and uses a massive generalization, I tend to have hurt feelings.

Perhaps you didn’t mean it to come off that way? Am I being over-sensitive?
Is there something you would like to explain?

 

[Neofight]

I thought you reduced the parable, yourself. ?! What I did was make a direct inference.
You said:

An event which is not actual is “fictional”. Correct?? That’s something I learned in second grade. When you said the parable is “not an actual event” you basically told me the “parable” is fiction. AKA “a made up story.” If I am mistaken, please clarify.

I wrote about the story of the rich man and Lazarus having unusual features. The story has things in it which strongly suggest that it is some kind of real event. But you didn’t talk about any of my comments.

Your response to me: “first of all, it’s a parable, not a real event.”

I thought your response was surprisingly “condescending.” When someone ignores my remarks entirely and uses a massive generalization, I tend to jump to that conclusion.

Perhaps you didn’t mean it to come off that way? Am I being over-sensitive?
Is there something you would like to explain?

Yeah, but only one more time.

Compare what I said: “first of all, its a parable, not a real event,” to this definition of parable (from Google…not much different from other dictionary websites…I liked it because of the rdirect eference to Jesus):

***par·a·ble

/ˈperəb(ə)l/

noun

noun: parable; plural noun: parables

a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.

synonyms: allegory, moral story/tale, fable, exemplum
“the parable of the prodigal son” ***

My description of the teachings of Christ as “not a real event”, is a far cry from your twisting it to “a made up story”. And, then you claimed my comments were condescending. I would submit to you referring to “a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual less, as told by Jesus in the Gospels” as “a made up story” is, as I have previously stated, a very unfortunate statement, indeed, and far more condescending than mine.

I’ve had my say, I don’t think you understand me, and I really can’t understand you, so I’m unsubscribing to this particular thread.

Hoping you find peace.

Neof

 

[jcrichton]

I think sin does require restitution when possible, but not necessarily in proportion to what was lost. Eg: An attempt at restitution is required, but seldom the fullness of repayment. Restitution is the very principle of penance. Either praying for someone we have hurt, doing an act of charity to make up for what was lost, or actually restoring what what taken. Purification is also related to restitution; the restoring of grace lost. The church is praying, and the church is suffering. A sinner is seldom given a penance that repays the sin, especially if the affront to God’s goodness is taken into account; but penance is usually given.

I agree that God does not demand from man what is impossible. I don’t have any idea of proportions, but I agree perpetrators are oblivious to the pain of others. However, in this particular case I want to emphasize that the rich man could not really have avoided knowing. Maybe you mean oblivious in a subjective sense, and not objective ?

The sores described by Jesus are so obnoxiously large that no once could possibly miss them. Moreover, Lazarus was laid down at the rich man’s doorway (the gate.) The rich man would “step over” Lazarus to leave home. I think the rich man considered Lazarus an eyesore and impediment. (literally). Jews routinely thought that blessings were a sign of God’s favor, and that illness was caused by sin (alone). Lazarus was automatically considered a sinner. Cf: John 9:2 “Teacher, who sinned? Was it this man or his parents which caused him to be born blind?” etc.

I think dogs are just dogs. (No offense intended.) Their capacity is conditioning and instinct. God may have sent them to Lazarus, but that’s not the point I was questioning. I don’t like assigning guilt to a person when it can not be proven; eg: as you judge, you will be judged. I’ve been on the loosing end of slander and false witness. I have even had priests condemning me for things I didn’t do; all because they judged shallowly and accepted slander from my ex-wife. There is often “more to the story” than first meets the eye.

You may be right … but I’m reluctant. I’m interested in what Lazarus would have thought as a real person in the abode of the dead. I don’t think Jesus’s parables are so shallow that they become worthless the more realistic one believes them to be.

I have other thoughts which may not directly support my point, but are worth mentioning: Dogs have a special place in stories of people who come to an evil death. I mean of Jezebel, and several other notorious old testament figures. Dogs arrive whenever someone is not buried, for the person was evil. Dogs eat up the flesh, and lick up the blood. Dogs were not always the cuddly pets we have today… their purposes were different at that time.

When Jesus introduces them into the parables, he may have multiple motives for doing so.

I’m not sure. Jesus does paraphrase “tit for tat” using Abraham’s lips: “Remember son, you had good things in your life and Lazarus had evil… Now you have evil and Lazarus has good…”

I think a Pound for a Pound is quite actively being considered by Abraham. Jesus is the one who made Abraham speak.

Well… you’ve sort of swept my point under the rug. Also, Lazarus did rise from the dead. He did so even before Jesus did. Jesus raised Lazarus in order to fulfill the prophecy made in the parable. That was (ironically) the “final straw” which made Jesus’ enemies absolutely determined to kill him.

My point is this: God is never outdone in mercy and justice. There will never be a smallest tittle of mercy that God does not repay, nor an injustice of the tiniest amount one will be able to attribute to God. At least, that’s what I believe.

The rich man, according to the law of Moses, ought to have put his dogs to death for having come into contact with something unclean. Yet the rich man does nothing to stop his dogs. He has the tiniest shard of a claim to mercy. It can be dismissed by us, but I don’t believe God will do so.

…we are viewing from different periscopes… my experience has been that the unrighteous are oblivious to the pain suffered by their victims not because they do not see/understand their plight but because of self-absorption and grandeur)… Jesus Teaches that to be His Disciple one must Love the enemy, hence, Lazarus could not rejoice in the pain of the rich man, no matter how much pain the ignorance of his plight may have caused him. Since vengeance belongs to God, we are not even supposed to think about “they’ll get theirs” scenarios. God Does His Best Work Alone!

Though there was an actual Lazarus, he was well-off (own property, took care of his sisters, was well-known/liked in his town…)–what the two Lazarus share is their humility and their efforts in following God’s Will (the dogs’ compassion–something that animals show outside of themselves and their species in very seldom and specific cases–demonstrates this for the Lazarus of the parable).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t see the word for shades in the LXX (Greek). Although the Greek does have a word for that, it isn’t what was used when talking about Samuel. Ironic. The book of Samuel is attributed to Samuel. And the book posthumously records Samuel’s own “conjuring” by the witch of Endor… Saul is the one who ordered witches and mediums to be put to death. His order is an overzealous interpretation of the Law of Moses. Moses required that they could not live in the land (Exile would have sufficied), and notice that the woman shrewdly replies that she sees Samuel “Coming up out of the Land.”

There is no doubt that the woman is seeing a vision; and that at first Saul sees nothing. Spirits have no bodies… But spirits can (and do) talk to people, or else the devil never said a word to Adam or Eve… (cf: Locutions.)

In the parable itself, I’m not sure how to tell if there were bodies. What inference are we to look for? The only possible hint I see is that the rich man asks to “drink” water; eg: Let Lazarus bring water and touch it to my tongue. A spirit doesn’t need food, so I don’t suppose it needs water. Nor would physical water do it much good.

The Holy Spirit is considered an all consuming “fire” that does not burn; cf: the Burning bush of Moses, the Tounges of Fire at Pentecost, etc… The Holy Spirit is also the breath of God; a breath which stirs the waters and makes them bear life. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of Life. But the Holy Spirit is not water. The spirit sanctifies the water.
“He who is born from above is born from Spirit and Water.”

So why does the man ask for water itself?

…Jesus tells us that at the resurrection people will be as angels; we also have the Transfiguration, and Christ walking about in a Glorified body… the law of physics do not translate to the spiritual world; yet, man’s perspective is finite until he is changed and knows God as He knows him… hence, for the purpose of teaching (and perhaps from the finite understanding of those who do not gain Salvation) the five senses are applicable.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Huiou_Theou]

…we are viewing from different periscopes… my experience has been that the unrighteous are oblivious to the pain suffered by their victims not because they do not see/understand their plight but because of self-absorption and grandeur)…

O.K. That’s what I meant by “subjective” sense. I see.

Jesus Teaches that to be His Disciple one must Love the enemy, hence, Lazarus could not rejoice in the pain of the rich man, no matter how much pain the ignorance of his plight may have caused him. Since vengeance belongs to God, we are not even supposed to think about “they’ll get theirs” scenarios. God Does His Best Work Alone!

I don’t see how we can avoid thinking about it. We can avoid taking revenge, ourselves.
I mean; ~~ Do your enemy kindness, for you will be heaping burning coals on their head… (Proverbs 25:21-22).

But, the story of the rich man is essentially discussing the vengeance of God upon him.
That’s part of why the abyss is important in the story. The Abyss prevents Lazarus or Abraham from having mercy on the rich man. The only mercy permitted is prayer.

A form of vengeance has been decreed by God. The saints’ virtues will not be allowed to interfere with God’s decree. (They abyss was “placed” there, it’s not happenstance.) Therefore, the suffering rich man will receive the Lord’s purifying vengeance until the last penny has been paid.

That “abyss” is another reason that I am not sure the rich man is damned. For the rich man is not clearly said to be “in” the pit. Rather: The pit is said to be fixed between them. The pit just partitions one space from another … like the grand canyon…

Characters that we know are damned, such as the Devil, are generally said to be thrown into the “pit” and chained up. That’s not the case with the rich man.

Regarding your next post, Angel, I won’t quote it; but thank you. I understand you better. I agree. Jesus could be using analogy and metaphor to teach what is going on in the after-life. The reason he would be describing the rich man as asking for water is because his torment is invisible, and not easily understood. “Fire” might be the closest analogy Jesus’ listeners could understand. I can also agree that “water” would be symbolic of a remedy.

Though there was an actual Lazarus, he was well-off (own property, took care of his sisters, was well-known/liked in his town…)

The information I found on EWTN’s library archives concerning the real Lazarus don’t make him out to be rich in the slightest. He was well loved, that much is the same. So, I am not sure we have reliable information about him.

But, let me ask you this: In almost all Jesus’ parables he does not use names. Rather, Jesus avoids names. His parables are puzzles. He uses images and signs to make his listeners think. In the O.T. Israel is called God’s garden, so when Jesus makes a parable about a “vineyard”; The parable is clearly about Israel. etc.

However, in this particular story, Jesus goes out of his way to name the poor man. He also names Abraham, and finally Jesus also tells us an exact number of brothers for the rich man.

I don’t believe Jesus puts pointless details into his parables.
Each of these details need to have significance to the crowd.
Let me give an example: Lazarus is the Greek word for the name El-eazar. The Hebrew name means “The [almighty] has helped [me.]” So, I can see the name Lazarus being literary device and not the actual man’s name. If that’s the case, Jesus chose it to warn people that the poor man is not cursed by God. His name warns us that his illness does not condemn him.

A reason Jesus would choose to talk about Abraham is more difficult to discern; but I think Israelites believed their salvation was assured by the promise to Abraham. That’s why I cited John 8, earlier in this thread. Jesus desired to strip his enemies of the right to call Abraham “father.”

However, I do not see a reason that the rich man would say he has a specific number of brothers. If the exact number of brothers was a pointless detail, then all Jesus has done is make his parable less acceptable to the crowds. Many people would think, “I don’t have five brothers, the story does not apply to me.” etc. So, I think there must be a reasonable explanation for that number of brothers.

Why do you think Jesus put that detail in the story?

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t see how we can avoid thinking about it. We can avoid taking revenge, ourselves.
I mean; ~~ Do your enemy kindness, for you will be heaping burning coals on their head… (Proverbs 25:21-22).

…actually, that is our Call by Jesus Himself… He warns that if our eye, hand, foot, causes to sin… but He also tells us that if we lust upon another we have committed the sin–our thoughts are congruent/synonymous to the act; hence to God “virtual” reality is as consequential as “real time” reality. (Note also the comparison with Jesus caution: ‘It is not what enters man that contaminates him but that which is engendered from within.’–paraphrased.)

Our goal is not just to act like we are children of the Light but to actually be children of the Light.

But, the story of the rich man is essentially discussing the vengeance of God upon him.
That’s part of why the abyss is important in the story. The Abyss prevents Lazarus or Abraham from having mercy on the rich man. The only mercy permitted is prayer.

A form of vengeance has been decreed by God. The saints’ virtues will not be allowed to interfere with God’s decree. (They abyss was “placed” there, it’s not happenstance.) Therefore, the suffering rich man will receive the Lord’s purifying vengeance until the last penny has been paid.

I don’t see as God’s vengeance as much as the unfolding of God’s Justice; God is the ultimate equalizer: He lifts the humble and humbles the proud–yet, not out of some sense of retaliation since the humble (for the most part) inherently seek God (Abel) while the proud (again, for the most part) generally reject God in their boastful self-sufficiency.

That “abyss” is another reason that I am not sure the rich man is damned. For the rich man is not clearly said to be “in” the pit. Rather: The pit is said to be fixed between them. The pit just partitions one space from another … like the grand canyon…

Characters that we know are damned, such as the Devil, are generally said to be thrown into the “pit” and chained up. That’s not the case with the rich man.

Jesus explains that hell was made for the devil and his minions (those who follow his enmity with God–spirits or human); hence, the pit is already guaranteed for the anti-Christs (all who place themselves against Christ); yet, Judgment Day is not yet upon us so it is sound to judge that those who are dead may be awaiting the “pit” but not yet there (this is where Judaism’s Sheol comes in: there, in the abode of the dead, is a separation between those who died seeking God and those who died rejecting God)… though, as with Judas, only God Knows the finality of the rich man’s eternity.

The information I found on EWTN’s library archives concerning the real Lazarus don’t make him out to be rich in the slightest. He was well loved, that much is the same. So, I am not sure we have reliable information about him.

…I am speaking only from my own understanding–it seems to me that Lazarus sisters are not in a hurry to gain the protection of a man (marriage) in a culture where a woman was fully dependent upon this very asset (father, older brother, husband). Then there’s the prominence–sure poor people have always have friends and acquaintances… but then, as today, a man’s worth went far beyond goodwill and religiosity–money matters–including in securing a burial place! (Don’t know much about the customs but I rather think that a cave with a stone door would pass for a contemporary mausoleum–though I could be mistaken.)

But, let me ask you this: In almost all Jesus’ parables he does not use names. Rather, Jesus avoids names. His parables are puzzles. He uses images and signs to make his listeners think. In the O.T. Israel is called God’s garden, so when Jesus makes a parable about a “vineyard”; The parable is clearly about Israel. etc.

However, in this particular story, Jesus goes out of his way to name the poor man. He also names Abraham, and finally Jesus also tells us an exact number of brothers for the rich man.

It is difficult to segment this thought since it is so pack with pertinent and dependent values… so please do not judge my response… I find Lazarus of pertinent value in Jesus’ life since the news of Lazarus sickness is opened with “the one you love.” Lazarus enjoys a special relationship with Jesus that only one other could equal (the Disciple that the Lord loved)–these two, Lazarus and John, must have been akin to David being of God’s Heart (perhaps also Enoch); I can almost see Lazarus’ joy in find out that Jesus used his name in one of His parables, much like Peter’s overwhelmed heart/mind at Jesus’ Transfiguration: Heaven on earth!

{…to be continued}

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t believe Jesus puts pointless details into his parables.
Each of these details need to have significance to the crowd.
Let me give an example: Lazarus is the Greek word for the name El-eazar. The Hebrew name means “The [almighty] has helped [me.]” So, I can see the name Lazarus being literary device and not the actual man’s name. If that’s the case, Jesus chose it to warn people that the poor man is not cursed by God. His name warns us that his illness does not condemn him.

{Continued!}

I concur with you… Jesus’ parables are always packed with meaning and values… in the case of Lazarus (other than my take on it), you have supplied an excellent unfolding… if the parable is introduced prior to Lazarus’ death and resurrection it could very well be Jesus’ hidden type for what Lazarus would experience: sickness, death, and God’s direct intervention (note that Lazarus is the only person in Scriptures who is purposefully allowed to experience sickness and death only to fulfill Christ’s Revelation (I AM the Resurrection and the Life). God Truly helps!

A reason Jesus would choose to talk about Abraham is more difficult to discern; but I think Israelites believed their salvation was assured by the promise to Abraham. That’s why I cited John 8, earlier in this thread. Jesus desired to strip his enemies of the right to call Abraham “father.”

I think part of the problem is your conclusion from John 8; while it does seem that Jesus is seeking to retrain Israel’s lineage… I don’t think is so much to remove them from Abraham as much as to force the issue: Yahweh God is the Father; the One you Call God, Is My Father–Abraham cannot be your father for he is in Fellowship with My Father; if Abraham were to be your father you would Honor Me as I Come from Abraham’s God (I AM) and you would rejoice with him as he rejoiced in Me (I and the Father are One). Jesus is forcing them to choose: true descendants of Abraham must be in Fellowship with the I AM–choose wisely: Jesus or the devil!

However, I do not see a reason that the rich man would say he has a specific number of brothers. If the exact number of brothers was a pointless detail, then all Jesus has done is make his parable less acceptable to the crowds. Many people would think, “I don’t have five brothers, the story does not apply to me.” etc. So, I think there must be a reasonable explanation for that number of brothers.

Why do you think Jesus put that detail in the story?

I do not know of the value of the number 5–nothing comes to mind… as for “less acceptable…” I don’t know–a rich man falls from grace and his five brothers are his carbon copies… six men who relied upon themselves vs. one man who humbly (and presumably) relied upon God… one in seven sons of Abraham share Abraham’s Faith and destiny. (7 is perfection/completeness: the 7 spirits of God–conversely the 7 Sacraments.)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Vico]

Neofight, you have absolutely no way to prove it’s a made up story.
That’s a gratuitous interpretation.
All verse numbers and chapter headings are additions to the bible by scholars of varying opinions. Popular passage headings are not part of the inspired text of the bible. They are not considered infallible church teaching. Every Catholic is free to to believe the event is actual. Scott Hahn clearly does. Asserting that it absolutely isn’t an actual event is condescending.

I am not arguing that fire isn’t tormenting him. I see no reason to disagree.

There are things you have said here which I will need to think about.
Abraham was not saved by water. We have no proof whether the rich man had faith or not.
Presuming the man is damned to prove the question of whether he is in hell (and not just hades/sheol) would be inappropriate in an apologetics setting.

If the passage about Lazarus and the rich man is definitively about baptism (therefore hell); then Scott Hahn is in serious error

Consider CCC 633. vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm

The razor blade is whether or not the rich man is damned eternally.

All of us are “evil” in some sense. Only God is good. cf: Matthew 7:11, Mark 10:18. Even though the CCC is a faithful norm of teaching, it doesn’t actually say that the rich man is damned.

I think we need to check the ecumenical counsels, Florence, Trent, etc. and see if the passage we are discussing is ever used as proof text about Hell. Does a dogmatic teaching ever require us to believe that the rich man is damned.

Not impressed by the teaching of St. Pope John Paul II, General Audience, 28 July, 1999? It has:

Redemption nevertheless remains an offer of salvation which it is up to people to accept freely. This is why they will all be judged “by what they [have done]” (Rv 20:13). By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk 16:19-31).

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999.html

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Vico Long time, no read. Glad to see you.

Ummm… no, I’m not impressed. When it comes to the state of souls after death, the Vatican, PJP II, Ratzinger, and the present CDF have been internally conflicted.

eg: Let me refresh your memory. When the CCC came out under PJP II & Ratzinger @ CDF, I recall hearing the radio program from Catholic answers. The messagewe received from the CDF was that we were no longer allowed to believe in limbo. That was a theological opinion that was officially being removed from the books. We were told that Infants either go to heaven or to hell, but that we could “hope” that God has a way outside the sacrament for them to go to heaven. eg: That he would personally save them.

However, when I did some recent research into Florence and into Roe V. Wade, I discovered that the Vatican is now posting documents which propose… Limbo.
(You’ll absolutely love the document at the Vatican in the second post… look there first. )

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13269882&postcount=15
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12918189&postcount=19

If the rich man is definitively in hell, the Scott Hahn is in error. Scott believes the man is in purgatory. Now, Scott does sometimes make small cavalier mistakes when he gets rushed. But, I’ve never seen him make a major blunder when it came to dogma.

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned the mystics as well. Several Catholic saints have made statements along the line of the sufferings of Purgatory being no different from hell.
I am not sure whether JPII simply assumes the rich man is in hell, or if he spoke the audience in a different language and the translator inserted their own bias into the English; but whatever the cause, I think the general audience is attributing more to the parable than can actually be found in it.

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico Long time, no read. Glad to see you.

Ummm… no, I’m not impressed. When it comes to the state of souls after death, the Vatican, PJP II, Ratzinger, and the present CDF have been internally conflicted.

eg: Let me refresh your memory. When the CCC came out under PJP II & Ratzinger @ CDF, I recall hearing the radio program from Catholic answers. The messagewe received from the CDF was that we were no longer allowed to believe in limbo. That was a theological opinion that was officially being removed from the books. We were told that Infants either go to heaven or to hell, but that we could “hope” that God has a way outside the sacrament for them to go to heaven. eg: That he would personally save them.

However, when I did some recent research into Florence and into Roe V. Wade, I discovered that the Vatican is now posting documents which propose… Limbo.
(You’ll absolutely love the document at the Vatican in the second post… look there first. )

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13269882&postcount=15
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12918189&postcount=19

If the rich man is definitively in hell, the Scott Hahn is in error. Scott believes the man is in purgatory. Now, Scott does sometimes make small cavalier mistakes when he gets rushed. But, I’ve never seen him make a major blunder when it came to dogma.

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned the mystics as well. Several Catholic saints have made statements along the line of the sufferings of Purgatory being no different from hell.
I am not sure whether JPII simply assumes the rich man is in hell, or if he spoke the audience in a different language and the translator inserted their own bias into the English; but whatever the cause, I think the general audience is attributing more to the parable than can actually be found in it.

That statement about limbo was false if the radio station said it. The actual Magisterial document on it states that limbo has always been a theological opinion and there is no dogmatic definition regarding it. It is still so.

St. Pope John Paul II said it was a permanent gulf, therefore damnation.

 

[Gorgias]

Neofight, you have absolutely no way to prove it’s a made up story.
That’s a gratuitous interpretation. … Asserting that it absolutely isn’t an actual event is condescending.

Do souls have fingers? Tongues?

Of course not – they’re spiritual, not physical, entities! Therefore, if the story Jesus tells includes such details, then it’s clear that it’s not a literal, historical, factual account like you’d find on the evening news. In other words, it’s a story. QED.

Every Catholic is free to to believe the event is actual. Scott Hahn clearly does.

This is true. However, the fact that the Church doesn’t have a definitive interpretation on a particular piece of Scripture doesn’t mean that all opinions about that piece of Scripture are equally true and valid.

 

[Vico]

Do souls have fingers? Tongues?

Of course not – they’re spiritual, not physical, entities! Therefore, if the story Jesus tells includes such details, then it’s clear that it’s not a literal, historical, factual account like you’d find on the evening news. In other words, it’s a story. QED.

This is true. However, the fact that the Church doesn’t have a definitive interpretation on a particular piece of Scripture doesn’t mean that all opinions about that piece of Scripture are equally true and valid.

It could be literal because angels may appear in apparitions, so to the human there appears to be those physial attributes.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

It could be literal because angels may appear in apparitions, so to the human there appears to be those physial attributes.

Exactly. I sometimes have conversations with Atheists where I am forced to defend what really should be common sense. eg: The meaning of statements like: “that was a beautiful sunset.” The scientific fact that the earth “goes around the sun” has nothing to do with what the person was describing when they talked about the beauty of a sunset. Astrophysics isn’t even part of the conversation! I can hardly imagine taking a young lady out to eat, watching the evening arrive, and then say; “That was a beautiful earth rotation.”

Vico,
As to the radio station being in error. They were not reporting the document you cite. They were reporting an official press release from the Vatican. My understanding (at the time) was that the release came from Ratzinger as chair of the CDF. However, nothing said by the pope or the CDF is automatically binding on Catholics for all times. It’s not automatically ex-cathedra… so that’s my point. Just because the pope or CDF makes a comment in passing, does not make it dogma. If you re-read my thread on Florence, I was specifically interested in that counsel because it dogmatically defined that anyone who dies in original sin alone goes immediately to hell. It was a positive dogmatic statement that shocked me.

Dogmatically, any aborted (and saved) child can not die in original sin alone.

Invisible water…

 

[ajcstr]

Hello.

In Luke 16:19-31 we read the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

In the end Lazarus is in Abraham’s Bosom and the rich man is in a place of torment. I’ve always wondered if the place of torment were purgatory or hell. The thought occurred to me today that since the rich man shows concern for his brothers he is showing love and since those in hell cannot love he must be in purgatory.

Is this a correct understanding of this parable?

Thanks.

Brant Pitre weighs in:

youtube.com/watch?v=L3hRV-I-6-M

 

[Gorgias]

"Vico:

It could be literal because angels may appear in apparitions, so to the human there appears to be those physial attributes.

Exactly. I sometimes have conversations with Atheists where I am forced to defend what really should be common sense. eg: The meaning of statements like: “that was a beautiful sunset.” The scientific fact that the earth “goes around the sun” has nothing to do with what the person was describing when they talked about the beauty of a sunset.

Apples and oranges. A ‘sunset’ actually happens – it’s a description of a real and naturally occurring event, couched in a frame of reference from the surface of the planet. Vico, on the other hand, is talking about something that has no physical reality as a naturally occurring event, but only might occur if God creates a miracle.

But, maybe that’s your claim here? That Jesus is talking about something that never happens – but which He made happen in order that He might describe it? (That is – He performed a miracle in a way at odds with the way miracles happen in the Gospels (i.e., due to the faith of the believer) and for reasons that are at odds with the miracles in the Gospel (i.e., as signs that lead a person to belief).) If that’s your thesis, though, then I’m good with it – as long as you can demonstrate that the account is attempting to describe such an event. Go ahead… let’s see the evidence. (Hint: it ain’t there. )

The example doesn’t work. You’re grasping at straws, here…