Lazarus and the Rich Man: Purgatory or Hell

[jcrichton]

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.

Hi!
…I’m sorry to interject (not a scholar/theologian, etc.–not even an avid reader) but I believe that you are speaking about limbo in an erroneous assumption (Catholic Church dogma/Teaching vs. opinion/speculation held/engaged):

In the theology of the Catholic Church, Limbo (Latin limbus, edge or boundary, referring to the “edge” of Hell) is **a speculative idea **about the afterlife condition of those who die in original sin without being assigned to the Hell of the Damned. Medieval theologians of western Europe described the underworld (“hell”, “hades”, “infernum”) as divided into four distinct parts: Hell of the Damned,[2] Purgatory, Limbo of the Fathers or Patriarchs, and Limbo of the Infants. **However, Limbo of the Infants is not an official doctrine of the Catholic Church. **(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo)

Popes as well as any other Catholic person in the world and time may speak on opinions/speculations they have on any subject, including theological issues.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Vico]

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…

Council of Lyons stated that:
The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.

Council of Florence stated that:
Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.

So infants dying without baptism are in original sin, so do not receive the beatific vision, which is the chief suffering of hell, however there may be no other suffering but rather a state of peace, having no actual sin. There could also be no merit or demerit since there was no exercise of free will.

You mean from Ratzinger’s Book or from the 2007 statement?

Cardinal Ratzinger’s Book (Joseph Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985, pp. 147-148) had: “One should not hesitate to give up the idea of ‘limbo, …’”.
And the Italian was: “Si lasci pure cadere il concetto di ‘limbo’ se è necessario.”
(“Just let the concept of ‘limbo’ drop if need be,” )

 

[Jesus_123]

+Our Holy Mother Catholic Church has wonderfully . . . and with great holy wisdom . . . further “doctrinally” dealt with children who have died without baptism as recorded below . . . leaving them in the merci:heart:ful Hands of God . . .

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
THE CATECHISM
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Section Two
The Seven Sacraments of the Church

CHAPTER ONE
THE SACRAMENTS OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION
**
II. Baptism in the Economy of Salvation**

1227
According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ’s death, is buried with him, and rises with him:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into **Christ Jesus **were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.29

The baptized have** “put on Christ.”**30 Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.31

VI. The Necessity of Baptism

1257
The** Lord **himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1261
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and ***Jesus’ ***tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

---

:compcoff: Link: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.shtml#art1

. . . all for Jesus​

+
. . . thank You Precious Lord+
. . .our **God **and our Saviour+
. . . our All+​

​

 

[fred_conty]

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.

Maybe the rich man’s intentions really wasn’t about his concern for his brothers, but a way of saying that it really isn’t fair that he wound up in hell. If only God had sent someone directly to warn him he would have known. It was a “cop out” denying he was really to blame for his wrong doing and it was really God’s fault for not doing a better job. Jesus’ reply was that he did his job but the rich man didn’t do his.

So my own take on this is that the rich man was not about love but about excuses. If the rich man was about love, then why didn’t he love the man right there in front of him who obviously needed it the most and which would have cost him next to nothing?

We reap exactly what we sow.

Psalm 33
The eyes of the Lord are on the just and his ears hear their cries…

 

[HaroldA]

Thanks to all who replied to this thread. This parable is certainly interesting.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

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.

Vico is talking about the appearance of light in a “place” which is a representation of a spirit which does not exist in a place. He is explicitly talking about something that happens, and so am I. Besides, Miracles do (in fact) happen. They can be observed. Nor is there necessarily a miracle involved when angels “appear”. They may have that power naturally (eg: as part of their nature.) For God says that he created his angels wind and flame; it’s part of them. Lucifer’s very name, before he fell, means “light bearer”. God created him a bearer of light.

Traditional Catholics, like St. Thomas Aquinas, understood that the appearance and motion of the stars in the sky was the natural duty of Angels. (still is.)

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?

I have no idea what part of what post you are talking about.
Looking at the quotes you give; I’ll answer Hell no, that’s not my claim.

I said “invisible water.” It EXISTS in the spiritual realm in the darkness.
In the parable, sheol exists, fire exists, etc. They have a different visual appearance depending on our spirits ability to perceive them. Jesus could be talking metaphorically, or physically and metaphorically, or … many ways.

The body of the man was in fact lying in a grave, physically. There is nothing to say whether or not the heat he felt on his tongue had a corresponding effect of rotting going on in his physical body. As part of the punishment of man, it’s quite possible that we perceive the corruption of our bodies on earth after death.

A complete saint is granted a miracle body which does not corrupt at all after they die.
“I will not suffer my servant to see corruption.” Hence, Moses’s body was denied to the devil. St. Theresa’s body (little flower, I think) was exhumed several years after death, and was perfect. There are many examples.

As to the baptism of infants at the moment of death. There is WATER of some kind available. I don’t know it’s properties. It has no mass. But it’s name is “WATER”.

Read Genesis chapter 1 verse 1. Before the creation of the earth and the oceans there exist waters (in chaos); Later God separated the waters above the heavens (hint, you can’t see them at night) and those below the heavens. THEN God made the sky BETWEEN them. Therefore, they ain’t talking about the clouds which are definitely BELOW the dome.

The mandate that children be baptized by water and the Spirit ( John 3:5, Genesis 1:1) is possible in two ways. One, where it is a sacrament given by man on earth, and second during the death of an unbaptized infant at the moment of death. That’s what is being taught in the Cathechism of the Catholic church. We can’t prove it, we can’t see it, but we can HOPE.

I’m merely pointing out that “water” is available for a miraculous baptism when a child’s soul flies “up” to God. The child might pass through the water between himself and God (the water above the sky.) I think that is talking about appearances just like the Sunset vs. the Earth rotation. Spiritual matters are measured relative to other spiritual matters. Physical matters are measured relative to other physical matters.
Apples to Apples. Oranges to Oranges. That kind of reasoning is called an Analogy.

(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…

What are you talking about? Please quote the exact sentences that are at issue.
I’ve lost all track of your thoughts.

Miracles can occur because of the faith of BELIEVERS and not just the person the miracle happens to. Many people brought handkerchiefs to have the apostles touch them, and then took those “sacramentals” to the people who were ill. The person was cured. The faith of the one bringing the handkerchief and the faith of the Apostle effected the cure on a third person.

The centurion who approached Jesus and asked for his servant to be cured was a Pagan. His servant is a faithless person, for he was not healed until the Centurion asked.
But at the very moment the Centurion asked Jesus for the miracle, it happened to someone miles away…

The opening phrase of the Centurion’s faith are quoted in the Mass every Sunday.
That is an everlasting testimony to his faith and the fact that he saved a third person.

“Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof? But only say the word …”

We can pray for a miracle for ourselves. We can ask for a miracle for another person.

When a parent baptizes a child, the child is not saved because of their own faith. Their faith does not come from inside them, but comes from outside. They are saved because of the water being applied in accordance with God’s promise. Even more astonishing, the church teaches that the parents, the priest, or even if an unbeliever pours the water on Earth… A child would still be saved even if an unbeliever baptized them. All that IS required is that someone do the act which God promised would effect salvation.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

You mean from Ratzinger’s Book or from the 2007 statement?

Cardinal Ratzinger’s Book (Joseph Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985, pp. 147-148) had: “One should not hesitate to give up the idea of ‘limbo, …’”.
And the Italian was: “Si lasci pure cadere il concetto di ‘limbo’ se è necessario.”
(“Just let the concept of ‘limbo’ drop if need be,” )

I don’t know where it originated. All I know is that is was explained after the release of the Catechism of the Catholic church. The radio show was aired on KBVM, in Portland Oregon. The show was Catholic Answers Live. This website happens to be the forums section for that program. I don’t know how to find the .mpg audio on the radio program side of this site. Search engines seem a bit useless for commentary from the Apologists, and radio show call operator. You might be able to ask Jimmy Akin if you’re really interested, he might remember.

 

[Vico]

I don’t know where it originated. All I know is that is was explained after the release of the Catechism of the Catholic church. The radio show was aired on KBVM, in Portland Oregon. The show was Catholic Answers Live. This website happens to be the forums section for that program. I don’t know how to find the .mpg audio on the radio program side of this site. Search engines seem a bit useless for commentary from the Apologists, and radio show call operator. You might be able to ask Jimmy Akin if you’re really interested, he might remember.

The Catechism was promulgated in August 1997.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was prefect of CDF between 1981-2005.

A statement from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) while Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was prefect would therefore be one from 1997-2005. There is none. There are the other documents that I gave in the other post however. Belief in limbo in not prohibited nor is it prescribed. The CDF did not say that we were no longer allowed to believe in limbo. One can read the one statement on infant baptism from 1980 by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19801020_pastoralis_actio_en.html

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The Catechism was promulgated in August 1997.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was prefect of CDF between 1981-2005.

Good, that limits the time of the radio station comment to somewhere in 1997-2005.
It was probably also after the release of the second edition of the Catechism, although I am not sure.

There is none.

sigh
In the other thread where I was asking about infants and hell, I noted the council I was trying to find did not exist on the Vatican website. Just because a document doesn’t exist on the website, doesn’t guarantee a document was never made. The missing document I sought, after all, was an ecumenical counsel. That’s a pretty BIG omission.

There are the other documents that I gave in the other post however. Belief in limbo in not prohibited nor is it prescribed. The CDF did not say that we were no longer allowed to believe in limbo. One can read the one statement on infant baptism from 1980 by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

I appreciate your efforts, Vico. If you had been able to find a document/press release in the time period that I indicated from Ratzinger, I would be impressed. As it is, I can only conjecture that the apologist on Catholic Answers live – over interpreted something that Ratzinger said. I will admit, my memory is not perfect; however I remember a lengthy conversation on the radio program. The apologist discussed and emphasized the catechism’s statement on “hope”, and said something to the effect that limbo had always been a theological opinion, and now the church has decided that it is to be discarded.

I haven’t read the link you gave to Ratzinger’s book. It’s kind of beyond the point of my comments in this thread. Whether the radio program was in error or not, the statements released from the CDF are not dogma. They are not infallible. So even if the CDF DID make a statement (and I DO understand that you don’t believe it’t the case) – the statement would still be a moot point. The only way to totally settle the issue of what kind of error I made, or the radio program made, or the vatican archives… would be to find the radio program and trace the source. Is it worth the time? If it makes you feel better, you can assume I made a mistake. Just don’t go rubbing it in, O.K.?

 

[Vico]

Good, that limits the time of the radio station comment to somewhere in 1997-2005.
It was probably also after the release of the second edition of the Catechism, although I am not sure.

sigh
In the other thread where I was asking about infants and hell, I noted the council I was trying to find did not exist on the Vatican website. Just because a document doesn’t exist on the website, doesn’t guarantee a document was never made. The missing document I sought, after all, was an ecumenical counsel. That’s a pretty BIG omission.

I appreciate your efforts, Vico. If you had been able to find a document/press release in the time period that I indicated from Ratzinger, I would be impressed. As it is, I can only conjecture that the apologist on Catholic Answers live – over interpreted something that Ratzinger said. I will admit, my memory is not perfect; however I remember a lengthy conversation on the radio program. The apologist discussed and emphasized the catechism’s statement on “hope”, and said something to the effect that limbo had always been a theological opinion, and now the church has decided that it is to be discarded.

I haven’t read the link you gave to Ratzinger’s book. It’s kind of beyond the point of my comments in this thread. Whether the radio program was in error or not, the statements released from the CDF are not dogma. They are not infallible. So even if the CDF DID make a statement (and I DO understand that you don’t believe it’t the case) – the statement would still be a moot point. The only way to totally settle the issue of what kind of error I made, or the radio program made, or the vatican archives… would be to find the radio program and trace the source. Is it worth the time? If it makes you feel better, you can assume I made a mistake. Just don’t go rubbing it in, O.K.?

The date I gave was for the official catechism, emmended.

USCCB states that “June 25, 1992 Pope John Paul II officially approved the definitive version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. On December 8, 1992 Pope John Paul II promulgated the Catechism with an apostolic constitution.”

Most comments occur immediately so it may have been in 1992. Limbo is not in that or later Catechisms.

Limbo as the border of Hell based upon the teaching of Lyons II: D 464 = DS 858; Florence: D 693 = DS 1306, and Pope John XXII 1321 A.D. *Epistle to the Armenians * D 493a = DS 926.

 

[Gorgias]

Vico is talking about the appearance of light in a “place” which is a representation of a spirit which does not exist in a place. He is explicitly talking about something that happens, and so am I.

The “something that happens” that you’re asserting is that human souls (following the physical death of the person) have fingers (to dip in water) and tongues (to drink water). These aren’t “things that happen”.

Besides, Miracles do (in fact) happen. They can be observed.

Yes, and this is exactly my point: miracles happen on earth, and for a specific reason: to help the living grow in faith. There’s no need for miracles in the afterlife, since there’s no metanoia there. You and Vico are making up stuff and inserting it into the parable… and the stuff doesn’t even hold up to examination.

I have no idea what part of what post you are talking about.

Same thought: I’m asking you whether – since ya’ll are claiming that this is a description of actual, historical, literal fact – you’re saying that Jesus made a set of miracles happen (e.g., all the characters suddenly got bodies, etc, etc); and, that He did so not for the edification of living physical humans, but merely so that He could describe this unseen miracle in a parable. That’s why your explanation defies reason.

Read Genesis chapter 1 verse 1. Before the creation of the earth and the oceans there exist waters (in chaos); Later God separated the waters above the heavens (hint, you can’t see them at night) and those below the heavens. THEN God made the sky BETWEEN them. Therefore, they ain’t talking about the clouds which are definitely BELOW the dome.

Wow. Just… wow.

Not only are you making arbitrary interpretative assertions (“the waters above the heavens… ain’t the clouds”), but also you’re totally refusing to look at this passage in the way that the intended audience would have understood it. The “waters above the heavens” are precisely the water that falls from the clouds as rain, and therefore, if you want to by hyper-literalistic about Genesis 1, you’re talking about the clouds in the heavens. uch:

The mandate that children be baptized by water and the Spirit ( John 3:5, Genesis 1:1) is possible in two ways. One, where it is a sacrament given by man on earth, and second during the death of an unbaptized infant at the moment of death.

Umm… the Church doesn’t believe that infants who die without having been baptized are miraculously baptized (with invisible water?) “at the moment of death.” Rather, we believe that God is merciful and wills all to be saved, and therefore, we entrust these unbaptized infants to God’s salvation.

I’m merely pointing out that “water” is available for a miraculous baptism when a child’s soul flies “up” to God. The child might pass through the water between himself and God (the water above the sky.)

Yeah. Definitely not what the Church teaches, or even insinuates. :nope:

What are you talking about? Please quote the exact sentences that are at issue.
I’ve lost all track of your thoughts.

We’re still on the same idea: that ya’ll believe this parable to be literal historical fact. I’m asking you to demonstrate that the account is making this assertion.