Lazarus and the Rich Man

[Mickey]

Parables, by definition, are not taken literally. While your answer sounds all warm, fuzzy, and spiritual, the application you’re giving it doesn’t really work.

Since I know the protestant tradition from which you obtain your false understandings, I will forgive your insults. You said your piece. Thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Now I shall continue with my “warm and fuzzy” spiritual discourse.

 

[Mickey]

And also why would a person who rejects God be repenting anyway.

We cannot repent after death.

 

[Mickey]

This parable was told long before Jesus died and rose again.

Tell me what is the final cleansing then.

I answered this in the other thread. The Holy Orthodox Church does not understand this scholastic concept of “final cleansing”. Please stay on topic. I will not discuss purgatory here unless you are claiming that this parable continues to prove “purgatory”.

And where does it say that if we have venial sin, we do not have to repent that sin

We must repent of all sins.

 

[Nita]

I see. You mean no official “magiterial” teaching on it. But I’m betting some early church fathers wrote about it.

Of course. You can check out the Haydock Bible, Aquinas’ Aurea Catena to mention a couple of sources. Your question wasn’t whether Catholics had written any commentary on the parable, but whether there was an official teaching about it.

Since you were once Catholic, I’m sure you’re well aware that there is no such thing as an “official teaching” for all the Bible verses (which we are to learn and follow). What the Church does do is define infallible doctrines to guide us when reading Scripture (or other literature, listening to others, etc). Our interpretation of Scripture cannot conflict with those doctrines. Those doctrines are the marvelous protecting “walls and ramparts” (Isaiah 26:1; Ps 48:13) provided by God through His Church to protect us from error.

 

[estesbob]

Are you saying that the Latin Catholic Church has no way to interpret the majority of Sacred Scripture aside from a handful of verses?

The church is interested in the truth-not interpretations of specific verses of Scripture Church doctrine is like a a three-legged stool-based on Scripture,( Scripture taken as a whole, not of official interpretations of various verses.) tradition, and the teachings of the magestrium.

 

[rinnie]

I answered this in the other thread. The Holy Orthodox Church does not understand this scholastic concept of “final cleansing”. Please stay on topic. I will not discuss purgatory here unless you are claiming that this parable continues to prove “purgatory”.
We must repent of all sins.

Exactly, so you are saying that if we have venial sin we are going to hell. yes or no?

 

[ckempston]

Since I know the protestant tradition from which you obtain your false understandings, I will forgive your insults. You said your piece. Thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Now I shall continue with my “warm and fuzzy” spiritual discourse.

No insult was intended. Parables are not literal, by definition. I shall continue to point that out and forgive your ad hominems.

 

[Mickey]

Of course. You can check out the Haydock Bible, Aquinas’ Aurea Catena to mention a couple of sources. Your question wasn’t whether Catholics had written any commentary on the parable, but whether there was an official teaching about it.

Since you were once Catholic, I’m sure you’re well aware that there is no such thing as an “official teaching” for all the Bible verses (which we are to learn and follow). What the Church does do is define infallible doctrines to guide us when reading Scripture (or other literature, listening to others, etc). Our interpretation of Scripture cannot conflict with those doctrines. Those doctrines are the marvelous protecting “walls and ramparts” (Isaiah 26:1; Ps 48:13) provided by God through His Church to protect us from error.

I am not referring to infallible pronouncements of the bishop of Rome pertaining to Latin Catholic doctrine. I was taught (as a Roman Catholic) that we glean much of our interpretation of Sacred Scripture from the writings of the holy Church Fathers. Is this not true?

 

[Mickey]

No insult was intended. Parables are not literal, by definition. I shall continue to point that out and forgive your ad hominems.

Parables point to sacred truths in a literal and metaphorical sense. I believe that your insult WAS intended. But I shall forgive your ad hominems.

 

[Mickey]

Exactly, so you are saying that if we have venial sin we are going to hell. yes or no?

The Orthodox Church does not know venial sins. Sin is sin. Do you have any further comments about the parable. Otherwise you can private mail your questions about purgatory if you like.

 

[rinnie]

I answered this in the other thread. The Holy Orthodox Church does not understand this scholastic concept of “final cleansing”. Please stay on topic. I will not discuss purgatory here unless you are claiming that this parable continues to prove “purgatory”.
We must repent of all sins.

Wow, hold on here a minute. You are saying that your Church does not understand the final cleansing which we call Purgatary. But my CHurch understands it quite clear. Now my church that explains it quite clear, and understands it is wrong. But you church that does not understand it is right. Is that you final answer Mickey? What kind of answer is that. You don’t understand it, but since you disagee with my Church my Church is wrong. COme on.

 

[ckempston]

Parables point to sacred truths in a literal and metaphorical sense. I believe that your insult WAS intended. But I shall forgive your ad hominems.

Parables do indeed POINT to literal and metaphorical truths, but are never literal in and of themselves.

There was no insult in anything I said. “Warm, fuzzy, and spiritual” sounding is hardly an insult. Is that what you’re talking about?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I am perplexed about something. It seems that many Roman Catholics have a major misunderstanding about the meaning of this parable. Some people think that it is a proof of purgatory. Others think that the rich man is able to repent** AFTER** he dies. As a Roman Catholic, I do not recall ever being taught about this parable. But as an Eastern Catholic (and now Orthodox) there are very deep and meaninful teachings on this parable (the Eastern Catholic is in line with the Orthodox).

Does the Roman Catholic Church have an official interpretation of this parable? I will post comments from steve B who thinks it is purgatory and that the rich man is showing perfect charity in the after life!

Then there is the post by rinnie that makes reference to a “sincere” rich man showing repentance after death.

Finally I have copied a post that I submitted.

What say the rest of you? I would like to read replies from Catholics, protestants, and Orthodox.

Thank you.

Scripture must be read using the Four Senses.

From the Catechism:
**116 **The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

I’ve been taught that the rich man is in hell, and when you are in hell, you somehow lose your identity, whereas, in Heaven, or Abraham’s bosom it seems in this case, you have a name.

Some people comment on the dogs as a sign of sympathy for him, but this does not hold with Jewish thought at the time since dogs were seen to be unclean. The dogs, in my opinion, are a sign of the rich mans ignorance for Lazarus.

Some also are confused when they read that the rich man says:27 And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father’s house, for I have five brethren,
28 That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments
The reason I say confused is because, from one perspective, this almost looks like a sign of CHARITY, a grace of the Holy Spirit. But this is at odds with what we know about Hell since Hell is devoid of grace. So whats going on?

It is precisely the opposite of love: selfishness. The reason this is so is because of the warning Jesus gave:41 And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Scandal is the key. This caution to scandal is not only towards children, but everyone. The rich man knows in his heart that the life he led was scandalous to his brethren and if they go to hell, his suffering will increase in Hell. Therefore, what appeared to be divine charity, is actually not. It is simply a form of eternal self-preservation because Hell has various states damnation, like Heaven has various states of glory.

God Bless

 

[rinnie]

The Orthodox Church does not know venial sins. Sin is sin. Do you have any further comments about the parable. Otherwise you can private mail your questions about purgatory if you like.

Yes I do. I see the rich man in purgatory. If you are correct why is it said that Hell is total separation from God. Now if hell is TOTAL separation for God, how did the rich man see Abraham. Is hell total separation from God or not?

 

[rinnie]

Okay Mickey here is another question for you. Jesus told this parable before he died. Now Jesus died and on the third day he rose again. Now according to scripture Jesus descended into Hell. which back then was called hades. Now why did Jesus do this?

 

[ckempston]

Yes I do. I see the rich man in purgatory. If you are correct why is it said that Hell is total separation from God. Now if hell is TOTAL separation for God, how did the rich man see Abraham. Is hell total separation from God or not?

I would tend to agree that if we force a literal interpretation on this parable, in that it is relating actual information about the afterlife, then the Catholic understanding would have to be correct.

 

[Mickey]

Wow, hold on here a minute. You are saying that your Church does not understand the final cleansing which we call Purgatary.

We have no such doctrine. We know what we must do on this earth as we work out our salvation. The rest is a mystery.

But my CHurch understands it quite clear.

So you keep telling me.

What kind of answer is that.

Now you are badgering. If you have no further contribution to this thread–please leave. Otherwise take your purgatorial discussion to the other thread. Please do not continue to hi-jack.

 

[rinnie]

We have no such doctrine. We know what we must do on this earth as we work out our salvation. The rest is a mystery.
So you keep telling me.
Now you are badgering. If you have no further contribution to this thread–please leave. Otherwise take your purgatorial discussion to the other thread. Please do not continue to hi-jack.

No Mickey it is not badgering. Ever time I try to make my point I am either badgering or you are going to put me on your ignore list.

Why can you ask me questions, and I cannot ask you. This again is to prove my point on this parable meaning purgatory. Now back to the question, Where did Jesus go for 3 days and why?

 

[Nita]

I was taught (as a Roman Catholic) that we glean much of our interpretation of Sacred Scripture from the writings of the holy Church Fathers. Is this not true?

We can certainly glean some good insights from the Church Fathers. However, most Catholics have not read the Church Fathers (and I include priests and religious teachers here also)-- yet they are certainly free to go ahead and read/hear and interpret Scripture. The Church Fathers themselves, are not unanimous in their interpretations of Scripture passages. And, if you have read any of the Church Fathers you will also know that a single Church Father, say Augustine, may give several possible interpretations to a particular passage.

And I apologize, because this is straying from the thread topic.

Nita

 

[Mickey]

Scripture must be read using the Four Senses.

From the Catechism:
**116 **The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

I’ve been taught that the rich man is in hell, and when you are in hell, you somehow lose your identity, whereas, in Heaven, or Abraham’s bosom it seems in this case, you have a name.

Some people comment on the dogs as a sign of sympathy for him, but this does not hold with Jewish thought at the time since dogs were seen to be unclean. The dogs, in my opinion, are a sign of the rich mans ignorance for Lazarus.

Some also are confused when they read that the rich man says:27 And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father’s house, for I have five brethren,

28 That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments
The reason I say confused is because, from one perspective, this almost looks like a sign of CHARITY, a grace of the Holy Spirit. But this is at odds with what we know about Hell since Hell is devoid of grace. So whats going on?

It is precisely the opposite of love: selfishness. The reason this is so is because of the warning Jesus gave:41 And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Scandal is the key. This caution to scandal is not only towards children, but everyone. The rich man knows in his heart that the life he led was scandalous to his brethren and if they go to hell, his suffering will increase in Hell. Therefore, what appeared to be divine charity, is actually not. It is simply a form of eternal self-preservation because Hell has various states damnation, like Heaven has various states of glory.

God Bless

Thank you Chaldean. This is it!