Lazarus and the Rich Man

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jmcrae said:
Please cite your reference. Is this a document of the Church, or is it a private writing? 🤷

ETA - Oh, found it - um, 'kay, giant crayon-coloured typing. This is your authority? :confused:
Click to expand...
It’s not my “authority” but somebody who reached the same conclusion that I did. I already listed the bible passages that I am using for my authority.
 
found this

question 52 article 2 Summa Theologica

**
On the contrary,
Click to expand...
** Regarding the hell of the lost it is written (Job 10:21): “Before I go, and return no more, to a land that is dark and covered with the mist of death.” Now there is no “fellowship of light with darkness,” according to 2 Corinthians 6:14. Therefore Christ, who is “the light,” did not descend into the hell of the lost.
I answer that, A thing is said to be in a place in two ways. First of all, through its effect, and in this way Christ descended into each of the hells, but in different manner. For going down into the hell of the lost He wrought this effect, that by descending thither He put them to shame for their unbelief and wickedness: but to them who were detained in Purgatory He gave hope of attaining to glory: while upon the holy Fathers detained in hell solely on account of original sin, He shed the light of glory everlasting. In another way a thing is said to be in a place through its essence: and in this way Christ’s soul descended only into that part of hell wherein the just were detained. so that He visited them “in place,” according to His soul, whom He visited “interiorly by grace,” according to His Godhead. Accordingly, while remaining in one part of hell, He wrought this effect in a measure in every part of hell, just as while suffering in one part of the earth He delivered the whole world by His Passion.

The place changed apparently. What was formerly expected became real if I’m understanding this correctly.

I think this presents the sublime nuances that create the questions being discussed here.
 
also as it concerns the rich man’s apparent concern for his brothers some theologians suggest that his concern was selfish in that the presence of his kin would only be the cause of increased torment because of their involvement in the sin that removed him from the hope of beatitude.
 
Benadam said:
also as it concerns the rich man’s apparent concern for his brothers some theologians suggest that his concern was selfish in that the presence of his kin would only be the cause of increased torment because of their involvement in the sin that removed him from the hope of beatitude.
Click to expand...
But where in the OT or NT for that matter did it ever say that we will pay for the sins of our Brothers or Sisters. This suggestion does not go with the teachings of the bible. The opposite actually for it is believed that by Job being the righteous Man he had actually prayed his Children out of Purgatory.

Also where does it say in the parable that his torment removed him from the HOPE of beatitude.

Luke18:25 quote: Yes it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for someone rich to enter the kingdom of God. Those who were listening said In that case WHO CAN BE SAVED? He replied Things that are IMPOSSIBLE for HUMAN RESOURCES, are POSSIBLE for GOD.
 
Sir_Knight said:
The Rich Man is CLEARLY not in hell or on his way to hell because he expressed concern about his brothers not having to endure the same type of punishment as he is going through. Compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God’s graces for all eternity. Thus, he can not be in hell and he clearly isn’t in heaven either because there is no suffering in heaven. Therefore, he is CLEARLY in purgatory.
Click to expand...
Aha! Another one who is clearly wrong.
 
jmcrae said:
Newsflash for you: the people of the Old Testament did not go to Heaven until after Jesus rose from the dead.

There was no need of Purgatory at that time, because nobody was going to Heaven, yet.

Instead, they went to the Limbo of the Fathers (also called Sheol, Abraham’s Bosom, Hades, etc.) This was not a place of purification; it was a place of waiting.
Click to expand...
Where is your proof of this.

Sheol and Hades are ancient terms for the shadowy underworld the Abrode of the Dead where suffering takes Place. Where does it say it is ONLY a place of waiting? 🤷
 
Sir_Knight said:
The Rich Man expressed concern for his brothers.
Click to expand...
Silly wabbit. He had only concern for himself because he knew he was condemned. It was self pity.

Notice that Abraham did not pay any attention to this “sudden compassion” of the rich man.

Can you show anywhere in your Church’s teaching that says the rich man is in purgatory?
 
Sir_Knight said:
The rich man represents those who are suffering in purgatory (because he shows the grace of concern for his brothers, and those in hell are deprived of God’s grace for all eternity).
Click to expand...
Wrong. He had his chance to show compassion while he lived. Where is your evidence to show that it is taught that the rich man is headed for heaven?
 
Benadam said:
also as it concerns the rich man’s apparent concern for his brothers some theologians suggest that his concern was selfish in that the presence of his kin would only be the cause of increased torment because of their involvement in the sin that removed him from the hope of beatitude.
Click to expand...
Exactly!!!
 
Mickey said:
Silly wabbit. He had only concern for himself because he knew he was condemned. It was self pity.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense. Even after learning that he would get no relief himself, he still expressed concerned over his loved one not ending up in the same place as himself – thus, showing compassion … a grace from God – which, those in hell do not receive.
Mickey said:
Notice that Abraham did not pay any attention to this “sudden compassion” of the rich man.
Click to expand...
Of course not because purgatory isn’t a place to repent but to be purified.
Mickey said:
Can you show anywhere in your Church’s teaching that says the rich man is in purgatory?
Click to expand...
The facrt that those in hell are forever cut off from God and do not receive His graces and since compassion is a grace from God and the Rich Man showed concern for his brothers proves that he was not in hell.

Try learning to connect the dots instead of chasing after rabbits.
 
Mickey said:
Benadam;4720347:
also as it concerns the rich man’s apparent concern for his brothers some theologians suggest that his concern was selfish in that the presence of his kin would only be the cause of increased torment because of their involvement in the sin that removed him from the hope of beatitude.
Click to expand...
Exactly!!!
Click to expand...
Those theologians are wrong because he expressed this concern AFTER he already learned that he would get no relief from his torment.
 
Sir_Knight said:
Utter nonsense. Even after learning that he would get no relief himself, he still expressed concerned over his loved one not ending up in the same place as himself – thus, showing compassion … a grace from God – which, those in hell do not receive.

Of course not because purgatory isn’t a place to repent but to be purified.

The facrt that those in hell are forever cut off from God and do not receive His graces and since compassion is a grace from God and the Rich Man showed concern for his brothers proves that he was not in hell.

Try learning to connect the dots instead of chasing after rabbits.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: Good one Sir Knight, I love that one
 
Sir_Knight said:
Utter nonsense. Even after learning that he would get no relief himself, he still expressed concerned over his loved one not ending up in the same place as himself – thus, showing compassion … a grace from God – which, those in hell do not receive.
Click to expand...
You have interpreted this yourself. Are you protestant?
Sir_Knight said:
Of course not because purgatory isn’t a place to repent but to be purified.
Click to expand...
It is too late for the rich man to repent. He is condemned.
Sir_Knight said:
The facrt that those in hell are forever cut off from God and do not receive His graces and since compassion is a grace from God and the Rich Man showed concern for his brothers proves that he was not in hell.
Click to expand...
He had self-pity. That is not a grace from God.
Sir_Knight said:
Try learning to connect the dots instead of chasing after rabbits.
Click to expand...
Try learning the proper teaching instead of making things up for yourself.
 
Sir_Knight said:
Supporting references please.
Click to expand...
Let us start with Pope John Paul II (if you had read this whole thread, you would have seen all the references). I will eagerly await your references–and I am looking for something official–not a crayon blog from a lay person.

Was the rich man condemned because he had riches, because he abounded in earthly possessions, because he ‘dressed in purple and linen and feasted sumptuously every day’? No. It was not for wealth that the rich man was condemned. Here is the reason. The rich man was condemned because he did not pay attention to the other man, because he failed to take notice of Lazarus, the person who sat at his door and who longed to eat the scraps from his table. Nowhere does Christ condemn the mere possession of earthly goods as such. Instead, He pronounces very harsh words against those who use their possessions in a selfish way, without paying attention to the needs of others."
Pope John Paul II
 
Mickey said:
You have interpreted this yourself. Are you protestant?
Click to expand...
You have failed to recognize the Catholic teaching of purgatory. Are you a protestant?
Mickey said:
It is too late for the rich man to repent. He is condemned.
Click to expand...
He is being purified.
Mickey said:
He had self-pity. That is not a grace from God.
Click to expand...
He expressed concern for others AFTER learning that his situation would remain unchanged. That is compassion – a grace from God. Appears you have trouble recognizing the difference.
Mickey said:
Try learning the proper teaching instead of making things up for yourself.
Click to expand...
I already know the proper teaching. It is YOU who are confused. Try reading "The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith" by John Salza and you’ll see that he says the exact same thing.

Why would a leading Catholic publication endorse his writings if they contained information that wasn’t true to the faith?
 
Mickey said:
Let us start with Pope John Paul II (if you had read this whole thread, you would have seen all the references). I will eagerly await your references–and I am looking for something official–not a crayon blog from a lay person.

Was the rich man condemned because he had riches, because he abounded in earthly possessions, because he ‘dressed in purple and linen and feasted sumptuously every day’? No. It was not for wealth that the rich man was condemned. Here is the reason. The rich man was condemned because he did not pay attention to the other man, because he failed to take notice of Lazarus, the person who sat at his door and who longed to eat the scraps from his table. Nowhere does Christ condemn the mere possession of earthly goods as such. Instead, He pronounces very harsh words against those who use their possessions in a selfish way, without paying attention to the needs of others."
Pope John Paul II
Click to expand...
Popes in the past has supported the concept of Limbo and then future Popes have rejected it. A Pope is only infallible when speaking from the chair of Peter. A true Cathoic would know this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top