Lazarus and the Rich Man

[Benadam]

I am not sure I understand you here ben, Why would having compassion for your loved ones deny human behavior. If it was me and I was getting it I would do anything to save my loved ones.

The belief that love can reach into the afterlife and giving and receiving is possible goes beyond the limits of death. We believe we can pray for our souls in purgatory. And we believe that our Saints and Angels can help us also.

Pope Benedict says as Christians we should never limit ourself how can I save myself we should also ask what can I do in order that otheres may be saved and that for them too the star of hope may rise. Then I will have done my utmost for my own personal salvation as well. ( is that not what the rich man did indeed do)?

 

[jmcrae]

( is that not what the rich man did indeed do)?

Did you notice the part where he did not succeed? Do you say that Abraham was hard-hearted?

 

[Benadam]

I

am not sure I understand you here ben,

rinnie. You can be sure.

There is no credible source that can support that the rich man was compassionate in the light of the fact that no source of Church authority supports it. Overwhelmingly those invested to teach us have taught that the rich man is condemned and have not attributed compassion as the reason for his behaviour.

Peace

 

[rinnie]

Let’s review the parable in part; Jesus said:

25"But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ (Luke 16:25-26)

Now, here is the key: we know that those who are in Purgatory will eventually be in heaven. However, the Rich Man is in hell (Gr. hades) and there is a chasm which prevents those from Heaven going to bring water to the Rich Man. Additionally, NO ONE FROM WHERE THE RICH MAN IS LOCATED CAN CROSS OVER TO HEAVEN WHERE ABRAHAM AND LAZARUS ARE.

If no one can cross, then this cannot be Purgatory because souls do cross from Purgatory to Heaven.

Thoughts?

Hi Randy and thank you for comming over. I have one question if what you are saying is true and the rich man indeed cannot be in purgatory he is in hell, why did Pope Benedict say that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the FINAL DENSINY after the last judgement. But is taking up the notion found inter alia in early judaism namely that of an intermediate state between death and resuurrection. Final sentence has not been pronounced yet. and he said this state is purgatory?

 

[Benadam]

Rinnie…you are thinking that the entire abode of the dead is purgatory because eternity hadn’t entered into the state of the dead in this story. It was not purgatory it was a state of existence defined by the various dispositions of souls that had left the light of day from Adam to that day. When Jesus died eternity entered into this state and all that existed seperated from their bodies experienced the finality of there destinies. Fos some eternal seperation from God. Foth others instant elevation to His state of being and for the rest a state of increasing union as they endured the eternal death of their selves that seperates them from God. The last of these I mentioned is Purgatory.

rinnie. Purgatory is the state of souls that have been forgiven byChrist. Can this happen in sheol before Jesus decends to sheol?

 

[rinnie]

rinnie. Purgatory is the state of souls that have been forgiven byChrist. Can this happen in sheol before Jesus decends to sheol?

What I am saying is Sheol was a place of waiting and cleansing in the OT. I agree that it changed in the aspect that when Jesus opened up heaven yes it took the waiting to Heaven. But cleansing is still what we call Purgatory and it still exists.

The state of cleansing is the same. I agree Christ came to release the Souls but how it that proof that the rich man was in hell. Our Purgatory is what the OT called Sheol.

 

[Benadam]

What I am saying is Sheol was a place of waiting and cleansing in the OT. I agree that it changed in the aspect that when Jesus opened up heaven yes it took the waiting to Heaven. But cleansing is still what we call Purgatory and it still exists.

The state of cleansing is the same. I agree Christ came to release the Souls but how it that proof that the rich man was in hell. Our Purgatory is what the OT called Sheol.

The Church doesn’t teach that the unbaptized go to purgatory. Before Christ I don’t doyubt the possibility that souls couldn’t by the alms of the living be elevated. OTOH it is a misrepresentation of the meaning of the kind of cleansing that only Christ Crucified and Risen, Lord of History could bring to call it Purgatory.

 

[rinnie]

The Church doesn’t teach that the unbaptized are in purgatory. Before Christ I don’t doyubt the possibility that souls couldn’t by the alms of the living be elevated. OTOH it is a misrepresentation of the meaning of the kind of cleansing that only Christ Crucified and Risen, Lord of History could bring to call it Purgatory.

I agree with what you are saying. But what my point is there was still a intermediate state. That middle state still exists today. This whole thing was to prove the middle state, which we call purgatory today. ANd the whole point of this was to prove that the Ot prayed for their dead because they believed that they could help them.

The reason this all started was that Mickey said there never was a intermediate state and still is not today… I said there was in the OT but today we call the middle state purgatory. I admitted it may be different because Jesus did release souls. But how can anyone say that Jesus did not have mercy on the rich man, and did not forgive him. He went down to judge them, do you not admit that. And yes to baptism them so they could get to heaven.

It never said if Jesus did or did not forgive him. I said he was indeed suffering. But the purgatory today is also suffering the same way the rich man did. So he could have indeed went to purgatory. (or say left him there to finish his cleansing. But my proof that there was a intermediate state again was this parable. In the jewish idea there were 2 things going on bliss and punishment. And that is why I believe that the punishment could involve purification and healing. Which is proof that what they called hades could be purgatory for some today.

I still cannot see how this can not prove that there was a middle stage then and still could be today. Abraham was not in heaven yet. In the ot hades again was for 2 things. Do you see what I am saying?

Gotta go for tonight.

 

[Benadam]

I agree with what you are saying. But what my point is there was still a intermediate state. That middle state still exists today. This whole thing was to prove the middle state, which we call purgatory today. ANd the whole point of this was to prove that the Ot prayed for their dead because they believed that they could help them.

The reason this all started was that Mickey said there never was a intermediate state and still is not today… I said there was in the OT but today we call the middle state purgatory. I admitted it may be different because Jesus did release souls. But how can anyone say that Jesus did not have mercy on the rich man, and did not forgive him. He went down to judge them, do you not admit that. And yes to baptism them so they could get to heaven.

yes rinnie, I better understand. what you’ve written has brought to mind the fundamental diference of the afterlife before and after Christ. I hope it helps in understanding why there is a problem when a middle state is given boundaries before christ’s decent.
It’s the same reason why knowing good and evil while in a state of becoming made the eternal life unavailable to us untill salvation is complete.

Before Christ the afterlife is defined by the state of human souls.
Abraham is the soul that certain union with God for humanity can be found. There is no other certain boundaries.

After Christ the afterlife is defined by God and human souls have a new boundary established by the necessity to perfect the unbaptized children of Abraham stained by forgiven sin.

Before Christ the afterlife consisted of souls seperated from flesh in various states of disposition in relation to God. These states of existence experienced by souls seperated from bodies defined the boundaries within what we call sheol hades the bosom of Abraham. There indeed is a lowest and most tormented state and a highest most relatively blissfull state. There is only one state we can be certain about that is not condemned and that is those in a state of disposition that places them amongst the ‘dust of the earth’ that Abraham counts as children of his faith. All other souls are suffering condemnation albeit in every shade from light to darkest black. A defined boundary among the condemned only complicates and confuses our understanding because it requires a kind of judgement that we can’t make. ‘If’ there were some sort of transformation of soul among souls not counted among Abrahams children it couldn’t be change that could define a boundary that one could say 'these souls are experiencing condemnation but are bound for Abrahams bosom. If it could then they could expect heaven and experience the bliss of knowing their eternal destiny and be said to be in Abrahams bosom.

May the angels of the Lord protect you.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

I

rinnie. You can be sure.

There is no credible source that can support that the rich man was compassionate in the light of the fact that no source of Church authority supports it. Overwhelmingly those invested to teach us have taught that the rich man is condemned and have not attributed compassion as the reason for his behaviour.

Peace

**
Hi Ben,

I have read your posts, I agree with you! rinnie, Ben is correct.**

 

[Benadam]

 

[Deconi]

The crux of that parable is that once you have died, there is nothing you can do, even if you could sacrifice yourself for another, and cite the ‘most righteous’ to assist you!

Note that even if Abraham wanted to help, he could not cross the abyss to assist.

One of the ways to look at the characters involved is, those with much during life (richman) and the downtrodden (Lazarus) CANNOT change or retract their actions during life, once they are dead! The father of Judaism (Abe) could not help either the Richman or Lazarus, nor ex-change their places. Fearfully, I think Abraham represents The Divine One; meaning even He cannot do anything to change matters, since He cannot go against Himself anyway.

The bottom line is, the richman’s salvation (and ours) is to be worked out DURING LIFE!

 

[Mickey]

You don’t accept Fatima but follow the teachings of a man who does.

You are not required to accept Fatima either. And if Fatima is your only argument, then it is a weak argument.

So why does it surprise you that I take issue with his conclusion about the Rich Man being in hell?

That is a mystery. The patristic understanding tells us he is condemned. Yet you will not accept it.

Mortal man expressing a personal opinion.

You are a mortal man who has attached a twisted understanding to an apparition that you are not obligated to accept. Mama mia!

 

[Mickey]

I already did but you refused to accept my answer

Yes. I posted that before I saw your answer. And I see that your answer is that you do not accept patristic interpretation. How very odd for a Roman Catholic.

 

[Mickey]

Looks to me like you have some hidden agenda.

What an odd thing to say. My agenda has been honest and evident for more than 600 posts.

 

[Mickey]

That, along with you condensating replies and even insults to those that disagree with you, paints you in a less than favorable light.

This is in your imagination. I have insulted no one. I think you perceive my statements as insults because they contradict your personal interpretations.

 

[Mickey]

You seem to lack a bsic understanding of the Catholic faith. Unless something is OFFICIALLY declared to be an infallible teaching, it can not assumed to be infallible no matter who expresses such an opinion.

Perhaps you need to brush up a bit. We get many of our interpretations from the consensus of patristic teaching—not from apparitions.

I’ll take the word of the Mother of God

The Theotokos is not saying what you think she is.

Scripture does not tell us that he was condemned.

Read the parable again. He was condemned.

 

[Mickey]

There is a difference between what the Church OFFICIALLY declares and opinions that are expressed by fallible men.

You have already made it abundantly clear that you do not accept patristic teaching. That is unfortunate.

 

[Mickey]

did they bring this message when they was in the flesh

Oh brother.

 

[Mickey]

Did he bring this message when he was in the flesh or did he bring it to us after he was declared a saint and did the church declare it to be worthy of belief?

This broken record response shows that you have no argument.