Lazarus and the Rich Man

[rinnie]

The rich ,an’s soul was full of sores as Lazarus’ body. His soul was a true image of Lazarus’ body, and Lazarus’ body was a true image of his soul. God thus placed two men on earth to be a mirror the one one of the other: one in the mansion and the other at its gate. The rich man’s outward splendour mirrored Lazarus’inner state, and Lazarus’ outward suppurating sores mirrored the rich man’s inner state.
St Nicholai Velimirovich

And the rich man was also sorry, if he was not sorry and did not feel that he was wrong, he could not and would not have seen his sin. The proof he did is when he wanted to save his brothers. That is a act of true Love. He would except his fate, but he asked to at least save his brothers. He asked Abraham to have Mercy on him. If he was evil and of the devil he could care less about his brothers. evil has no love for anyone.

The parable as for all of the parables means all of us. God is showing us we could all be the rich man. Every parable is showing us it could be us.

 

[Mickey]

Whether this parable was refering to purgatory.

Becuase your Church would be all over it as an interpretation and proof of the doctrine of purgatory. But the only one who believes this is…well…er…uh…rinnie.

 

[tm30]

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.

Disclosure: I am a Roman Catholic

My response: This parable does NOT provide any explicit proof of Purgatory proper. What it does provide is proof that the dead are not just “dead”, as the Protestant case contends.

The same goes for Maccabees. It is not explicit proof of Purgatory, however, the practice of praying for the dead indicates that the dead need our prayers.

The following is purely speculative theology :

From an earthly, chronological standpoint, Purgatory and Hell (as the infernal place of punishment) could not have existed prior to the crucifixion and Christ’s descent into “hell”, wherein He “preached” the Redemption. All souls who were languishing in Hades (or “Sheol”), were now empowered to receive or reject the mercy of Christ. The goats who rejected the crucified Christ as savior went to one side, the sheep to the other. Once heaven became a final, itinerant destination, Purgatory became the place of preparation. There was neither need nor purpose for Purgatory prior to the Redemption, since no one could enter heaven anyway. Thus, Sheol, or “the bosom of Abraham”.

Once rejection of Christ could be made freely with the full knowledge of the heretofore dead, hell could become a place of just torment. It was always the place of Lucifer and the fallen angels, but if salvation relies on the acceptance of Christ, then eternal damnation relies on rejecting Him. And rejection cannot take place unless the Gospel is rejected - hence, Jesus preaching to the dead on Holy Saturday. Don’t forget that the crucifixion, as told by Matthew, bore great eschatological imagery. He related the aftermath as a quasi-end-of-the-world event, so it makes sense that, with the Crucifixion came not only heaven, but Purgatory, and hell as populated by the now-damned members of humanity. The particular judgment of all the prior-dead could now take place on the basis of accepting or rejecting the redemptive act of Christ as their salvation…or not.

All that said, discounting the Lazarene parable of an explicitly Purgatorial depiction does not disprove the existence of Purgatory. It does, however, illustrate Sheol as a place of two components - Abraham’s bosom, and a tormenting “hell”, but not the “Hell” which is the abode of the Christ-judged damned. Was the rich man tormented with “flames”? Yes. There was certainly torment for evildoers - in their familial separation from “Father” Abraham - yet it’s not certain these were also eternally damned until they could reject the Gospel. Since the damned cannot, by definition actually “love” (read: will good for another), it’s unlikely that the rich man is in Lucifer’s abode (read: eternally reprobate), since he is still capable of willing good for those who are still alive.

Again. The above is not presented as any kind of official Church teaching, but the existence of Purgatory is. Theologians will be debating the composition of Sheol until the consummation of the world, but whether or not the rich man in the Lazarene parable is or isn’t in Purgatory becomes ultimately moot when it becomes clear that the dead are not simply dead. Can the dead repent? NO. Which is why we must pray for those in Purgatory - they cannot pray for themselves. The purgative process is not something they can exert any will over.

 

[Mickey]

The proof he did is when he wanted to save his brothers.

Wrong. Read post #9.

That is a act of true Love.

Oh for cryin out loud. He lost his chance to love. He could have loved Lazarus on earth. He is lost now.

He would except his fate, but he asked to at least save his brothers.

Read post # 9.

He asked Abraham to have Mercy on him. If he was evil and of the devil he could care less about his brothers. evil has no love for anyone.

He was not concerned for his brothers. He was concerned for himself. Read post # 9.

The parable as for all of the parables means all of us. God is showing us we could all be the rich man.

It is showing us that we do not want to be the rich man. If you find yourself to be the rich man after you die, you will find yourself in hell…with no way out.

 

[Mickey]

Disclosure: I am a Roman Catholic

My response: This parable does NOT provide any explicit proof of Purgatory proper. What it does provide is proof that the dead are not just “dead”, as the Protestant case contends.

Thank you my friend. I cannot understand why rinnie persists in her error.

Can the dead repent? NO.

Amen.

 

[estesbob]

Becuase your Church would be all over it as an interpretation and proof of the doctrine of purgatory. But the only one who believes this is…well…er…uh…rinnie.

I doubt the church would be all over it as proof of purgatory as the Catholic Church is not a Sola Scripturu church and again does not feel it necessaryto interpret individual verses of Scripture It’s an interesting debate but it will ,in the end ,come down to your personal interpretation vs his personal interpretation.

 

[tm30]

Rinnie, you wrote:

Sorry I do not see the rich man willfully turning away from God. I see him repenting.

The dead, properly speaking, cannot repent. The rich man was, better put, “regretting” his condition, but it does not indicate he repented of his sin…yet. That said - here’s where it gets tricky - an opportunity to repent MUST have come when Jesus preached to the dead on Holy Saturday. Since salvation/damnation are contingent on repentance, there must have been a modus in which the dead could repent on Holy Saturday, otherwise, there was absolutely no purpose in Jesus’ “preaching” to them.

 

[Mickey]

The rich man, who was being condemned for the enormity of his sins, Probably thought: ‘I have sinned greatly, But what is the reason For my being roasted here in the fire without any pity?’ When the Lord, Who knows all, hears these words, He revealed to the sinner the cause of his punishment. For while he was in Hades he looked on high, And he saw Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham. Then he recognized the man who formerly was poor, and was amazed as he saw The one whom he scorned on earth, while he enjoyed himself and did not cry: 'Have pity, Lord.'
St Romanos the Melodist

 

[Mickey]

I doubt the church would be all over it as proof of purgatory as the Catholic Church is not a Sola Scripturu church and again does not feel it necessaryto interpret individual verses of Scripture It’s an interesting debate but it will ,in the end ,come down to your personal interpretation vs his personal interpretation.

Very odd. When I was Roman Catholic I was always told that Sacred Tradition interprets the Sacred Scriptures for us. Are you Roman Catholic?

 

[tm30]

Thank you my friend. I cannot understand why rinnie persists in her error.
Amen.

I think it’s semantical, not conceptual. The dead can certainly “regret” their condition.

But as I mentioned, there is a mystery here in that Jesus preached to the dead on Holy Saturday. What good would that have done unless the dead could properly repent upon receiving the Gospel? So, there had to be some kind of extraordinary grace bestowed upon them to allow for actual repentance at that event… Do you agree or disagree with that?

 

[tm30]

Wrong. Read post #9.
Oh for cryin out loud. He lost his chance to love. He could have loved Lazarus on earth. He is lost now.

Read post # 9.

He was not concerned for his brothers. He was concerned for himself. Read post # 9.
It is showing us that we do not want to be the rich man. If you find yourself to be the rich man after you die, you will find yourself in hell…with no way out.

The parable cannot be interpreted simply as the rich man residing in “hell” as in, the abode of Lucifer. If the dead were already judged a prori receiving the Gospel, there was no need for Jesus to preach to them on Holy Saturday. The parable probably suffers from transliteral deficiencies - hell/Sheol/Gehenna/Bosom of Abraham were all roughly interchangeable terms (with certain nuances among them), so we can’t assume from the text that the rich man is in the state of eternal damnation.

 

[Nita]

It’s late to get started re the interpretation of this parable, but here goes.

Jesus usually bases His parables on situations, actions, events that can literally exist. (eg. there are literal vineyards, farmers that sow, …)

In this case the literal presentation/setting Jesus uses is that of a state of separation in the hereafter, - one a state where suffering is present and one where it is not present. The one suffering cannot cross over (at the present time at least) to “Abraham’s bosom” , and those in Abraham’s bosom" cannot cross over where the rich man is.

In Catholic teaching such conditions can apply to both purgatory and hell. (Since, to my knowledge, there is no specific teaching that states one way or the other whether or not those in heaven can enter purgatory, one would be free to think they could not.) Therefore, it is a matter of private interpretation for a Catholic in regards to whether the rich man is in purgatory or hell.

For those who do not accept purgatory, there is no option except to interpret the rich man’s locale as hell. I guess that’s where you are Mickey. Personally, I do not envision those in hell as being concerned about the eternal welfare of others - that is, concerned for others and desiring that they should go to heaven. In regards to those in purgatory, Catholic teaching is that they are no longer able to help themselves, but they can pray for others. The rich man’s actions are in conformity with this teaching.

As to the main points of the parable, I think Jesus wants us to know

1. the time to do good is while we are here on earth; to use any and all “talents”/gifts to serve others.
2. that the time to repent/convert/make reparation for our sins is while we are here on earth.
3. When we die in a state of sin, it has consequences
   (Catholic teaching re the consequences - but not explicit in the parable: purgatory/temporary for venial sin/s and hell/eternal for mortal sin/s).

 

[estesbob]

Very odd. When I was Roman Catholic I was always told that Sacred Tradition interprets the Sacred Scriptures for us. Are you Roman Catholic?

Yes I am and I have said nothing to contradict the above. If you are formerly a Catholic you should know that Catholics do not get involved in never ending verse wars. Your personal interpretation of the parable is just as good rinnies. It is impossible to prove which interpretation is right but since it is totally irrelevant to the doctrine of purgatory as I said before it is an interesting, but meaningless, debate

 

[Mickey]

I think it’s semantical, not conceptual. The dead can certainly “regret” their condition.

I would think so. But she is very clear when she says they can repent.

But as I mentioned, there is a mystery here in that Jesus preached to the dead on Holy Saturday. What good would that have done unless the dead could properly repent upon receiving the Gospel? So, there had to be some kind of extraordinary grace bestowed upon them to allow for actual repentance at that event… Do you agree or disagree with that?

What makes you think they were able to repent at this point? Can you point me to the Scripture to which you are referring?

 

[rinnie]

It’s late to get started re the interpretation of this parable, but here goes.

Jesus usually bases His parables on situations, actions, events that can literally exist. (eg. there are literal vineyards, farmers that sow, …)

In this case the literal presentation/setting Jesus uses is that of a state of separation in the hereafter, - one a state where suffering is present and one where it is not present. The one suffering cannot cross over (at the present time at least) to “Abraham’s bosom” , and those in Abraham’s bosom" cannot cross over where the rich man is.

In Catholic teaching such conditions can apply to both purgatory and hell. (Since, to my knowledge, there is no specific teaching that states one way or the other whether or not those in heaven can enter purgatory, one would be free to think they could not.) Therefore, it is a matter of private interpretation for a Catholic in regards to whether the rich man is in purgatory or hell.

For those who do not accept purgatory, there is no option except to interpret the rich man’s locale as hell. I guess that’s where you are Mickey. Personally, I do not envision those in hell as being concerned about the eternal welfare of others - that is, concerned for others and desiring that they should go to heaven. In regards to those in purgatory, Catholic teaching is that they are no longer able to help themselves, but they can pray for others. The rich man’s actions are in conformity with this teaching.

As to the main points of the parable, I think Jesus wants us to know

1. the time to do good is while we are here on earth; to use any and all “talents”/gifts to serve others.
2. that the time to repent/convert/make reparation for our sins is while we are here on earth.
3. When we die in a state of sin, it has consequences
   (Catholic teaching re the consequences - but not explicit in the parable: purgatory/temporary for venial sin/s and hell/eternal for mortal sin/s).

But in RC teaching purgatory does mean you are getting in. Hell means forget it. You turned away from God your whole life. You rejected God and now he rejects you. In the RCC we do have heaven, hell and purgatory. We are taught that we should pray for our dead. Job prayed for his kids. Now if Job prayed for them, they had to have been somewhere. Now we know if not hell, and if not heaven where were they.

ccc quote: If jobs sons were purified by their fathers sacrifice why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation. unquote.

Now if we turn away from God we are going to hell. thats the teachings of the Church. But I do not see the rich man totally turning away from God. But he was in sin, and you must repent sin. mortal or venial. You cannot get into heaven with mortal sin but you can with venial sin, but still repent any sin, that would have to be in purgatory. Because you are dead in this world. And all sin must be repented.

 

[Mickey]

If you are formerly a Catholic you should know that Catholics do not get involved in never ending verse wars.

Are you kidding me? That’s what this place is all about!

Your personal interpretation of the parable is just as good rinnies.

That is a protestant thing to say. Protestants always say that one interpretation is as good as another. I have seen no Latin or Eastern Catholics or Orthodox here agree with rinnie (except maybe steve B). I have been quoting the great Orthodox saint Nicholai Velimirovich and a saint of both churches John Chrysostom.

So no Bob, you are wrong. It is not **MY **interpretation it is the interpretation of the church fathers and saints. And if you would like me to provide more saints and/or church fathers, I can do that.

but since it is totally irrelevant to the doctrine of purgatory as I said before it is an interesting, but meaningless, debate

Read my OP. This is not about purgatory. But some here are trying to make it about purgatory. I am tired of debating purgatory. As an Orthodox, I do not accept it. As a Catholic, you do accept it. Can we just leave it at that instead of everyone always getting all defensive about purgatory?

 

[Mickey]

Now if we turn away from God we are going to hell.

And the rich man was lost.

 

[Mickey]

Therefore, it is a matter of private interpretation for a Catholic in regards to whether the rich man is in purgatory or hell.

Can you show me where your Church states this about the parable of Lazarus and the rich man?
I would be intersted to read this since I do not believe there is one church father or saint pre or post schism who has stated that the faithful could believe (if they wanted) that the rich man was in purgatory.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

There is nothing that said the rich man was condemmed to hell. How could he have been, Jesus went to judge, and correct he did indeed free the just. But who is to say if he had Mercy on the rich man.

Sorry I do not see the rich man willfully turning away from God. I see him repenting. I see him in venial sin. He did not refuse Lazarus because he rejected God. Did he sin, by not helping him, yes he sinned but the only way

I would argue you are way off. The rich man appears to be in Hell. Just because the gates of Heaven were not open, doesn’t mean the gates of Hell were not wide open.

There is nothing venial about his sins. They went against natural law, like taking pity on your brother. His sin was extra grevious because that was one of his people that he rejected.

Purgatory does not fit this passage because purgatory is a plate/state that AFTER those who have been granted Heaven must be purified. So on in the literal sense, He is not talking about purgatory.

 

[rinnie]

And the rich man was lost.

Show me proof that being lost means you are in a deliberate state of Mortal sin?