Lazarus and the Rich Man

[Mickey]

Steve—you and a few others disagree with JP2. Any comments on St John Chrysostom?

 

[Mickey]

JPII didn’t say it.

Yes he did. And he said this also.

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

 

[steve_b]

Yes he did. And he said this also.

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

I will ask you again. Who said that?

Was that from

• Fr Sebastian Vazhakala,
• was it from the good Father quoting Mother Teresa,
• or was it from JPII?

 

[rinnie]

Steve do you see anywhere where John Paul says anything of the rich man being tormented of the hell OF THE DAMNED. I do not see him saying this anywhere do You?

 

[Mickey]

I will ask you again. Who said that?

It is JP2 Steve!

Here is the excerpt:

I ask you to listen carefully to the Holy Father’s words:

“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.”

geocities.com/Heartland/2964/homily-26sunday-c.html

 

[Mickey]

Was that from Fr Sebastian Vazhakala?

Here is what Fr Vazhakala said: And it is very good. And a much better source than P. Madrid.

The rich man was condemned to hell**, not for the evils he committed, the lies he told, the blasphemies and bad words he uttered, but for failing to do what he should have done. “I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink… Lord, when did we see you hungry, thirsty, naked, homeless, sick or imprisoned?.. As long as you did not do this to the least of my brothers, you did not do it to me… These will go to eternal damnation, while the just to eternal life” (cf. Mt 25:31-46).**
Fr Sebastian Vazhakala, M.C.
**Co-founder and Superior General of the Missionaries of Charity – Contemplative of Mother Teresa of **Calcutta
ewtn.com/library/MARY/JP2ANMTR.HTM

Got it straight now Steve? Good.

 

[jmcrae]

Utter nonsense. Even after learning that he would get no relief himself,

Are you listening to/reading yourself? You AGREE that he is not going to get any relief from his torment!! This means that he is in Hell. Not Purgatory!! Because in Purgatory, relief comes when they go to Heaven.

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.

Speculation. We don’t actually know anything about what is possible or not possible in Hell, other than that it is not possible to get out of there, and that it’s a bad place to be.

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

Right again! And since he did not repent during his lifetime, there is no way that he can be purified in the afterlife. He died with unrepented sins on his soul.

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.

Abraham’s reaction seems particularly unfeeling and unloving, if in fact the rich man’s remorse was caused by grace from God. Is there more grace in Hell than in Paradise?

But it is more likely that his remorse springs from self-pity, and also (especially if he had led his brothers into this sin) fear that their anger against him at finding themselves in Hell would be even harder to deal with than the flames and the constant thirst. He is not concerned for their souls, but rather, terrified on his own behalf, that they will be furious with him for leading them into sin, and that their fury against him will be eternal.

 

[Benadam]

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.

Blame is the source of the increased torment. It’s been within the scope of Catholic thought on the pains of hell for centuries that the body will blame the soul for leading it to hell the soul will blame the body for not going where it lead. So even the reunion of body and soul will cause increased torment because of shared involvement in sin. So division decreases torment in hell union increases. Read some of the old school catholic thought on the four last things.

 

[Benadam]

Those theologians are wrong because he expressed this concern AFTER he already learned that he would get no relief from his torment.

The relief he sought was some water off the finger of Lazarus…if memory serves… look at the symbology…water life a finger dipped in water…finger accusation…Lazarus was destined to rise up and accuse him…like the queen of the south and the generation that hates truth. …basically the rich man was wanting a relxation of justice . Not getting that then he asked that he not have to suffer union with those who he would hate and and be hated by.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t think that you can use the story of Lazarus as a proof of purgatory. It could easily be a discussion of heaven and hell.
But more to the point, is there any official Catholic document that describes when prugatory came into existance. was it only after heaven was available with Jesus’s sacrifice or could it have been in effect the holding place prior to that as well. In this case, Lazarus could have been in Purgatory but the Rich man may or may not have been.

This is an excellent summary.

This parable is used at the beginning of the apologetical argument for Purgatory by showing that Lazarus (not the rich man!!) is in a “third state” that is neither Heaven nor Hell. He is with Abraham, and we know from I Peter in the third chapter that, prior to Christ’s resurrection from the dead, Abraham was in the Limbo of the Fathers, which is also called Paradise, or Sheol, or Hades (but not Gehenna - Gehenna is the place of the damned).

Therefore, Lazarus was in the Limbo of the Fathers.

St. Thomas Acquinas seems to equate the Limbo of the Fathers with Purgatory; other theologians say that the Limbo of the Fathers ceased to exist when it was emptied out on Easter Sunday morning, and that Purgatory began to exist at that time, as a place of purification for those who had died and were going to Heaven.

 

[Benadam]

Here is the parable:

Luke 16

19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

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.’**

27"He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to** this place of torment.**’

29"Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30" ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31"He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ "

There is nothing in the parable to indicate that he was ever going to be able to cross over.

So much going on here huh jm I just wanted to tell you that I now think you were right about there being some souls waiting in sheol who went instantly to heaven.

At the moment Jesus died on the cross presumably the moment His soul entered sheol there were graves that opened and again when he left the tomb.

This seems to point to a group who had been purged through suffering in their earthly life. The prophets the protomartyrs etc. The law of God is still the source of faith.Then those who required some purging could possibly be those who came up from their graves when Christ did.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Now you are reaching.
LOL!!! I am rolling on the floor. You are saying that your teaching is correct and Pope John Paul II is wrong–one of the greatest theologians of modern times. You’re killin’ me!

The greatest theologians of modern times believed in the message of our Lady of Fatima. In those apparitions, she showed to the children visions of purgatory and hell where the children observed that those in hell were over-come with joy when they saw more souls entering into hell because there would be more souls to share their torment. If this is the way that souls act in hell, why did the Rich Man not exhibit this behavior? Was our Lady wrong and as a result was the greatest theologians of modern times tricked into believing a false message or was the reason why the Rich Man did not behave in this manner because he wasn’t in hell but in purgatory?

Your call. Which is it?

 

[Sir_Knight]

I am not discussing the legitimacy of the RC doctrine of purgatory. Take it to the relevant thread. I am discussing the parable.

I’m also discussing the parable. You’re the first one that started with the protestant jabs. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.

You say that the rich man is in purgatory (as you understand the doctrine). Which means that you say he is bound for heaven.

I say he is condemned. You have no proof for your position.

And you have no proof for your’s either.

It sounds like sola Scriptura!

“sola Scriptura” is following the bible along. If it isn’t exactly spelled out in the bible, then it can’t be. Sounds exactly like you. The bible doesn’t specifically say that the Rich Man is not in purgatory, therefore he can not be in purgatory.

I get my information from other sources besides the bible – specifically the Catholic Church … which we are to look to for matters of faith.

As I already mentioned, our Lady of Fatima showed to the children visions of purgatory and hell where the children observed that those in hell were over-come with joy when they saw more souls entering into hell because there would be more souls to share their torment.

While this is a private revelation and the faithful are not required to believe it, the church has OFFICIALLY declared that it is WORTHY of belief – meaning that the message contains NOTHING which is contrary to Church teaching.

Let me repeat that for you. The Church OFFICIALLY declared that there is nothing in the message which conflicts with church teaching. Which means that the belief that souls in hell are overcome with joy when they see more souls entering hell does not conflict with church teaching.

So how do you explain the Rich Man not wanting his brothers to share his faith. If he was truly in hell, then he would have wanted them there with him. The fact that he didn’t, points to the fact that he was not in hell.

Either he wasn’t in hell, or the Church OFFICIALLY errored when it declared that the message of our Lady contained nothing which conflicted with Church teaching.

Which is it? You can’t have it both ways and I don’t see any third option. Do you?

 

[rinnie]

Blame is the source of the increased torment. It’s been within the scope of Catholic thought on the pains of hell for centuries that the body will blame the soul for leading it to hell the soul will blame the body for not going where it lead. So even the reunion of body and soul will cause increased torment because of shared involvement in sin. So division decreases torment in hell union increases. Read some of the old school catholic thought on the four last things.

I still do not understand how this has to do with us having to pay for the sins of our Brothers and Sisters?

 

[rinnie]

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.

Sir Knight, Am I misreading something here. Is he not saying God would blame him for the brothers sins. Or Am I seeing this wrong?

PS Awesome Job my friend. As Usual Awesome!

 

[Benadam]

The greatest theologians of modern times believed in the message of our Lady of Fatima. In those apparitions, she showed to the children visions of purgatory and hell where the children observed that those in hell were over-come with joy when they saw more souls entering into hell because there would be more souls to share their torment. If this is the way that souls act in hell, why did the Rich Man not exhibit this behavior? Was our Lady wrong and as a result was the greatest theologians of modern times tricked into believing a false message or was the reason why the Rich Man did not behave in this manner because he wasn’t in hell but in purgatory?

Your call. Which is it?

Sir Knight, I think the key here is in the understanding of what structures heaven and hell. Bonds between persons. Heaven is structured by the bonds of love that seek union for the sake of giving and for hell the bonds of sin that is commonly characterized as a restless to and fro a plunge into fire then ice, union to blame division to avoid it needing both and neither at the same time. In the absence of that bond it seeks only to pass it’s misery to others ad infinitum.

Sir, if you aren’t familiar with meditations on the Four Last Things I suggest a dip into these eternal realities as does the Church.

 

[Sir_Knight]

And none of that addresses what I just said. Our Lady revealed that those in hell WANT others to share their fate. This not something that the Rich Man exhibited.

 

[Benadam]

I still do not understand how this has to do with us having to pay for the sins of our Brothers and Sisters?

it’s not God making one soul suffer for another’s sin but souls seeking to make other souls suffer for their sin. Souls attempting to do what you for some reason keep thinking God is doing. B God only removes His presence. The souls desperately seek some semblance of beatitude which they can only attempt to satisfy by making another sufer for sin they themselves are responsible for.

 

[Benadam]

And none of that addresses what I just said. Our Lady revealed that those in hell WANT others to share their fate. This not something that the Rich Man exhibited.

Bonds formed through sin in opposition of the bonds formed through love experience increased torment in the measure they are intimate. Conversely , the bonds of love feel loss in the measure intimacy lacks the bonds of sin can enjoy the experience of shared misery in the measure intimacy lacks.

 

[Sir_Knight]

That is consistent with Our Lady’s message. Even though their own torment would be increased, they still desired others to be damned just as they were damned. Yet, the Rich Man did not exhibit any of this. The logical conclusion being that he was not in hell.