Lazarus and the Rich Man

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
well the rich man was worried about those he was most intimate with ( ever witness what happens in some families when someone dies?) and hence those who would cause the most torment
I should clarify though that I believe the rich man was not experiencing the eternal reality of hell but it’s expectation. This means that when Christ appears to him, his particular disposition is one that expects to be condemned but not experiencing it’s finality.
 
I have read some theologians (whose name escape me right now) that think that this story is not a parable at all, but a true story. They believe that it illustrates Purgatory by Sir Knight’s argument. Also, they believe that it is not a parable, because in all of Jesus’s parables, he never names anyone by name. In this story, that is not the case.
 
I have read some theologians (whose name escape me right now) that think that this story is not a parable at all, but a true story. They believe that it illustrates Purgatory by Sir Knight’s argument. Also, they believe that it is not a parable, because in all of Jesus’s parables, he never names anyone by name. In this story, that is not the case.
I can’t see a reason to attach a process of purgation since there is no hint of a state of becoming nor a cause that would make it possible. In order for something to be elevated to a higher state, existence from a higher state must reach down and lift it. Although I see it expected but not necessarily required for Abraham and Lazarus I see no reason to believe it is happening.

Lazarus in this story resembles Christ.
 
**Hi Folks, 👋

IMHO, Some foolish arguments going on here. :eek:

Pope John Paul II In three controversial Wednesday Audiences pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to PJPII, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him.

"Incorporeal things are not in place after a manner known and familiar to us, in which way we say that bodies are properly in place; but they are in place after a manner befitting spiritual substances, a manner that cannot be fully manifest to us." [St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Supplement, Q69, a1, reply 1]

Heaven as the fullness of communion with God was the theme of the Holy Father’s catechesis at the General Audience of 21 July 1999. Heaven “is neither an abstraction not a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father which takes place in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit,” the Pope said.

Before we enter into full communion with God, every trace of sin within us must be eliminated and every imperfection in our soul must be corrected

*At the General Audience of Wednesday, 4 August 1999, following his catecheses on heaven and hell, the Holy Father reflected on Purgatory. He explained that physical integrity is necessary to enter into perfect communion with God therefore “the term purgatory does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence”, where Christ “removes … the remnants of imperfection”. *

*At the General Audience of Wednesday, 28 July 1999, the Holy Father reflected on hell as the definitive rejection of God. In his catechesis, the Pope said that care should be taken to interpret correctly the images of hell in Sacred Scripture, and explained that “hell is the ultimate consequence of sin itself… Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”. *

In the Old Testament the condition of the dead had not yet been fully disclosed by Revelation. Moreover it was thought that the dead were amassed in Sheol, a land of darkness (cf. Ez. 28:8; 31:14; Jb. 10:21f.; 38:17; Ps 30:10; 88:7, 13), a pit from which one cannot reascend (cf. Jb. 7:9), a place in which it is impossible to praise God (cf. Is 38:18; Ps 6:6).

The New Testament shed new light on the condition of the dead, proclaiming above all that Christ by his Resurrection conquered death and extended his liberating power to the kingdom of the dead. Redemption nevertheless remains an offer of salvation which it is up to people to accept freely. This is why they will all be judged “by what they [have done]” (Rv 20:13). By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk. 16:19-3 1).**

**Sir Knight, ****Vivat Jesus! The rich man was in hell “for the purpose of the parable”. That “fact” doesn’t prove or disprove Our Lady’s message. She showed the truth. Jesus was teaching. The real logical conclusion is that Jesus said. “And in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” Luke 16:23 … It was a story, It doesn’t matter for our salvation. it is a moot point.

The Book of Revelation also figuratively portrays in a “pool of fire” those who exclude themselves from the book of life, thus meeting with a “second death” (Rv. 20:13f.). Whoever continues to be closed to the Gospel is therefore preparing for 'eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2 Thes 1:9). The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy.**

[SIGN]This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033). [/SIGN]

**“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God’s initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgment ratifies this state.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ - CS Lewis

God Bless

**
 
**Sir Knight, ****Vivat Jesus! The rich man was in hell “for the purpose of the parable”. That “fact” doesn’t prove or disprove Our Lady’s message. She showed the truth. Jesus was teaching. The real logical conclusion is that Jesus said. “And in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” Luke 16:23 … It was a story, It doesn’t matter for our salvation. it is a moot point. ****

**
We’ve been through this before but I’ll be more than happy to go over it again for your benefit.

You are misinterpreting the word “hell.” In Luke 16:23, hell (in Greek, Hades) does not refer to the place of eternal punishment; it refers to the place of the dead who were awaiting Christ’s resurrection (the ancients called it Sheol). For example, in the Apostles’ Creed, we say “Christ descended into hell.” He did not really descend into the hell of eternal fire; he descended into Sheol.

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).
 
And you have no proof .
Hmmmm…I am still waiting for one of the Catholics here who are supporting the odd interpretation of the salvation of the rich man, to comment on the St John Chrysostom quotes. I will also add a second.

In the same way reason with yourself concerning the rich and the avaricious. Robbers lie in wait in the way and plunder travellers, and hide the wealth of others in their own lurking-places----in caves or dens. Do not, therefore, think them happy on account of the present, but miserable on account of the future----on account of the fearful judgment, the inevitable account to be rendered----the outer darkness which will envelop them. Even though robbers often escape the hand of men, yet, notwithstanding though we know this, we deprecate for ourselves such a life as theirs, or even for our enemies we should deprecate such an accursed prosperity. Yet with respect to God such a thing cannot be said. No one can escape His judgment, but all who in any way live in covetousness and rapine will undergo the punishment allotted by Him**----that deathless punishment which has no end,----in the same way as also did this rich man.**
St John Chrysostom (on Lazarus and the Rich Man)

St. John
** Chrysostom:**
“As it made the poor man’s affliction heavier while he lived to lie before the rich man’s gate and to behold the prosperity of others, so when the rich man was dead it added to his desolation that he lay in hell and saw the happiness of Lazarus. He felt not only the nature of his own torments but also his own punishment the more intolerable by comparing it to Lazarus’ honor.”
 
All I have done is offer quotes and teaching by saints,
When they were still in the flesh and were not assured to be infallible.
church fathers, and Popes.
And none of them declared that teaching to be infallible but THEIR understanding of the matter. Just as in the past Popes said that limbo existed and now the Pope says that it does.
No friend. It is you who have no support for your odd personal interpretation.
I have the support of the Mother of God who revealed that those in hell act a certain way and Jesus described the Rich Man not to be acting that way. It just takes simple logic to deduce that the Rich Man, therefore, could not have been in hell.
 
Hmmmm…I am still waiting for one of the Catholics here who are supporting the odd interpretation of the salvation of the rich man, to comment on the St John Chrysostom quotes. I will also add a second.

In the same way reason with yourself concerning the rich and the avaricious. Robbers lie in wait in the way and plunder travellers, and hide the wealth of others in their own lurking-places----in caves or dens. Do not, therefore, think them happy on account of the present, but miserable on account of the future----on account of the fearful judgment, the inevitable account to be rendered----the outer darkness which will envelop them. Even though robbers often escape the hand of men, yet, notwithstanding though we know this, we deprecate for ourselves such a life as theirs, or even for our enemies we should deprecate such an accursed prosperity. Yet with respect to God such a thing cannot be said. No one can escape His judgment, but all who in any way live in covetousness and rapine will undergo the punishment allotted by Him**----that deathless punishment which has no end,----in the same way as also did this rich man.**
St John Chrysostom (on Lazarus and the Rich Man)

St. John** Chrysostom:**
“As it made the poor man’s affliction heavier while he lived to lie before the rich man’s gate and to behold the prosperity of others, so when the rich man was dead it added to his desolation that he lay in hell and saw the happiness of Lazarus. He felt not only the nature of his own torments but also his own punishment the more intolerable by comparing it to Lazarus’ honor.”
As I already said, teachings of the saints when they were still in the flesh are not assured to be infallible
 
Apparitions are not required belief by the Catholic Church. Try again.
You try again because the Catholic Church OFFICIALLY declared those Apparitions as being WORTHY of belief which means that they contain NOTHING which conflicts with Church Teaching – which means that the souls in hell wanting other souls to join them does not conflict with Church Teaching. Therefore, the exact opposite of that WOULD conflict with church teaching. The exact opposite of that is the belief that those in hell wouldn’t want others to join them. Yet, this is what you are saying. You are saying that even though the Rich Man doesn’t want his brothers to join him, he is still in hell.

You have a conflict on your hands. Either the Rich Man is not in hell or the Apparition was wrong and the Church ERRORED in declaring it worthy of belief.

Which is it?
 
I have been trying with multiple patristics. But you ignore them. 🤷
Just answer my question. Did the church error in officially declaring an apparition worthy of belief when it contained false information or is the Rich Man in purgatory.

Resolve that conflict for me. Is it A or B. It can’t be both and I don’t see any other options.
 
You have a conflict on your hands. Either the Rich Man is not in hell or the Apparition was wrong
No conflict. If you are Catholic and you aceept the apparition that is fine. But you twisted the meaning to fit your odd little interpretation of the parable. Furthermore, although Fatima is an approved apparition by the Catholic Church–it is not part of doctrine. Do you have any sources that are proposing your spin doctoring of the apparition to meet your odd little interpretation of the parable? I did not think so. In addition, as you know, Holy Orthodoxy does not accept Fatima, so it is a non-issue to me. Show me a pre-schism source that coincides with your odd little interpretation.

Again–Pope JP2 does not agree with you–nor does multiple patristic sources. All you can offer is your odd interpretation of an apparition. Not very convincing sir knight.

Pope JP2 has an extensive understanding of Fatima. Yet he does not agree with the theologian, sir knight. Interesting. 😃

Care to respond to St John Chrysostom?
 
I can’t see a reason to attach a process of purgation since there is no hint of a state of becoming nor a cause that would make it possible. In order for something to be elevated to a higher state, existence from a higher state must reach down and lift it. Although I see it expected but not necessarily required for Abraham and Lazarus I see no reason to believe it is happening.

Lazarus in this story resembles Christ.
If I look at it from your logic Lazarus being Christ, then who would be the rich man (us thats who) and then according to you guys were screwed.

Also how can you not see a reason to attach the process of purgation, this is before the death of Christ and from your logic could he not be in fact the not something, the someone to elevate us to the higher state. He would be the one to reach down and help lift us up.
 
When they were still in the flesh and were not assured to be infallible.
LOL!!! I knew this was going to be your response. Whoever disagrees with sir knight, even if they are one of the great Church Fathers, is wrong because they are fallible flesh tents. Unbelievable! Pride is a terrible thing.
And none of them declared that teaching to be infallible but THEIR understanding of the matter.
So the Church Fathers are wrong here because they are fallible men. But sir knight is correct because he has interpreted Fatima to prove his point. :rotfl:
It just takes simple logic to deduce that the Rich Man, therefore, could not have been in hell.
Simple logic, Scripture, Popes, and Church Fathers tell us that he was condemned. Sorry sir knight, you are vastly outnumbered. 😃
 
As I already said, teachings of the saints when they were still in the flesh are not assured to be infallible
The Church Fathers give us many of our interpretations of Scripture–it is part of Sacred Tradition. This is why the Apostolic Church can interpret Scripture over and above the personal interpretaions of the reformers. But you are now squashing that to prove a point that does not exist. You are digging yourself a big hole.

I’ll take the teachings of the saints, (yes even when they are in the flesh), over the fleshy personal interpretations and odd logic of sir knight. 🤷
 
Sir knight has declared that St John Chrysostom is not correct because he is a fallible man. Are there any other Apostolic Christians here that feel St John got it wrong? I am still waiting for a reasoned response to St John’s quotes. While I wait, I will post something from St Romanos the Melodist. Feel free to respond to him also.

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
 
well the rich man was worried about those he was most intimate with ( ever witness what happens in some families when someone dies?) and hence those who would cause the most torment
I should clarify though that I believe the rich man was not experiencing the eternal reality of hell but it’s expectation. This means that when Christ appears to him, his particular disposition is one that expects to be condemned but not experiencing it’s finality.
But we are not disagreeing with temportal punishment Ben, That is what purgatory is. You are being cleansed from that sin, It is the final process. We as Catholic believe in venial sin. That is what we believe the rich man was being cleansed from.

And again he was sorry. People who want eternal separation from God could care less about others, or going to hell. What we are saying is you would not show grace in hell. Because Grace is a gift from God, if at your death you totally turned from Christ you would never experience grace.

And purgatory is being cleansed from venial sin. And the Pope agree’s with purgatory.

The only difference I can see from Purgatory then and now is the ones who either did not need to be cleansed or already went through the process were in the waiting stage. Then Jesus opened up heaven. The rich man indeed was still going through the cleansing process. How long we do not know. Only Christ makes that call. But we feel that if you are sorry and turn to God he will not turn you away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top