Lazarus and the Rich Man

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will re-post all the quotes so that they are together:

****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

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)


**“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.”
St. John Chrysostom


**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

Today’s Gospel offers the parable of the “rich man” and poor Lazarus (cf. Lk
16: 19**-31). The rich man lives in opulence and luxury oblivious of the beggar lying at his door. But after they die their fate is reversed, **Lazarus is carried away to heaven, whilst the rich man falls into the netherworld of torments.
Pope John Paul II
 
Benadam. Remember this too, to really feel sorry for a sin you commited is also Grace. People that are really evil do not feel that remorse. That is what the big difference between those who belong to God and those who do not.

Sure you can fake being sorry but God knows. That is why I believe that the rich man again was in purgatory. And why would the rich man want to help his brothers is he wants them to share in his misery? See what I mean? He would not even think of saying that. Actually that is the last thing he would say. Knowing they were comming would be better yet.

But God treats us the way we treat others. But here is the thing, he was not good to others, he did not realize how much he was sinning. I agree he did sin, and did wrong. But now that he does see it, he wanted to go to his brothers. That to me is not a misery loves company. On the same flip of the coin God saw that when he was aware of his sin, he showed Grace by saying okay, let me at least help the ones I love. He was afraid that he did not see his sin, they would not see theirs either. Now back to God treating you the way you treat others. He had Mercy on his brothers. So God would indeed have Mercy on him.

Yes he needed to be cleansed from his sin, but he got a shot. Because him even being able to talk to Abraham shows he was not separated from the righteous. Just a barier but not total separation. But he again had to be cleansed from that sin. What is being cleansed from sins? Purgatory:thumbsup:
 
Oh and lest I forget the great Orthodox saint who says the rich man was blotted from the book of life–I will add the words of St Nikolai Velimirovich:

By this omission of the rich man’s name, He (the Lord) revealed a heavenly mystery. The name of such a rich man will be unknown in heaven. It will not be mentioned among the angels and saints; it will be blotted out of the Book of Life.
St Nicholai Velimirovich (on the parable of Lazarus and the rich man)
 
Sr. Knight,
I don’t think your defense of Purgatory requires the rich man to be there. Purgatory is well attested in other places and by many of the acknowledged mystics, including those at Fatima and Anne Catherine Emmerich.

I think you err when you try to place the rich man in purgatory because he has a redeeming feature (wishing that his brothers escape his fate). I think it is clear that Jesus was using him as an example of the condemned.

I think the difficulty here lies in your assumption that to be in Hell, you can have no redeeming features. If that was true, then the bar for entrance into heaven would be extremely low, since I believe that even our most obstinate villains have at least some redeeming qualities. In the Sermon on the Mount,Jesus points out that even the tax collectors love those that love them back but that they will get no recompense for that, they have to love their enemies as well.
.
 
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.
That some of the souls in Hell rejoiced in the year 1917, to see others sharing their pain, has nothing at all to do with the rich man and Lazarus - they could certainly do so, without it being a requirement for the rich man to have done so.

Besides, I always thought that rejoicing was not possible for those who are in Hell? Isn’t Joy one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit? So, how could they have it in Hell? 😉
 
That some of the souls in Hell rejoiced in the year 1917, to see others sharing their pain, has nothing at all to do with the rich man and Lazarus - they could certainly do so, without it being a requirement for the rich man to have done so.

Besides, I always thought that rejoicing was not possible for those who are in Hell? Isn’t Joy one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit? So, how could they have it in Hell? 😉
Joy is a grace only if its in God’s presence. You do not think the devil receives great joy out of sin. Think again. But it is not a Grace from God thats for sure!😃
 
I got this from my Father. Quote: Jesus admonishes us through the image fo a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man. The chasm of being trapped between material pleasures the chasm of forgetting the other of imcapacity to Love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst.

We must note that in this parable Jesus is NOT REFERRING TO THE FINAL DESTINY AFTER THE LAST JUDGEMENT, but is taking up a notion found inter alia in early Judaism namely that of an INTERMEDIATE STATE BETWEEN DEATH AND RESURRECTION, A STATE IN WHICH THE FINAL SENTENCE IS YET TO BE PRONOUNCED. unquote.

We see this state as being Purgatory!
 
Joy is a grace only if its in God’s presence. You do not think the devil receives great joy out of sin. Think again. But it is not a Grace from God thats for sure!😃
Aha! So then, the rich man could have been worried about his brothers being also condemned with him to Hell, without it being a grace from God - it might have just been natural affection. 😃
 
I got this from my Father. Quote: Jesus admonishes us through the image fo a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man. The chasm of being trapped between material pleasures the chasm of forgetting the other of imcapacity to Love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst.

We must note that in this parable Jesus is NOT REFERRING TO THE FINAL DESTINY AFTER THE LAST JUDGEMENT, but is taking up a notion found inter alia in early Judaism namely that of an INTERMEDIATE STATE BETWEEN DEATH AND RESURRECTION, A STATE IN WHICH THE FINAL SENTENCE IS YET TO BE PRONOUNCED. unquote.

We see this state as being Purgatory!
What are you quoting from? 🙂
 
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.

And you have no proof for your’s either.

“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?
Does the vision of Fatima mean that ALL of the souls in Hell rejoice when new souls arrive in that place? Did the children actually see EVERY SINGLE soul rejoice?

Or is it possible that a few souls, like the Rich Man, recognize the condition that they are in and long for better for others?

I’m inclined to think that souls in hell do not have that kind of compassion, but I would not be dogmaic about it! 😛
 
Aha! So then, the rich man could have been worried about his brothers being also condemned with him to Hell, without it being a grace from God - it might have just been natural affection. 😃
Did I say that? Did I say that the rich man was in hell? No I did not!
 
What are you quoting from? 🙂
Well, Beside Sir Knight, I found another Catholic who agrees with me, My Father, :rotfl: :extrahappy: Oh did I forget to Mention My HOLY FATHER. Pope Benedict.

How did I do Sir Knight? I know you are working but hope you had a great day and are not too tired to come on tonight!
 
Well, Beside Sir Knight, I found another Catholic who agrees with me, My Father, :rotfl: :extrahappy: Oh did I forget to Mention My HOLY FATHER. Pope Benedict.

How did I do Sir Knight? I know you are working but hope you had a great day and are not too tired to come on tonight!
Can you cite your source with a link? I want to see for myself whether Pope Benedict said, “We see this state as Purgatory.” Because I seriously doubt that he actually said that - I think you added that part, yourself. 😃
 
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.
“Holy Orthodoxy does not accept Fatima” – well, there is your problem right there. No wonder you have this concept all mixed up.
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.
You don’t accept Fatima but follow the teachings of a man who does. How is that? If he is wrong about Fatima, then he can also be wrong about the Rich Man being in hell and if he is right about that, why don’t you accept his belief on Fatima. You’re not very consistent which places your conclusions further in doubt.
Pope JP2 has an extensive understanding of Fatima. Yet he does not agree with the theologian, sir knight. Interesting. 😃
An “understanding” which you do not accept. So why does it surprise you that I take issue with his conclusion about the Rich Man being in hell?
Care to respond to St John Chrysostom?
Mortal man expressing a personal opinion. As I said before, I’ll take the word of the Mother of God OFFICIALLY confirmed by the infallible Church over that of a mortal man.
 
No. You answer mine. I am the OP. And I asked first. 😉
I already did but you refused to accept my answer which raises the question as to why you posted the question in the first place if you are not open to answers given and even argue with the answers received. Looks to me like you have some hidden agenda. That, along with you condensating replies and even insults to those that disagree with you, paints you in a less than favorable light.
 
Does the vision of Fatima mean that ALL of the souls in Hell rejoice when new souls arrive in that place? Did the children actually see EVERY SINGLE soul rejoice?

Or is it possible that a few souls, like the Rich Man, recognize the condition that they are in and long for better for others?

I’m inclined to think that souls in hell do not have that kind of compassion, but I would not be dogmaic about it! 😛
Randy, good to see you 🙂 I see that we might be on opposite ends of the fence on this one.

As you said, it is doubtful that one would find such compassion in hell since compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are forever cut off from His graces.
 
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.
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
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:
I’ll take the word of the Mother of God in a supernatural vision with the official approval of the Catholic Church over the OPINIONS of fallible humans any day of the week.
Simple logic, Scripture, Popes, and Church Fathers tell us that he was condemned. Sorry sir knight, you are vastly outnumbered. 😃
Scripture does not tell us that he was condemned. That is your incorrect conclusion and nowhere did Church Fathers and Popes tell us this infallibly either.
 
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.
There is a difference between what the Church OFFICIALLY declares and opinions that are expressed by fallible men.
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. 🤷
You take the teachings of fallible men and I’ll take the teachings of the Mother of God support by OFFICIAL Church declaration.
 
How did I do Sir Knight? I know you are working but hope you had a great day and are not too tired to come on tonight!
Excellent!

I’m here tonight but we’re expected to be hit with the winter storm of the season later on tonight so my ability to be online may be impacted soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top