Lazarus and the Rich Man

[Sir_Knight]

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

Same as before, did they bring this message when they was in the flesh or did they bring it to us after they were declared saints and did the church declare it to be worthy of belief?

As for JPII, did he declare this to be an infallible teaching? If it didn’t, then it isn’t infallible no matter how often you keep quoting it.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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)

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?

 

[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

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?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Mickey, unless something is EXACTLY spelled out, you seem to have an issue following the flow of things. So I will lay it out for you piece by piece to make it easier for you to follow along.

1. 
   *]The Blessed Virgin Mary revealed to the children that those in hell rejoice when other souls fall to their doom and join them in hell.
   
   Since this is a private revelation, folks are not required to believe it. So far, no problem with your conclusion.
   
   *]However, the Church OFFICIALLY declared that the message is WORTYHY of belief – which means that nothing in the message contains anything which conflicts with Church Teaching.
   
   *] This means that the concept of those in hell rejoicing when other souls fall to their doom and join them in hell does NOT conflict with church teaching.
   
   *] That MUST mean that the opposite DOES conflict with church teaching – the opposite being that those in hell do not want others to join them.
   
   *] Now, what does the bible tell us about the Rich Man. Does he want others to join him where he is? No, he doesn’t. Yet, what do we expect of those in hell? See #2 above – we expect them to want others to join him. If he was in hell, his behavior would conflict with Church teaching (see #3 above).
   
   Therefore he can not be in hell. If he is, then Church teaching is wrong and they errored in saying that the message from Our Lady was worthy of belief.
   
   So, which is it? I ask again. Did the Church error in declaring something worthy of belief when it contained false information or is the Rich Man not in hell?

 

[jmcrae]

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.

If he was not condemned, then there is no point to the parable, It makes absolutely no sense, if the rich man is in a state of temporary suffering, as opposed to eternal torment. There is no lesson to be learned from it, if the rich man has gotten away with his sins.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

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?

 

[jmcrae]

Mickey, unless something is EXACTLY spelled out, you seem to have an issue following the flow of things. So I will lay it out for you piece by piece to make it easier for you to follow along.

1. 
   *]The Blessed Virgin Mary revealed to the children that those in hell rejoice when other souls fall to their doom and join them in hell.

1. 
   She didn’t actually say anything at all - the children were seeing Hell in a vision, and they noticed that some of the people in Hell were rejoicing that others were being made to join them there.
   

   Since this is a private revelation, folks are not required to believe it. So far, no problem with your conclusion.

   And all we really have, in this particular instance, is what a six, seven and nine year old child said they saw, which was that some of the people in Hell (not all of them) were rejoicing that others were joining with them there.
   

   *] This means that the concept of those in hell rejoicing when other souls fall to their doom and join them in hell does NOT conflict with church teaching.

   SOME of them. Not ALL.
   

   *] That MUST mean that the opposite DOES conflict with church teaching – the opposite being that those in hell do not want others to join them.

   No, you can’t conclude this.
   

   *] Now, what does the bible tell us about the Rich Man. Does he want others to join him where he is? No, he doesn’t. Yet, what do we expect of those in hell? See #2 above – we expect them to want others to join him. If he was in hell, his behavior would conflict with Church teaching (see #3 above).

   First, it isn’t even Church teaching; it’s the observations of the child seers. Second, the children didn’t make any dogmatic pronouncements, and nor did any official of the Church, regarding the potential behaviour of souls in Hell.
   

   Therefore he can not be in hell. If he is, then Church teaching is wrong and they errored in saying that the message from Our Lady was worthy of belief.

   Since there is no such church teaching, this conclusion is incorrect.
   

   So, which is it? I ask again. Did the Church error in declaring something worthy of belief when it contained false information or is the Rich Man not in hell?

   The Church made no pronouncements whatsoever with regard to the behaviour of those souls who go to Hell; thus, made no error, and the rich man was either in Hell, or on a waystation to Hell - he was not in Purgatory, and there is no way that he was ever on his way to Heaven.

 

[Randy_Carson]

By his passion, death, and resurrection, Jesus opened heaven (CCC 1026). Prior to that time, the just went to a place referred to as the “bosom of Abraham,” where they would be comforted. But not all went to the bosom of Abraham. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31), both Lazarus and the rich man died, but Lazarus was comforted in the bosom of Abraham while the rich man was in a place of torment. A great chasm separated the two.

The Catechism explains:
Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell”—Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him (CCC 633; cf. Roman Catechism I, 6, 3).

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0505qq.asp

 

[rinnie]

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.

Hello Love, Glad to see you are home safe and sound. Yes we are getting a little freezing rain now. Mine was off once already. We are getting it now, but after midnight worse yet.

Well Looks like its me, you and the Pope!

I think I can live with that, How about You?

 

[Sir_Knight]

She didn’t actually say anything at all - the children were seeing Hell in a vision, and they noticed that some of the people in Hell were rejoicing that others were being made to join them there.

As I said, she REVEALED this to the children.

And all we really have, in this particular instance, is what a six, seven and nine year old child said they saw, which was that some of the people in Hell (not all of them) were rejoicing that others were joining with them there.

And the Church OFFICIALLY declared that the message which came from Our Lady through these six, seven and nine year old children WAS worthy of belief.

SOME of them. Not ALL.

It is unrealistic to believe that some would act differently. Just as one would not expect those in heaven to exhibit negative thoughts & feelings, one would not expect those in hell to exhibit positive thoughts & feelings. Thus, we can safely conclude that what the children witness in some was true for all.

No, you can’t conclude this.

Of course you can. Two opposing beliefs can not BOTH in keeping with Church teaching.

First, it isn’t even Church teaching; it’s the observations of the child seers. Second, the children didn’t make any dogmatic pronouncements, and nor did any official of the Church, regarding the potential behaviour of souls in Hell.

The Church declared that there was NOTHING in what they said which conflicted with church teaching. Which means that the concept that those in hell rejoice as other souls enter hell does not conflict with church teaching.

Since there is no such church teaching, this conclusion is incorrect.

There is no such teaching but there is the OFFICIAL position that the revealtion is WORTHY of belief – meaning that believing that those in hell rejoice as other souls enter hell is WORTHY of belief. If that is worthy of belief, the opposite, that those in hell are saddened by other souls entering hell is NOT something worthy of belief.

The Church made no pronouncements whatsoever with regard to the behaviour of those souls who go to Hell; thus, made no error, and the rich man was either in Hell, or on a waystation to Hell - he was not in Purgatory, and there is no way that he was ever on his way to Heaven.

That is where you are wrong. While the Church made no pronouncements whatsoever with regard to the behaviour of those souls who go to Hell, it DID say that a nessage which described the behavior of souls in hell WAS worthy of belief.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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?

You bring up very valid points but two things disturb me about the Rich Man being in hell …

1. 
   *]The first you’ve already seen me mention. That of the Rich Man expressing concern over his brothers and compassion being a grace from God and those in hell being forever cut off from God’s graces.
   
   *]The second being the ability of the rightous being able to see those damned to hell. Can you imagine how you would feel if you were in heaven and were able to see a loved one in hell in utter torment? How could your happiness be complete under those circumstances? Where as, if Lazarus was in Limbo and the Rich Man was in purgatory, then that is consistent with the concept of the communion of saints of heaven, earth and purgatory where we all pray for one another. Those in hell being concerned about their loved ones on earth doesn’t fit into that picture.

 

[Benadam]

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!

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.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

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?

**Hi Mickey,

I find my self in complete agreement with you against Sir Knight! Hmmm, And I am a cradle Catholic! I also believe that Sir Knight has twisted the meaning to fit his odd little interpretation of the parable.

God Bless**

 

[rinnie]

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.

Ben Thank-you for treating me with respect and not trying to be-little me. But I must in all due respect disagree with you.

The Jewish idea of an intermediate state includes the view that these souls are not simply in a sort of temporary custody but as the parable of the rich man illustrates are already being punished or are experiencing a provisional form of bliss. There is also the idea that this state can involve purification and healing which mature the soul for communion with God. The early Church took up these concepts and in the western church they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory.

If again they were in eternal hell yes it would not be purgatory. But no where does it say eternal. Then put that with everything Sir Knight and I said and it all adds up to the same thing.

The rich man was indeed in Purgatory.

By the way the First part again came from the Pope.

 

[jmcrae]

As I said, she REVEALED this to the children.

And the Church OFFICIALLY declared that the message which came from Our Lady through these six, seven and nine year old children WAS worthy of belief.

And doesn’t say what you think it says.

It is unrealistic to believe that some would act differently.

Why? They are individuals. In fact, these particular individuals are non-conformist, “ain’t nobody tell me wadda do” individualists, bound by no law of any kind in either life or death. They can certainly behave differently from one another, and the children never said they didn’t. All the children said was that they observed some souls rejoicing that others were joining them.

Just as one would not expect those in heaven to exhibit negative thoughts & feelings, one would not expect those in hell to exhibit positive thoughts & feelings. Thus, we can safely conclude that what the children witness in some was true for all.

What’s “negative” about joy? Joy is a fruit of the Holy Spirit; it’s a gift from God. These particular souls happen to be misusing it, but in and of itself, it’s not a bad thing.

As someone upthread mentioned, you are setting the bar far too low for Heaven, if you say that the people in Hell can have no redeeming characteristics. Even Hitler loved puppies and art, but only the most naively idealistic people think he went to Heaven.

Of course you can. Two opposing beliefs can not BOTH in keeping with Church teaching.

There are no opposing beliefs being proposed, here.

The Church declared that there was NOTHING in what they said which conflicted with church teaching. Which means that the concept that those in hell rejoice as other souls enter hell does not conflict with church teaching.

Some of them do; I don’t doubt that. All of them? Probably not.

There is no such teaching but there is the OFFICIAL position that the revealtion is WORTHY of belief – meaning that believing that those in hell rejoice as other souls enter hell is WORTHY of belief. If that is worthy of belief, the opposite, that those in hell are saddened by other souls entering hell is NOT something worthy of belief.

You are setting up an either/or situation that doesn’t actually exist.

That is where you are wrong. While the Church made no pronouncements whatsoever with regard to the behaviour of those souls who go to Hell, it DID say that a nessage which described the behavior of souls in hell WAS worthy of belief.

The children did not see every soul in Hell; therefore they could not have described the behaviour of every soul in Hell.

 

[jmcrae]

The second being the ability of the rightous being able to see those damned to hell. Can you imagine how you would feel if you were in heaven and were able to see a loved one in hell in utter torment? How could your happiness be complete under those circumstances? Where as, if Lazarus was in Limbo and the Rich Man was in purgatory, then that is consistent with the concept of the communion of saints of heaven, earth and purgatory where we all pray for one another. Those in hell being concerned about their loved ones on earth doesn’t fit into that picture.

Okay. Earlier you said that Mother Mary (who is indisputably in Heaven) could not only see the souls in Hell, she could reveal them to the children at Fatima. (I agree that she could.)

Now, you are contradicting yourself, and saying that the souls in Heaven cannot see the souls in Hell.

Please explain.

 

[Benadam]

Sir Knight. Insisting that the rich man was showing compassion because he didn’t want them to be there with him is to deny the complexity of human behaviour. To insist on applying behaviour based on earthly experience is to deny the profound diference that a state of existence of another order implies. I explained to you how the bonds of sin between persons who are experiencing condemnation and their relative intimacy change the responses to other souls that share their state.

I am perplexed that a Catholic would reject outright reasonable explanations and so many others here, sound catholic views from famous doctors , fathers , mystics and posters here in favor of an opinion of what the visionaries of Fatima saw.

Sir Knight I don’t doubt your Catholicity one ioata . I sense a very devoted Catholic in you and this is the reason I say this. Your understanding of what the Church teaches is being distorted by a false view of the vision at Fatima and perhaps the role of Marian visions. Sir please don’t replace what the Church teaches with a personal view of what Our Blessed Mother wishes to show us. She wouldn’t wish to show us something that would cause us to question the teaching of so many valid authorites of the Church…

IYours in Christ

 

[Benadam]

Ben Thank-you for treating me with respect and not trying to be-little me. But I must in all due respect disagree with you.

The Jewish idea of an intermediate state includes the view that these souls are not simply in a sort of temporary custody but as the parable of the rich man illustrates are already being punished or are experiencing a provisional form of bliss. There is also the idea that this state can involve purification and healing which mature the soul for communion with God. The early Church took up these concepts and in the western church they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory.

If again they were in eternal hell yes it would not be purgatory. But no where does it say eternal. Then put that with everything Sir Knight and I said and it all adds up to the same thing.

The rich man was indeed in Purgatory.

By the way the First part again came from the Pope.

Yes, Lazarus experinced a natural bliss because he had the heart of a true child of Abraham and knew with eneogh certainty of His heavenly destiny that it created a bliss akin to a person who has no personal sin.

Nothing I’ve said make impossible the possibility that the prayers of the faithfull could not efect the souls is sheol before Christ decended there.

The rich man existed in a state of expected condemnation that could not be changed in any way as the story suggests. He was yet to experience the degree of wickedness revealed by the degree of Christs beauty. It is not very possible that he would experience this and want to receive Christ. That would just finalize his expectation then as Jesus soul ascends to Glory he will experience utter loss.

None of my responses to you as of yet have meant what you think they have meant. Probably my inability to express these ideas clearly more than your unwillingness to understand .

 

[po18guy]

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?

I’d say you nailed it.

 

[rinnie]

Sir Knight. Insisting that the rich man was showing compassion because he didn’t want them to be there with him is to deny the complexity of human behaviour. To insist on applying behaviour based on earthly experience is to deny the profound diference that a state of existence of another order implies. I explained to you how the bonds of sin between persons who are experiencing condemnation and their relative intimacy change the responses to other souls that share their state.

I am perplexed that a Catholic would reject outright reasonable explanations and so many others here, sound catholic views from famous doctors , fathers , mystics and posters here in favor of an opinion of what the visionaries of Fatima saw.

Sir Knight I don’t doubt your Catholicity one ioata . I sense a very devoted Catholic in you and this is the reason I say this. Your understanding of what the Church teaches is being distorted by a false view of the vision at Fatima and perhaps the role of Marian visions. Sir please don’t replace what the Church teaches with a personal view of what Our Blessed Mother wishes to show us. She wouldn’t wish to show us something that would cause us to question the teaching of so many valid authorites of the Church…

IYours in Christ

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)?