Lazarus and the Rich Man

[Realcatholicgk]

**Hi friends,

Like SirKnight, I will also bow out of this discussion. IMHO knowing the period in which this story was told there actually cannot be the slightest doubt that the whole account of Lazarus and the Rich Man is a parable from start to finish.
What many people don’t know or seem to conveniently fail to remember is the proclivity of teachers, speaking in early Semitic languages like Hebrew, or even in Greek, when speaking in a Semitic environment, to constantly use the symbolic or parable form of teaching to the people they taught. As a teacher, Jesus was no exception! There is proof in scripture of that fact:

“All these things spoke Jesus unto the multitudes in parables and without a parable spoke he not unto them. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, ‘I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.’” Matthew 13:34–35

As we know parables are a form of storytelling in which the physical features of some well-known subjects are exemplified to relate an essential spiritual teaching. On many occasions the incidents are embellished or greatly exaggerated to heighten the lesson being taught. One very famous example of Jesus Himself doing that is when He said the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds Even then people knew it isn’t) and He said it becomes the greatest of trees (which again is not literally true). Read Matthew 13:32. Absolutely no one in the first century would have thought that Christ was stretching the facts. Of course he was! But, it wasn’t a lie, it was a simple form of teaching that all people used in those days.

Since we are told dogmatically that Christ was always in the habit of speaking to the people in parables, as it was a common mode of instruction in the Semitic world of the first century, why do people today insist on the literality of symbolic language, while people in Jesus’ day didn’t?

The scriptures have to be interpreted correctly to be understood, only the Catholic chuch is the only one that can do that correctly.There is nothing more I could or desire to say on this subject so I will bow out of this discussion.

Chase your tails, have fun!

God Bless**

 

[Mickey]

**As we know parables are a form of storytelling in which the physical features of some well-known subjects are exemplified to relate an essential spiritual teaching. **

Yes. And parables can have more than one teaching. Parables can be very rich and deep in meaning. The consensus here is that one of those meanings is NOT “purgatory”. And the fathers and saints of the Church would agree.

God bless you all!

 

[Mickey]

**Chase your tails, have fun! **

img131.imageshack.us/img131/5688/32589171gu2.jpg

 

[paul_c]

Yes. And parables can have more than one teaching. Parables can be very rich and deep in meaning. The consensus here is that one of those meanings is NOT “purgatory”. And the fathers and saints of the Church would agree.

God bless you all!

Just remember, its not consensus that is important, it is the truth.
Nevertheless, I agree with you that this parable does not prove or disprove the concept of Purgatory.

 

[Mickey]

Just remember, its not consensus that is important, it is the truth.

Your Church teaches that the consensus of an interpetation of Scripture by the holy fathers—is truth.

God bless.

 

[paul_c]

Your Church teaches that the consensus of an interpetation of Scripture by the holy fathers—is truth.

God bless.

Why isn’t it YOUR church/

 

[jmcrae]

Your Church teaches that the consensus of an interpetation of Scripture by the holy fathers—is truth.

God bless.

It’s a little more nuanced than that, actually. While that is one criterion, there are others, as well.

 

[Mickey]

It’s a little more nuanced than that, actually. While that is one criterion, there are others, as well.

Yes, I know. But I am getting too lazy to write.

 

[Mickey]

Why isn’t it YOUR church/

Huh?

 

[paul_c]

Huh?

Why are you specific in saying " Your church teaches" , rather than OUR church teaches?

You are acting as an outsider and I’m asking why you choose to do so?

 

[Mickey]

Why are you specific in saying " Your church teaches" , rather than OUR church teaches?

You are acting as an outsider and I’m asking why you choose to do so?

I thought you may have peered at my profile. I am Orthodox.

We also have Sacred Scriptures, Holy Tradition (including the fathers), and the great councils of the Church. But we do not recognize the magisterium and the post schism doctrines of Rome.

 

[paul_c]

I thought you may have peered at my profile. I am Orthodox.

We also have Sacred Scriptures, Holy Tradition (including the fathers), and the great councils of the Church. But we do not recognize the magisterium and the post schism doctrines of Rome.

I did see that you were Orthodox, and wondered why you aren’t Catholic, seeing all the time and effort you are spending on CAF and all the quotes of Pope John Paul, whose authority you don’t recognize…

 

[Mickey]

I did see that you were Orthodox

Then why the surprise?

and wondered why you aren’t Catholic

I am a convert from the Catholic Church.

seeing all the time and effort you are spending on CAF

I’m sorry. Do I have your permission to participate here. Sheesh!

and all the quotes of Pope John Paul, whose authority you don’t recognize.

First, I was a great admirer of John Paul II. Secondly, it is to show you that our Churches have a common interpretation of the parable.

Why must you be so combative?

 

[paul_c]

Then why the surprise?
I am a convert from the Catholic Church.
I’m sorry. Do I have your permission to participate here. Sheesh!

First, I was a great admirer of John Paul II. Secondly, it is to show you that our Churches have a common interpretation of the parable.

Why must you be so combative?

I’m sorry if it came off as combative. Actually, I was simply being curious. Sometimes you come off as Catholic, quoting JPII, and sometimes as an Orthodox outsider. I certainly wasn’t questioning your participation.

Now, I’m really curious. What caused you to convert from Catholicism to Orothodoxy? You don’t have to respond, if you don’t want to. It’s certainly outside the scope of this thread.

 

[Mickey]

I’m sorry if it came off as combative. Actually, I was simply being curious. Sometimes you come off as Catholic, quoting JPII, and sometimes as an Orthodox outsider. I certainly wasn’t questioning your participation.

Sorry. Sometimes words on a forum take on a different personality than is intended.

What caused you to convert from Catholicism to Orothodoxy? You don’t have to respond, if you don’t want to. It’s certainly outside the scope of this thread.

I’ll send you a private mail if I get the chance.

 

[rinnie]

A new stage of the Churchs teaching was brought about by the dogmatic bull Bendictus Deus whch Pope Benddict XII promulgated on 29 January 1336. In this bull the Pope taught that in the time after Christ’s passion death and ascension into heaven the souls of those departed persons who stand in no further need of purification do no have to linger in the INTERMEDIATE STATE.

The intermediate State back then was called Hades, Where the dead waited resurrection.

I knew I would find it and tie it into Lazarus and the rich man!

Pope John Paul ll calls the Treasury of Souls, or WAITING beneath the throne of God AND the throne of God and of the just and especially martyrs being received into Abrahams Bosom, the thought of tarryng of souls beneath the throne of God all these are Present in the NT TRADITION.

In Lazarus and the rich man Lazarus was received into the Bosom of Abraham. ( intermediate State, now Purgatory.)

I knew it, the only different is When Jesus came he opened heaven and the Souls could be released.

 

[Benadam]

.)

I

knew it, the only different is When Jesus came he opened heaven and the Souls could be released.

 

[rinnie]

rinnie;4755722:

.)

I

I would add that just as on earth what was known in types and shadows was experienced similarly by the Treasury of Souls before Christ’s death and Resurrectrion. Now what has been fully revealed on earth likewise is revealed fully to souls seperated from the body.

Yes I agree. That is why the bible is full of how our earthly bodies are not as important as our souls. I bought the book Eschatology. I really didn’t get to read it all. But snow again today I should get more time. It even uses the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. I knew I heard it before.

It also says how we can do penance in purgatory. (venial sins).

It is everything I was taught from birth. How we die, the soul seperates from the body. And I believe because the bibles tells us at the end we will have the new heaven and the new earth, that we will live like we do now, in our bodies, but God will not reunite them until the end of the world. Then I think that the only difference will be we will see heaven, and God will live with us, My Dad told me at the end of the world we will live like we should have before Adam and Eve sinned, that there will be no hard labor, no death, no hate, no suffering. Because no sin. So this world some day could possibly be paradise. But the end is just my thinking not the Church’s. So Mickey can’t tear into to me for that. But we will indeed see our loved ones again, and it will be one heck of a happy reunion huh!

 

[Mickey]

I knew I would find it and tie it into Lazarus and the rich man!

The parable has nothing to do with purgatory.

It also says how we can do penance in purgatory.

You cannot repent after you die

 

[Mickey]

A new stage of the Churchs teaching was brought about by the dogmatic bull Bendictus Deus whch Pope Benddict XII promulgated on 29 January 1336. In this bull the Pope taught that in the time after Christ’s passion death and ascension into heaven the souls of those departed persons who stand in no further need of purification do no have to linger in the INTERMEDIATE STATE.

Yes. He is teaching about those who need purification after Christ’s passion.
There is nothing in this bull that talks about anyone needing purification befort Christ’s passion or anything about the parable itself. In your desparation to be correct, you are reading things into the bull that are not there. Here is the language:

According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and also of the holy apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins and other faithful who died after receiving the holy baptism of Christ- provided they were not in need of any purification when they died, or will not be in need of any when they die in the future, or else, if they then needed or will need some purification, after they have been purified after death-and again the souls of children who have been reborn by the same baptism of Christ or will be when baptism is conferred on them, if they die before attaining the use of free will: all these souls, immediately (mox) after death and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification mentioned above, since the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven, already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven, in the heavenly kingdom and paradise, joined to the company of the holy angels.