Purgatory is Biblical

[Sir_Knight]

You said:

Then I said:

Then you said:

Did you know that death is different from Purgatory?

That someone with your reading comprehension, sees the Parable about the rich man and Lazarus being about the rich man’s compassion is not surprising.

The fact that someone with your reading comprehension would disagree over the destination of the Rich Man with a well renowned Catholic author (John Salza) who is regularly featured on EWTN and spoken of highly by other Catholic publications, is not surprising.

Did you read the links provided by SHW?

You also did not answer my question about whether ANY parable of Jesus refers to Hell.

I suppose when Jesus alludes to the outer darkness where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, that is also about Purgatory. After all the people that are weeping are sorry for their sins, and that is a grace, and therefore they are in Purgatory. So in your view, it is impossible for Jesus to allude to hell.

Your desperation is showing. Unable to refute the logic that I presented, you now resort to strawman arguments in an attempt to prove your point. Shame on you. :tsktsk: Don’t put words in my mouth (“So in your view, it is impossible for Jesus to allude to hell”). Stick to what was said …

1. 
   *] Church Teaching : Compassion is a grace from God.
   
   *]Church Teaching : Those in hell are forever cut off from God’s graces.
   
   *] The Rich Man expressed Compassion toward his brothers – not wanting others to share his fate even if it buys nothing for himself IS a compassionate act.
   
   *]How could the Rich Man exhibit compassion if he was forever cut off from God’s graces? He couldn’t have but since he did, the only conclusion is that he was not in hell.

 

[SHW]

Father Abraham did not have compassion for the rich man nor for his evil brothers even though Abraham was in a paradise-like place. He was awaiting the gates of heaven to be opened by Jesus (which would happen after His death on the cross) so that all in Abraham’s bosom could then enter into heaven and eternal life.

John Bosco had a vision of hell. He saw the state of his “boys’” souls before they actually died and he was shocked at how many would be damned if they died at that very moment in time (without having time to repent for their sins).

This is what he saw about the love of material possessions:

“You haven’t seen everything yet,” he [the guide] explained.

He turned and lifted another curtain bearing this inscription: “They who would become rich, fall into temptation, and to the snare of the devil.” (1 Timothy 6: 9) (Note: would become rich: wish to become rich, seek riches, set their heart and affections toward riches.)

"This does not apply to my boys! I countered, “because they are as poor as I am. We are not rich and do not want to be. We give it no thought.”

As the curtain was lifted, however, I saw a group of boys, all known to me. They were in pain, like those I had seen before. Pointing to them, my guide remarked, “As you see, the inscription does apply to your boys.”

“But how?” I asked.

“Well,” he said, “some boys are so attached to material possessions that their love of God is lessened. Thus they sin against charity, piety, and meekness. Even the mere desire of riches can corrupt the heart, especially if such a desire leads to injustice. Your boys are poor, but remember that greed and idleness are bad counselors. One of your boys committed substantial thefts in his native town, and though he could make restitution, he gives it not a thought. There are others who try to break into the pantry or the prefect’s or economer’s office; those who rummage in their companions’ trunks for food, money, or possessions; those who steal stationery and books…”

After naming these boys and others as well, he continued, “Some are here for having stolen clothes, linen, blankets, and coats from the Oratory wardrobe in order to send them home to their families; others for willful, serious damage; others, yet, for not having given back what they had borrowed or for having kept sums of money they were supposed to hand over to the superior. Now that you know who these boys are,” he concluded, “admonish them. Tell them to curb all vain, harmful desires, to obey God’s law and to safeguard their reputation jealously lest greed lead them to greater excesses and plunge them into sorrow, death, and damnation.” From: holysouls.com/hell.htm

I cannot possibly believe that the rich man is in purgatory.

TREATISE ON PURGATORY by St. St Catherine of Genoa

"The divine fire which St. Catherine experienced in herself, made her comprehend the state of souls in purgatory, and that they are contented there although in torment.

2 The joy of souls in purgatory. The saint illustrates their ever increasing vision of God. The difficulty of speaking about their state."

"There is no peace to be compared with that of the souls in purgatory, save that of the saints in paradise, and this peace is ever augmented by the inflowing of God into these souls, which increases in proportion as the impediments to it are removed. The rust of sin is the impediment, and this the fire continually consumes, so that the soul in this state is continually opening itself to admit the divine communication.

"As a covered surface can never reflect the sun, not through any defect in that orb, but simply from the resistance offered by the covering, so, if the covering be gradually removed, the surface will by little and little be opened to the sun and will more and more reflect his light.

"So it is with the rust of sin, which is the covering of the soul. In purgatory the flames incessantly consume it, and as it disappears, the soul reflects more and more perfectly the true sun who is God. Its contentment increases as this rust wears away, and the soul is laid bare to the divine ray, and thus one increases and the other decreases until the time is accomplished. The pain never diminishes, although the time does, but as to the will, so united is it to God by pure charity, and so satisfied to be under his divine appointment, that these souls can never say their pains are pains. From: catholictreasury.info/books/treatise_on_purgatory/purg3.php

The rich man is not in purgatory; he is in hell.

I’ve got visitors to entertain this week so this will be my last post to this thread.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Father Abraham did not have compassion for the rich man nor for his evil brothers even though Abraham was in a paradise-like place. He was awaiting the gates of heaven to be opened by Jesus (which would happen after His death on the cross) so that all in Abraham’s bosom could then enter into heaven and eternal life.

John Bosco had a vision of hell. He saw the state of his “boys’” souls before they actually died and he was shocked at how many would be damned if they died at that very moment in time (without having time to repent for their sins).

This is what he saw about the love of material possessions:

I also read St. Bosco’s writings and if I recall correctly, most of the boy were damned for sins of impurity.

I cannot possibly believe that the rich man is in purgatory.

I cannot possibly believe that the rich man is in hell.

TREATISE ON PURGATORY by St. St Catherine of Genoa

"The divine fire which St. Catherine experienced in herself, made her comprehend the state of souls in purgatory, and that they are contented there although in torment.

2 The joy of souls in purgatory. The saint illustrates their ever increasing vision of God. The difficulty of speaking about their state."

More writings from the saint with the good track record on biblical insight

The rich man is not in purgatory; he is in hell.

The rich man is not in hell; he is in purgatory.

I’ve got visitors to entertain this week so this will be my last post to this thread.

Ditto. I’ll be helping my daughter study for mid-terms and I doubt that I’ll be able to reply to this thread for at least a week.

 

[SemperReformada]

Stick to what was said …

1. 
   *] Church Teaching : Compassion is a grace from God.
   
   *]Church Teaching : Those in hell are forever cut off from God’s graces.
   
   *] The Rich Man expressed Compassion toward his brothers – not wanting others to share his fate even if it buys nothing for himself IS a compassionate act.
   
   *]How could the Rich Man exhibit compassion if he was forever cut off from God’s graces? He couldn’t have but since he did, the only conclusion is that he was not in hell.

1. 
   This is something I have thought about for a long time but have never seen a Catholic address it and just haven’t taken the time to post on this myself.

 

[SHW]

More writings from the saint with the good track record on biblical insight

I have a few minutes before guests arrive so I just had to check this thread again.

You are mistaking St. Catherine of Siena for St. Catherine of Genoa. These are two different saints. My last quote (which was about purgatory) was from St. Catherine of Genoa.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Sir Knight:

The fact that someone with your reading comprehension would disagree over the destination of the Rich Man with a well renowned Catholic author (John Salza) who is regularly featured on EWTN and spoken of highly by other Catholic publications, is not surprising.

I am more impressed with what Church Fathers and Saints have said over the course of Christianity. I see many difficulties with Salza’s theory, not the least of which, is that it does NOT square with Church Doctrine, nor agree with mainstream Catholicism.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I am more impressed with what Church Fathers and Saints have said over the course of Christianity.

As was already covered, the writings of the Saints are not guaranteed to be infallible. Proof of that was shown with St. Catherine and St. Thomas who wrote that the Blessed Virgin was NOT immaculately conceived in contradiction to INFALLIBLE Church teaching. As for the Church Fathers, we already covered that as well. The early Church Fathers used the term “hell” interchangeably with purgatory – so they could have been referring to purgatory when they said hell.

I see many difficulties with Salza’s theory, not the least of which, is that it does NOT square with Church Doctrine,

It appears to square with Church Doctrine very well (from the Vatican’s Website) … "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.

This early 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"
What produces purification? Fire. It can both destroy AND purify without destroying…at the same time. Just as Paul said in 1 Cor 3: 12-15 A man will suffer loss but will ultimately be saved as one escaping through fire. Who’s the one suffering in fire?

nor agree with mainstream Catholicism.

I disagree. If his opinions did not agree with mainstream Catholicism, he wouldn’t be supported by mainstream Catholic media and publications …

HERE ARE SOME SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES AND QUOTES CONCERNING THE DOGMA OF PURGATORY:
ST. LUKE 16: 19-31 - THE PARABLE OF LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN.
Notice that the rich man is “tormened in this flame”, and yet he desires to be MERCIFUL to his “five brethren” in his father’s house! The rich man asks “…Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father’s house, for I have five brethren, That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments.”
(Luke 16: 27-28)
A soul in the torments of the Hell Of The Damned does not have any mercy for those who are still alive on Earth!!! The rich man must be in some other location where the virtue of DIVINE MERCY is practiced, because there is no mercy in the Hell Of The Damned!

Lazarus and the Rich Man

Christ’s parable about Lazarus and the rich man is unmistakable. When the rich man (tradition has him as Dives) begged Abraham for some relief from his sufferings, he was told, “My son, remember that during your life good things came your way, just as bad things came the way of Lazarus. Now he is being comforted here while you are in agony. But that is not all: between us and you a great gulf has been fixed, to stop anyone, if he wanted to, crossing from our side to yours, and to stop any crossing from your side to ours” (Lk. 16:22-31). Further, Dives asks Abraham to send Lazarus back to his brothers and warn them, in order to save them from the torment that he was experiencing. Where was Dives who had compassion and love for his five brothers? It is generally understood that there is no love in Gehenna, only complete and perfect hatred. He obviously, was not in either Heaven or Paradise. Since the rich man had love and compassion for his brothers, it would indicate that he was not in Gehenna. And please note that he was able to converse with Abraham; this would indicate that he was in the second level of the abode of the dead, or Purgatory.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You are mistaking St. Catherine of Siena for St. Catherine of Genoa. These are two different saints. My last quote (which was about purgatory) was from St. Catherine of Genoa.

Sorry. My mistake but as was already demonstrated with St. Catherine of Siena, the writings of the Saints are not guaranteed to be infallible. And I have read MANY quotes which disagree with her saying that those in purgatory are suffering greatly. I just don’t have the time to find them right now because I’m preparing review sheets for my daughter’s upcoming mid-terms.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Sir Knight:

It appears to square with Church Doctrine very well (from the Vatican’s Website) …

What you left out from your quote from the Vatican’s website “Spe Salvi”:

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst.

So Pope Benedict is RE-AFFIRMING the constant Catholic belief that the rich man (not named, because his name is NOT written in the book of life) is in Hell.

What you quoted is a lead in to the old Jewish belief in an intermediate state, which ultimately gives rise to the Church’s position on Purgatory, through OTHER verses in the Bible, not by this particular parable. Pope Benedict is using this parable as an example of the old Jewish belief in an intermediate state, which Jesus is using in His Parable to illustrate a dreadful warning to those who live like the rich man.

What Salza is saying is twisting and perverting this warning of Jesus into ball of harmless fluff, by saying, but the rich man gets grace to have compassion on his brothers while in a state of torment, so therefore eat drink and be merry! Apparently the impassable chasm is just a fraud.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You are again creating strawman arguments and putting words in people’s mouth that they never said or implied :tsktsk: Isn’t hell a place of zero contact between the righteous and unrighteous? Isn’t it a perfect barrier, a perfect seperation in ALL respects?.. The fact there was ANY communication between the 2 sides at all, suggests the rich man was NOT in a place of absolute seperation and despair, Otherwise he wouldn’t be allowed to ask for ANYTHING or communicate with the righteous in anyway. The barrier between realities would be THAT complete in ALL respects…but in this case it wasn’t.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

You are again creating strawman arguments and putting words in people’s mouth that they never said or implied :tsktsk: Isn’t hell a place of zero contact between the righteous and unrighteous? Isn’t it a perfect barrier, a perfect seperation in ALL respects?.. The fact there was ANY communication between the 2 sides at all, suggests the rich man was NOT in a place of absolute seperation and despair, Otherwise he wouldn’t be allowed to ask for ANYTHING or communicate with the righteous in anyway. The barrier between realities would be THAT complete in ALL respects…but in this case it wasn’t.

You accuse me falsely. But in the Words of Jesus, Abraham himself says that the BARRIER IS IMPASSIBLE. I don’t know how much clearer the parable could say it. Jesus was not trying to teach a minute doctrine of hell, as the Catholic church understands it now. Rather, he is warning us that by living the life of the rich man, WE SHALL GO TO HELL! That is the message, not a realistic depiction of life in hell.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Look, in hell there is no mercy. The Rich Man felt mercy; He said if Lazaras can’t help me, help my brothers. Mercy is a grace from God, and anyone in hell could care less about their brothers. Everyone knows in hell there is no mercy, and his brothers cannot help him. If someone is hell they turned completely away from God, are not sorry for what they did, and could care less about anyone else.

He is in the netherworld: a place of death. If you look up the netherworld its underworld which is hades. or sheol. All the same place. It was the place where the righteous were either waiting or being purified after death.

If he was in hell, he would not see the righteous nor be able to talk to them. He did talk to them and could see Abraham and Lazarus. So it shows they were in the same place. Different levels where one could not pass to the other but if you can see me and I can see you we are in the same place.

That is the best I can show you.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Sir Knight:

Look, in hell there is no mercy. The Rich Man felt mercy

This is the entire basis for your argument, or rather, I should say Salza’s. Yet nothing in the parable mentions the rich man having mercy. Just the contrary, the rich man is in hell because he never had mercy. It has already been shown in earlier posts by SHW that the rich man was in terror because his brothers were heading for the same destination because of his own wretched example, and even argued with Father Abraham about how they should be converted. No the rich man had no mercy, not even while in torment, but was eternally lost.

 

[promiseland]

Whenever I encounter someone who question the existence of Purgatory in the bible I always said…

first of all, passages in the bible proves that there is a purgatory,

Second, the Church do not teach to believe only in what is written in the Bible.

Third, The church created the bible and not the bible created the church…

and lastly, the very word “purgatory” is older than the word “Bible”

 

[Sir_Knight]

He was CONCERNED about his brothers even though it would buy him nothing. Those in hell couldn’t care less about anyone else. That shows COMPASSION. Compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are forever cut off from God’s graces. So he could not have been in hell.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Okay, it’s bedtime for me and perhaps for this thread as well. We’ve been round and round with this several times and we’re getting nowhere. Thus, I’m going to summarize my conclusions one last time and then bow out of this thread; and, if folks don’t accept it, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

First off, as far as I know, the Church has never infallibly ruled on this matter, so we can’t go by that. What the Church does teach is that compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are forever cut off from God’s graces.

We can use those Church teachings to draw some conclusions. The Rich Man, plead for a chance for his brothers to be spared the same fate as him even though it would not profit him in anyway. He CARED about his brothers. He demonstrated the God-given grace of compassion – which he would not have if he was in hell. Thus, the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is that he was not in hell because those in hell do not care about anybody.

Some have argued that he didn’t want them joining him because he set the bad example for them and if they ended up in hell, his suffering would increase. There are a couple of problems with this opinion. First off, nowhere does it say that he was the cause of his brothers going astray. He may have, or he may not have. There is nothing in the story to indicate it one way or the other and we just can’t ASSUME and add to the story to make it fit our conclusion that he didn’t want them joining him because he set the bad example for them and if they ended up in hell, his suffering would increase.

Secondly, we know how those in hell act and they want others to share their fate even if it increases their own suffering. We see this in the writings of the saints and it is confirmed by scripture itself. Some will argue that this applies only to the demons and not human souls but, again, that is an ASSUMPTION that is NOT supported by scripture or any church teaching or saint writings. In absence of any supporting references that human souls act differently, the conclusion has to be that they act the same.

Just as those in heaven are aware of our actions and rejoice when sinners turn from sin – that applies to both human souls in heaven and the angels in heaven. Unless, we are told specifically that there is a difference, the conclusion is that it is the same. Thus, those in hell (human and demon) want others to share their fate even if it increases their own suffering.

That disproves the idea that the Rich Man wanted his brothers spared for selfish reasons to minimize his own suffering because from the story we don’t know if his suffering would have increased and even if it did, he would prefer them to be damned with him even if his suffering increased if he was in hell.

He did not want that, again, proving that he was not in hell – this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from existing Church teaching.

We can not take the opinions of the early Church Fathers because it has been demonstrated that they used the terms “hell” and “purgatory” interchangeably. So the argument can not be used to say that this Church Father or that Church Father believed that the Rich Man was in hell because they could have said “hell” and meant “purgatory”.

So, we can’t go by that.

And, while the writings of the saints certainly have merit, those insights are NOT infallible (as was shown in this thread) and those insights need to be discarded if they conflict with either Church teaching or conclusions drawn from Church teaching – which is what we have done … the Rich Man exhibited compassion toward his brothers and since compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are forever cut off from God’s graces, he can not be in hell.

There you have it. If somebody has an objection that I did not touch upon above, I’ll gladly try to address it but if it’s an argument that I already addressed above, I will not respond further because we’re just going around and around with this.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

He was CONCERNED about his brothers even though it would buy him nothing. Those in hell couldn’t care less about anyone else. That shows COMPASSION. Compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are forever cut off from God’s graces. So he could not have been in hell.

You (though really Salza) are reading compassion into the story to fit his theory. If Salza had not made this statement, there would be nowhere else to find this parable so mistakenly interpreted. The parable does not say anything about the rich man having compassion, in fact it illustrates very graphically that the one thing that the rich man did NOT have is compassion, by his treatment of Lazarus.

If the rich man had compassion, he would have died with that compassion, and would be in Purgatory. But we know from the story that the rich man did not have compassion in his life time, so he could not have died with the merits of compassion within him, (where they would still exist in Purgatory.)

The mistake is believing that someone who shows no compassion in this life, will be given a grace to show compassion while in the torments of hell. That is the opposite of Church teaching.

 

[Cristian_B]

…]

What produces purification?

…]

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed [or purified] with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. ~Apostle Paul

We are purified by the blood of Jesus Christ. If the fire could have cleaned us, then His sacrifice would be useless. If anything from this world could have redeemed us, then His sacrifice would have been useless.

Because by one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. ~Apostle Paul

He made us perfect. It is written in the Scripture. His blood made us without sin (or took away our sin), that means: perfect.

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. ~Apostle Paul

“By the blood of Jesus” we enter the Holy place. The blood cleans us, not fire. As I said, his sacrifice would be useless if we could be cleaned with fire. The law testifies that only blood can clean us, and the law speaks the Truth.

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ~Apostle Paul

We are made holy by His sacrifice (His blood) once and for all. We do not need any more cleansing than His blood.

And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. ~Apostle Paul

His Spirit and blood are the ones that clean us. By His blood he sent the Spirit to us, so that is why I say that by the blood of Christ we have been cleansed. We are washed through the Spirit, not fire. Saying that the Spirit cannot forgive our sins is blasphemy. You are taking God’s glory and merit of sin forgiveness and giving it to fire. Isn’t God mroe worthy of glory than fire?

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. ~Apostle Paul

We have redemption trough His blood, not fire. We have forgiveness of sins trough His blood, not fire.

*Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.* ~Apostle Peter

Even the apostle Peter, the one whom you consider the “first pope”, said that we are not redeemed with things from this world: gold, silver, air, wind, fire, etc. but by His blood, which is not from this world. He redeemed us with His blood. This redemption is the forgiveness of sins, the rebirth.

Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? ~Apostle Paul

Be careful, because saying that His blood cannot completely clean us according to the Scripture (and the Scripture is infallible, meaning that it speaks the Truth) is blasphemy against the Lord. Who are you to “trample the Son of God under his foot”? Who are you to take away the glory of the Lamb and give it to fire? You are saying that His blood isn’t precious enough to clean you. Isn’t He worthy of cleaning you? Is His sacrifice useless? That is what you are saying: you say that His blood cannot completely clean us and we need fire for complete cleaning. Are you mad? What is more precious, His blood or fire? Blood is what purifies us, and not fire. We are not made of gold or iron. We cannot be purified trough fire. We are purified trough the blood of the Lamb.

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. ~Apostle Paul

So God made His Son sin for us so we may have our sins forgiven (and become righteous), and you are saying that we become righteous (be cleaned) trough fire? Didn’t God say: “I will not share my glory with anybody”? He does not give His glory to anybody, neither us, neither angels, neither idols, neither fire or anything that is from this world of another. He only shared His glory with His Son. Saying that He can forgive all our sins is giving Him glory. Nobody can take that glory from Him, and fire is included. If He doesn’t share it with His angels, do you think He will share it with fire?

So, fire does not clean us, but His blood does. According to the law, we are cleaned with blood. Without blood there is no forgiveness. The blood does the cleaning, not fire. Fire cleans objects, we are people. Aren’t we more precious in God’s eyes than an animal or an object? We were so precious and loved by Him that He sent His Son to die for us. By His death, we are redeemed, and our sins are forgiven. We are born again not as sinners, but as saints.We are not objects. We have a bit of life but we are not immortal. We are not some gold without life. Aren’t the ones thrown in the Lake of Fire dead? So fire kills us. Fire does not clean people from sins, but His Blood. Saying that fire can clean us is taking away glory from God.

 

[Cristian_B]

Whenever I encounter someone who question the existence of Purgatory in the bible I always said…

first of all, passages in the bible proves that there is a purgatory,

I haven’t seen one yet.

Second, the Church do not teach to believe only in what is written in the Bible.

The Church can believe in whatever she wants as long as it is not contradicting the Bible. Or if it does not say anything (directly or indirectly) about what the Church wants to do. If it is not written in the Bible, I suppose it is OK, or isn’t it? But be sure that the Bible speaks about a lot of things, so very few aren’t included in it.

Third, The church created the bible and not the bible created the church…

The church put together the books, she did not create them. Prophets were long before Jesus. God was long before the prophets. So His Word was long before it was written. The Bible is a book that comprehends all the books of the Bible. Since the books are His Word then the Bible is His Word. “Let there be light” are the first and oldest words we know. So if the Bible is His word, then “Let there be light” is the first Bible, therefore, the Bible (also called His Word), created the Church. His Word is Jesus so The Word (The Bible) created the Church., and not the Church created Jesus. God created the Church, and God is Jesus. Since God is Jesus, and Jesus is His Word, and His Word is the Bible, and God existed long before the Church, then the Bible (the Word) existed long before the Church. Of course, that Bible did not contain so many words like ours today. It was smaller, but it was there. By saying that the Church created the Bible is like saying that the Church created God, which sounds atheistic to me. So what you said is wrong.

and lastly, the very word “purgatory” is older than the word “Bible”

What are you trying to say? Of course. The word “bible” is recent, but His Word isn’t. His Word started at the beginning. It is Alpha and Omega. It is forever. If the Bible is His Word, then it is forever. By saying that the word “purgatory” is older, you are saying that it could have been included in the Scripture, so if it isn’t, it mustn’t be for a reason, isn’t it?

 

[SHW]

You (though really Salza) are reading compassion into the story to fit his theory. If Salza had not made this statement, there would be nowhere else to find this parable so mistakenly interpreted. The parable does not say anything about the rich man having compassion, in fact it illustrates very graphically that the one thing that the rich man did NOT have is compassion, by his treatment of Lazarus.

If the rich man had compassion, he would have died with that compassion, and would be in Purgatory. But we know from the story that the rich man did not have compassion in his life time, so he could not have died with the merits of compassion within him, (where they would still exist in Purgatory.)

The mistake is believing that someone who shows no compassion in this life, will be given a grace to show compassion while in the torments of hell. That is the opposite of Church teaching.

You are correct. People assume that the rich man had compassion. The parable does not state this at all. It just states that he desires his brothers to repent lest they come to this place of torment.

He does not desire this brothers to enter hell with him because if they do, then he will be held responsible for his part in corrupting them. He will have to suffer more in hell if they join him in hell so he prefers them to repent and be saved instead. His only motive is to alleviate his own suffering. He actually has no compassion for his brothers at all. If his brothers repent and are saved, then that is better for the rich man than for them to join him in hell and cause him more suffering.

This is why Jesus states immediately (the next sentence) after this parable:

“Then He said to the disciples, “It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they do come! 2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.”

If I cause/convince/enable another person to sin, then I will be held responsible for my part in corrupting this person/helping him to sin.