Purgatory is Biblical

[zach_dunn]

← continued from previous post →

if you die unsaved, then the punishment for sin is death. Death is forever. That is the judgment. The law of God judges you,. The bible, which is the word of God, is the law of God, and the law of God is a judgment upon you. If you die unsaved your dead.

What do you make of this?

1 Corinthians 3:11-15
For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw–each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

If a man’s works fail (that is, on Judgment Day, a person fails to “pass” the judgment), he will suffer loss . . . so he fails the Judgment test which is based on our works Mt 25:31-46] which means, according to you, he should go to hell. That’s not the case, he is still saved, but as through fire? Catholics call this process Purgatory, it’s not hard to understand.

if you die saved, then any sin you may have is still covered by the blood of Christ.

So we can sin all we want, right?

Purgatory is a fable. STOP TRYING TO MAKE A VERSE FIT YOUR OWN DOCTRINE. Your doctrin is contrary to bible doctrine if you can twist a verse to fit a teaching you hold dear to your heart. You must allow yourself to be corrected and instructed by the word of God.

You should hold the same standard for yourself, I have shown that we do not twist Scripture; how do you know that you are right? Are you the infallible interpreter of the Bible? Did God give you the sole authority to interpret His word?

this means that you change your doctrine, you don’t twist bible doctrine to support you.

that is why we have hermenuetics.

You’re the one twisting the Bible, friend. The Church has been studying and practicing it’s God given authority to interpreting the Bible. The Church has been studying hermeneutics for 2,000 years, much longer than you, any of your favorite scholars, and even longer than Luther: I’m 100% sure that the Church knows how to interpret the Bible more accurately than you.

That the word is spoken in parables.
and to compare scripture to scripture. These are spelled out in the bible, if you dont recognize these as instrucions from the bible to define the bible, then you will never come to truth will you. your doctrine will always be just a little off considering you dont compare scripture to scripture and find harmony, considering you think only the four gospels are spoken in parables and not the bible as a whole

Where are you getting this information? Do you have any Catholic sources saying this? You don’t, you wanna know how I know? This quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”[sup]76[/sup]

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”[sup]77[/sup]

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.[sup]78[/sup]

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.[sup]79[/sup]

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.[sup]80[/sup]

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"[sup]81[/sup]).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.[sup]82[/sup] By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

Yup, we’ve got interpretation down pretty well . . . how about you?

For the word of God is the bible, and the word became flesh and dwelt among us. The bible and Jesus are the same word, they are identified with each other.

No complaints here, I guess.

 

[frtrue]

Yes, in the second quotation you say that, but in the one I responded to, you said that the devil and demons are the ones rejoicing, not the human souls . . . so that did not prove your point.

Sorry to be dense about this but, what was the point?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

We also know that compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are forever cut off from God’s graces. So, he can not be in hell either.

That argument is based on an assumption that you have made, which is not Scriptural. It is plain to the meanest intelligence that the Rich man had NO compassion, while he lived, for the poor man. Now you are saying he has suddenly found compassion while he is in torments? Sort of like all the celebrities that are struck with remorse, AFTER they are caught? I don’t think so.

It is the Gospel that after death, one can not repent. It is only NOW in this life that we can repent. Now is the acceptable time.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Your own words just proved that the Rich Man was in purgatory. As you correctly stated, the Church teaches that our minds are fixed at the time of death. We are either repentant and die in God’s favor destined for heaven with perhaps a prior purification via purgatory or we die in God’s disfavor freely choosing hell over God’s company. I forget the exact quote but it was revealed that if the gates of hell were opened nobody would walk out because so great is their hatred of God.

As we see from the passage, the Rich Man showed remorse AFTER his death – which means that he had to feel that prior to his death because our minds can not be changed after our deaths. If he felt remorse, then he could be in hell.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Sir Knight:

As we see from the passage, the Rich Man showed remorse AFTER his death – which means that he had to feel that prior to his death because our minds can not be changed after our deaths. If he felt remorse, then he could be in hell.

Correction, YOU see remorse, not we.

Of course this whole discussion is no more profitable than arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is a parable, not a real event. However, Jesus is showing that IF someone from hell could talk to someone like Father Abraham, how he might respond. To take from that response, that the rich man had compassion while in torments, but not while he lived on earth, is to completely miss the point of the parable and even its facts! The point of the parable is that the rich man DID NOT have compassion while he lived his luxurious life, and so now is in eternal torments.

As SHW already said, this is NOT a scriptural reference to Purgatory. It has never been interpreted that way by the Fathers, or by the Church.

 

[Cristian_B]

Your own words just proved that the Rich Man was in purgatory. As you correctly stated, the Church teaches that our minds are fixed at the time of death. We are either repentant and die in God’s favor destined for heaven with perhaps a prior purification via purgatory or we die in God’s disfavor freely choosing hell over God’s company. I forget the exact quote but it was revealed that if the gates of hell were opened nobody would walk out because so great is their hatred of God.

As we see from the passage, the Rich Man showed remorse AFTER his death – which means that he had to feel that prior to his death because our minds can not be changed after our deaths. If he felt remorse, then he could be in hell.

You are wrong, Sir Knight (I like your nickname, by the way).

*"At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and five were wise. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.

At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’

Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’

‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’

But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.

Later the others also came. ‘Sir! Sir!’ they said. ‘Open the door for us!’

But he replied, ‘I tell you the truth, I don’t know you.’

Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour."* (Matthew 25:1-13)

I don’t know about you but it looks like the 5 virgins surely repented for not bringing oil jars. You really believe that the women that were left in the darkness did not feel sorry for not preparing themselves? I specifically remember that “they went on their way to buy the oil”. The others brought oil jars with themselves. The wise virgins represent the people that repented and sanctified themselves before Jesus’ second coming, but the other 5 unwise virgins represent the ones that did not prepare themselves while they had the chance. As you see, the 5 virgins remained outside still went to buy oil, but it was late: the doors were shut. They still tried to repent and save themselves but they missed their chance. This teaches us that there is a time when repentance is useless. You will surely repent at the end of this time if you go to Hell.

EDIT: I don’t recall the groom giving a second chance to the foolish virgins. They were either prepared or not. And he neither said that they must purify themselves before entering. They were either prepared or not. Either a saint or not.

 

[EnterCanaan]

At least the post can’t go downhill any further . . .

We disregard certain passages?

1 John 5:16-17
If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

When you say “Death is forever,” do you mean that hell is forever? Because I’ll agree with you there. Also, no one has said that death = purgatory because no one thinks that . . . so . . . that’s cleared up.

Why do the sinful “saved” people get to go to heaven? Especially when we know that sin cannot enter heaven. . . . [cf. **Rev 21:27

]

How do you become a “child of God?” If all of our sin is automatically “made pure in white,” why do we need to confess our sins? Also, do you recognize the difference between sin and the punishment given for a particular sin?

I don’t know if you meant it in a literal sense, but FYI, our bodies are not sin itself . . . sin is evil and everything God creates is “very good” [cf. **Gen 1:31]. But you are correct in that we all have a tendency to sin, St. Paul and the Church call this “concupiscence.”

Going to Mass, receiving the Eucharist (and therefore sanctifying grace), is not a work. It is what Christ told us to do at the Last Supper. The sanctifying grace clears away venial sin, but if you receive the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin, you bring down judgment upon yourself per 1 Cor 11:29.

Christ Himself established the sacrament of Confession:

John 20:22-23
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

This is pretty clear, Paul also talks of the sacrament of Confession:

2 Corinthians 2:10
And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:18
All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation.

You can’t get much clearer than that! Absolution (i.e., when the priest forgives your sin) takes away the sin, but the temporal punishment remains, that is what penance and indulgences are for, to remove the temporal punishment due to sin.

So, as long as we’ve accepted Christ we can just go around sinning as much as we want right? Sin while the sinning’s good, huh? God’s got your back, He doesn’t care if you sin as long as you’ve accepted His Son as your Lord and Savior!



Once again, how exactly do you become a “child of God?”

← continued in next post →

I appreciate the conversational response. Normally i don’t respond, however because you took your time with me, ill do a follow up to your dissagreements, however it will be a bit later if not tomorow. check back periodically. thanks,

 

[Danno2281]

It is unfortanate that so many disregard certian passages while taking so much stock in others.

Purgatory is a fable dear readers.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

even the smallest of sins, is punishable by death. Death is forever. Death is not purgatory, Death is the punishment for sin.

If you have a little bit of sin you never conquered upon your death, well then unless you are saved, you are going to die and be exterminated forever and ever.

The miracle of salvation, is the blood of Christ washes ALLL SIN away. In other words, your spotty black ugly sin will be made pure and white, because Christ took it upon himself, all of it, and when you become a child of God, you are no longer under the wrath of God.

When you become saved however, you are given a new resurrected soul, a living soul. However we still have a mortal body that lusts for sin. we will sin in our lives, it is a fact, our bodies are sin, and our bodies lust for sin. This does not mean you can go to mass and have the sin cleaned, that is work, this doesnt mean you can go to confession, that is work, this means that if you are saved child of God, then Christ took all of your sin PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE, considering God knows the beginning from the end, He is the alpha and omega, All of your sin is ACCOUNTED FOR.

If you die a child of God, then you go to heaven, regardless of the sin you commit because of your body. those sins are still covered by the blood of Christ.

if you die unsaved, then the punishment for sin is death. Death is forever. That is the judgment. The law of God judges you,. The bible, which is the word of God, is the law of God, and the law of God is a judgment upon you. If you die unsaved your dead.

if you die saved, then any sin you may have is still covered by the blood of Christ.

Purgatory is a fable. STOP TRYING TO MAKE A VERSE FIT YOUR OWN DOCTRINE. Your doctrin is contrary to bible doctrine if you can twist a verse to fit a teaching you hold dear to your heart. You must allow yourself to be corrected and instructed by the word of God.

this means that you change your doctrine, you don’t twist bible doctrine to support you.

that is why we have hermenuetics.

That the word is spoken in parables.
and to compare scripture to scripture. These are spelled out in the bible, if you dont recognize these as instrucions from the bible to define the bible, then you will never come to truth will you. your doctrine will always be just a little off considering you dont compare scripture to scripture and find harmony, considering you think only the four gospels are spoken in parables and not the bible as a whole

For the word of God is the bible, and the word became flesh and dwelt among us. The bible and Jesus are the same word, they are identified with each other.

Post #83:
Having read all the previous posts, I am astonished that no one has yet mentioned the most telling and demonstrable scripture on the subject: Rev. 7:14. “These are the one who have come out from the great tribulation and have washed their robes and made them white in the Blood of the Lamb.”
First of all, they, not the Lamb, had washed their clothes. They had to do the work of applying His Blood to their soiled garments, and this after after they had gone through the great tribulation. That is what purgatory (“place of cleansing”) affords the imperfect, a compleat detachment from all those stains through the application of Christ’s sacrificial blood.

 

[zach_dunn]

Post #83:
Having read all the previous posts, I am astonished that no one has yet mentioned the most telling and demonstrable scripture on the subject: Rev. 7:14. “These are the one who have come out from the great tribulation and have washed their robes and made them white in the Blood of the Lamb.”
First of all, they, not the Lamb, had washed their clothes. They had to do the work of applying His Blood to their soiled garments, and this after after they had gone through the great tribulation. That is what purgatory (“place of cleansing”) affords the imperfect, a compleat detachment from all those stains through the application of Christ’s sacrificial blood.

I like this.

 

[zach_dunn]

I appreciate the conversational response. Normally i don’t respond, however because you took your time with me, ill do a follow up to your dissagreements, however it will be a bit later if not tomorow. check back periodically. thanks,

You don’t normally respond? How do you expect people to accept your opinions when you won’t even continue a dialogue to get to the bottom of things?

 

[I_kilt_Gawd]

montecarlense:

I have doubts about the “free Will”…I really don’t think such thing exists…

You are correct, please proceed to kill yourself. Everyone else here should follow suit.

http://www.halloweenonlinemagazine.com/sfx/skeleton10-3.jpg

On the other hand, you could accept overwhelming evidence that quantum uncertainty states that the future is not set in stone, and can be affected by your observations.(ie quantum mechanics says what you do changes the future in somewhat controllable fashion). You can’t prove anything about gods, I say one must be ignorant to be anything but agnostic. But sound science says, with 99.9% certainty, now that we’re here, we determine our own fate. If you are sound of mind enough to take my advice you’ll see that you don’t have to stop believing in God, you can just start believing in things that are demonstrably true (ie science).

For any that are not so sound of mind, I suggest the following.

Just like your god fearing ancestors did to this guy:
You should try it out for yourselves.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Correction, YOU see remorse, not we.

Of course this whole discussion is no more profitable than arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is a parable, not a real event. However, Jesus is showing that IF someone from hell could talk to someone like Father Abraham, how he might respond. To take from that response, that the rich man had compassion while in torments, but not while he lived on earth, is to completely miss the point of the parable and even its facts! The point of the parable is that the rich man DID NOT have compassion while he lived his luxurious life, and so now is in eternal torments.

As SHW already said, this is NOT a scriptural reference to Purgatory. It has never been interpreted that way by the Fathers, or by the Church.

Correction: I have provided links of others who share this understanding of this passage; so it isn’t just “me” who has this belief. Additionally, may I remind you that correct church doctrine is NOT determined by majority agreement. The majority of the Jews called for Jesus to be crucified, That did not make their decision the correct one.

Secondly, I disagree that discussing this point is unimportant because a majority of Christ’s teachings on salvation are done in parables and to misunderstand a parable is to misunderstand one of His teachings.

Thirdly, the Rich Man would gain nothing if his brothers were saved and we see from demonic behavior that those in hell wants others to be damned even if it increases their own suffering. The Rich Man did not desire this. That is a sign of compassion. The Church teaches that compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are forever cut off from His graces PROVING that the Rich Man could not have been in hell.

Finally, the early Church Fathers used the term “hell” interchangeably with purgatory. We know this to be true because it would be impossible for Jesus to enter hell. Hell, by definition is the absence of God. If Jesus entered hell, it would have immediately cease to be hell because God was present there. When the early Church Fathers said that Jesus entered “hell”, they really meant “purgatory”. In the same manner, when the early Church Fathers taught that the Rich Man was in “hell”, they really meant “purgatory” because those in hell can not receive grace from God and the Rich Man clearly cared about his brothers not joining him in his suffering.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You are wrong, Sir Knight (I like your nickname, by the way).

Thank you. Fourth Degree members of the Knights of Columbus are referred to as “Sir Knights” (third degree members are called “Brother Knights”, etc.). Being a fourth degree Knight, that is where my “name” comes from. Thus, the reason for the cartoon caricature of myself dressed as a fourth degree Knight (it isn’t a completely accurate drawing but it is the best that I could do with such a small drawing and my head and face did come out pretty accurately) …

http://fud-files.netfirms.com/image/private/misc/CAF04SK.GIF

*"At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and five were wise. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.

At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’

Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’

‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’

But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.

Later the others also came. ‘Sir! Sir!’ they said. ‘Open the door for us!’

But he replied, ‘I tell you the truth, I don’t know you.’

Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour."* (Matthew 25:1-13)

I don’t know about you but it looks like the 5 virgins surely repented for not bringing oil jars. You really believe that the women that were left in the darkness did not feel sorry for not preparing themselves? I specifically remember that “they went on their way to buy the oil”. The others brought oil jars with themselves. The wise virgins represent the people that repented and sanctified themselves before Jesus’ second coming, but the other 5 unwise virgins represent the ones that did not prepare themselves while they had the chance. As you see, the 5 virgins remained outside still went to buy oil, but it was late: the doors were shut. They still tried to repent and save themselves but they missed their chance. This teaches us that there is a time when repentance is useless. You will surely repent at the end of this time if you go to Hell.

EDIT: I don’t recall the groom giving a second chance to the foolish virgins. They were either prepared or not. And he neither said that they must purify themselves before entering. They were either prepared or not. Either a saint or not.

I draw your attention to Matt. 12:32 where Jesus said, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.” Clearly showing that there IS forgiveness AFTER death… The phrase “in the next” (from the Greek “en to mellonti”) generally refers to the afterlife (see, for example, Mark 10.30; Luke 18.30; 20.34-35; Eph. 1.21 for similar language).

Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. Where does this forgiveness happen? Purgatory!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Sir Knight:

Secondly, I disagree that discussing this point is unimportant because a majority of Christ’s teachings on salvation are done in parables and to misunderstand a parable is to misunderstand one of His teachings.

Well since you feel that way, it is all the more regrettable that you fail to understand this parable. Are there ANY parables that you think refer to hell? Or do they all refer to Purgatory in your thinking?

Finally, the early Church Fathers used the term “hell” interchangeably with purgatory.

No they didn’t. They sometimes used it interchangeably with “death,” like when the Apostle’s Creed says “and he descended into hell.”

Correction: I have provided links of others who share this understanding of this passage; so it isn’t just “me” who has this belief. Additionally, may I remind you that correct church doctrine is NOT determined by majority agreement.

That is especially true when the majority is a few internet posters. But a majority of Early Church Fathers is rarely (if ever) dismissed.

 

[SHW]

Is this the same “Saint Catherine of Siena” who professed that the Blessed Virgin Mary was NOT immaculately conceived? (In Fr. Benedict Groeschel’s book, "A Still, Small Voice", he talks about St. Catherine of Siena’s declaration that the Virgin Mary herself revealed to the Saint that she was not immaculately conceived.) If so, her creditability with regards to scripture and biblical events is already questionable because the Catholic Church OFFICIALLY teaches that Mary WAS immaculately conceived.

As we discussed previously, the demons feel their suffering increase for every soul that they cause to be damned to hell but they still desire that even though it increases their own suffering. So, the argument that the Rich Man didn’t want his brothers to join him because it would increase his own suffering doesn’t hold any water because those in hell would prefer others joining them even if it increased their own suffering. * scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html …Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God’s graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.

I contacted John Salza at Scripture Catholic.

Here is what he said:

Quote:
“The more traditional interpretation is that the rich man is in hell. But there are two patristic commentaries that say he is in purgatory. I explain this in my new book on purgatory. Send this to them if you wish. God bless John Salza”
**
There were two patristic early church fathers who did not agree with the other patristic early church fathers who believed that the rich man was in hell.** Here is a sermon from an early church father (Tertullian) who believed that the rich man was in hell: tertullian.org/fathers/asterius_01_sermon1.htm Here is another one by St. John Chrysostom: ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/chrysostom_four_discourses_01_discourse1.htm

So your two patristic fathers who believed that the rich man was is in purgatory are like St. Catherine of Siena (and also St. Thomas Aquinas) who believed that the Blessed Virgin was not immaculately conceived because their order (the Dominican Order) held this view and they were in a dispute about this very thing at that time with the Franciscans who did believe that she was immaculately conceived.

This doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was debated by theologians during the Middle Ages and it was rejected by Saint Thomas Aquinas. mb-soft.com/believe/txo/immacu.htm This all happened before the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared.

I am beginning to wonder if you are perhaps a rich man.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

SHW:

Quote:
“The more traditional interpretation is that the rich man is in hell. But there are two patristic commentaries that say he is in purgatory. I explain this in my new book on purgatory. Send this to them if you wish. God bless John Salza”

So was he ashamed to mention WHO the commentaries were by? Do you have to buy his book to find out? I would like to see them for myself to be sure they are not being misrepresented. It is inconceivable to me that any sound ECF would think the rich man was in Purgatory. Although I can believe it of Origen, as he thought even the Devils would someday be redeemed.

 

[SHW]

So was he ashamed to mention WHO the commentaries were by? Do you have to buy his book to find out? I would like to see them for myself to be sure they are not being misrepresented. It is inconceivable to me that any sound ECF would think the rich man was in Purgatory. Although I can believe it of Origen, as he thought even the Devils would someday be redeemed.

Salza was probably in a hurry when he emailed me and so he didn’t want to take the time to look for the names in his notes. He probably gets a lot of email since he is a published author.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Well since you feel that way, it is all the more regrettable that you fail to understand this parable. Are there ANY parables that you think refer to hell? Or do they all refer to Purgatory in your thinking?

Uhh, it isn’t me who doesn’t understand this parable. I understand it very well. I understand that those in hell are forever cut off from God’s graces and that the Rich Man expressed compassion toward his brothers – which is a grace from God PROVING that he could not have been in hell because he WAS receiving the grace of compassion from God.

No they didn’t. They sometimes used it interchangeably with “death,” like when the Apostle’s Creed says “and he descended into hell.”

How can you say that they didn’t, when you, yourself, just gave an example of when they DID?

That is especially true when the majority is a few internet posters. But a majority of Early Church Fathers is rarely (if ever) dismissed.

You can not claim that a majority of the Early Church Fathers believed that he was in hell when they used the term “hell” interchangeably with “purgatory”. Therefore, it is entirely possible that they were referring to purgatory when they were saying that he was in hell.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I contacted John Salza at Scripture Catholic.

Here is what he said:

Quote:
“The more traditional interpretation is that the rich man is in hell. But there are two patristic commentaries that say he is in purgatory. I explain this in my new book on purgatory. Send this to them if you wish. God bless John Salza”
**
There were two** patristic early church fathers who did not agree with the other patristic early church fathers who believed that the rich man was in hell. Here is a sermon from an early church father (Tertullian) who believed that the rich man was in hell: tertullian.org/fathers/asterius_01_sermon1.htm Here is another one by St. John Chrysostom: ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/chrysostom_four_discourses_01_discourse1.htm

So your two patristic fathers who believed that the rich man was is in purgatory are like St. Catherine of Siena (and also St. Thomas Aquinas) who believed that the Blessed Virgin was not immaculately conceived because their order (the Dominican Order) held this view and they were in a dispute about this very thing at that time with the Franciscans who did believe that she was immaculately conceived.

This doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was debated by theologians during the Middle Ages and it was rejected by Saint Thomas Aquinas. mb-soft.com/believe/txo/immacu.htm This all happened before the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Catherine and Thomas believed something which was later officially declared by the Church to be false – showing that the writings of SAINTS can never be ASSUMED to always be true and what they said can never be used as an argument to PROVE a point.

As far as I know, the Church has never OFFICIALLY ruled on where the Rich Man was (as it did with regards to other passages – such as that the Eucharist IS the actually body of Christ and NOT just symbolic). If they did rule on this matter, I’ll yield to the infallible teaching of the Church but until someone provides such proof, I’ll maintain the conclusions that CAN be drawn FROM Church teaching –

1. 
   *] Compassion is a grace from God – Church teaching.
   
   *]Those in hell are forever cut off from God’s graces – church teaching.
   
   *]Since the Rich Man expressed compassion toward his brothers (he wanted them to be spared the same suffering that he was experiencing even though it would have benefited him in any way), he could not have been in hell – Only logical conclusion that can be drawn FROM existing Church teaching.
   

   I am beginning to wonder if you are perhaps a rich man.

   I have food on my table and a roof over my head but the roof has a leak in it and we presently don’t have the money to repair it. Draw your own conclusion.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

You said:
Sir Knight:

Finally, the early Church Fathers used the term “hell” interchangeably with purgatory.

Then I said:

AmbroseSJ:

No they didn’t. They sometimes used it interchangeably with “death,” like when the Apostle’s Creed says “and he descended into hell.”

Then you said:
Sir Knight:

How can you say that they didn’t, when you, yourself, just gave an example of when they DID?

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.

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.