Eucharist By Default

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1291910033' post='2191749']
…nasty women? I do not know what you are saying.

I am simply asking, what is the meaning of official and unofficial teaching of Catholics.
[/quote]

My observation is that official teaching is taken from scripture which is very clear and for which there is no doubt about the meaning. Unofficial teaching is where things have been inferred but are not clearly stated as fact or there is a contradictory scripture. For example the Church does not instruct that 'baptism of water' is essential because it would be quite illogical that Hitler could get baptised and then be admitted to heaven while a Saintly person whose parents didn't bother would be rejected. I don't think anyone can be condemned by the actions or inactions of other people. God is more compassionate than that! Jesus said "Love your God and your neighbour and you shall live!" Since it does not know all the answers itself, I think the Church does allow us to have our own opinions on such things.

[quote]They say limbo of the fathers is unofficial teaching but, why it is included in Catechism. (since I assume that Catechism is 'official' teaching of Catholic Church). I just what to know the 'reason' behind this.[/quote]
Is that a fact? I also would like someone to explain that if it is true. I have been researching Limbo Infants/Fathers myself but have been unable to obtain clear answers

Edited December 9, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[havok579257]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1291913415' post='2191765']
What is your definition of 'meaningful debate'? Do you mean I have to agree with you? I do not think my question is too hard to handle by Catholics.
[/quote]


people give you answers to your questions all the time and you just ignore the answers. then people ask you hard questions and anytime your get a hard question you just ignore it until the poster stops posting the same question numerous times. (see whenever you debate with knight of christ) this is a running trend with you. this is why most people have stopped debating with you. its pointless.

[reyb]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1291992477' post='2191944']
people give you answers to your questions all the time and you just ignore the answers. then people ask you hard questions and anytime your get a hard question you just ignore it until the poster stops posting the same question numerous times. (see whenever you debate with knight of christ) this is a running trend with you. this is why most people have stopped debating with you. its pointless.
[/quote]

I am not ignoring any questions or answers relevant to the issue. I am just following the thought presented and then, responded by further questioning based on that thought in order to show where it was heading.

For example, you are asking me which bible (Catholics or Protestant bible) is correct. My answer is…both of them are correct. Of course, you do not agree with me because you are trying to tell me that Protestant bible (66 Books) is an ‘incomplete’ bible and/or some ‘wording’ is different than that of Catholic bible (73 Books). Just the same, my answer which bible is correct, is both of them. Again, you will insist that I have to choose between the two bibles since they differ in number of books and wording. Again, my answer is…both of them. Then, you may say, I am not listening to you and to your question because you want an answer which is ringing in your ears and that is, the Catholic Bible is the correct one. That answer is not mine. It is yours.

To me, both of them are correct because I am not looking at the number of books compiled in a particular bible neither in its wording but rather in its ‘message which is Christ’. As I have said in my previous post, the ‘message’ in each and every book in both bibles is one and the same. It is about the coming of Christ although it was presented in many and different ways. I even explain it further in this way. Suppose a witness wrote a book and he call it the book of Exodus. That book alone is enough for you to see Christ himself because the message of that book is the coming of Christ presented by the writer in ‘burning bush’. (Exodo 3:1ff). In short, each and every book is about the coming of Christ because it is the message of each and every book. So, it is immaterial if you have one book or two books or three books or 66 books or 73 books as long as these books are written by true witnesses of this coming. This is the reason why I said, both of them (Catholic and Protestant Bible) are correct which I have tried my best for you to hear me in my previous post.



Okay, Maybe I missed something in my previous post. Can you please tell me what is that hard question I did not answer?

Edited December 10, 2010 by reyb

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1292001605' post='2191972']
I am not ignoring any questions or answers relevant to the issue. I am just following the thought presented and then, responded by further questioning based on that thought in order to show where it was heading.

For example, you are asking me which bible (Catholics or Protestant bible) is correct. My answer is…both of them are correct. Of course, you do not agree with me because you are trying to tell me that Protestant bible (66 Books) is an ‘incomplete’ bible and/or some ‘wording’ is different than that of Catholic bible (73 Books). Just the same, my answer which bible is correct, is both of them. Again, you will insist that I have to choose between the two bibles since they differ in number of books and wording. Again, my answer is…both of them. Then, you may say, I am not listening to you and to your question because you want an answer which is ringing in your ears and that is, the Catholic Bible is the correct one. That answer is not mine. It is yours.

To me, both of them are correct because I am not looking at the number of books compiled in a particular bible neither in its wording but rather in its ‘message which is Christ’. As I have said in my previous post, the ‘message’ in each and every book in both bibles is one and the same. It is about the coming of Christ although it was presented in many and different ways. I even explain it further in this way. Suppose a witness wrote a book and he call it the book of Exodus. That book alone is enough for you to see Christ himself because the message of that book is the coming of Christ presented by the writer in ‘burning bush’. (Exodo 3:1ff). In short, each and every book is about the coming of Christ because it is the message of each and every book. So, it is immaterial if you have one book or two books or three books or 66 books or 73 books as long as these books are written by true witnesses of this coming. This is the reason why I said, both of them (Catholic and Protestant Bible) are correct which I have tried my best for you to hear me in my previous post.



Okay, Maybe I missed something in my previous post. Can you please tell me what is that hard question I did not answer?
[/quote]
That's very lucid for a change Rey! I understand what you are saying. If I'm lost somewhere and the only Bible I have is a protestant one, or it is a Catholic bible but some books have been damaged and are illegible, I will still hold it near to my heart as the word of God. It still has Jesus in it and God will see to it that I can extract that message of his that I need! But if I have a choice, I will always choose the one I think is more accurate. The lesser book I will maybe see as an icon, being much closer to God than a playboy magazine. However I've said this before and I will say it again, an [b]English translation[/b] is a changed bible, but that is not relevant. The word of God is not the text itself but the intelligent and prayerful interpretation. Some people can do that themselves! I don't think God excludes that, however most people rely on others and this is where the church scholars come in. The Church, Pope and co. have been commissioned by Jesus himself to do this very thing and when it has been pointed out numerous times that you are misinterpreting it, then you should listen to them. I like to interpret things myself too, but as a Catholic I have to use the Church as my guide and remain compatible. If I disagree with the church then without arrogance I must assume that it is I that is wrong.

Finally, what's your point? It goes without saying that there is much we don't understand and never will. The Church doesn't know exactly what took place when Jesus descended into hell to '[i]preach the good news and open the gates of heaven to the faithful[/i]' All we can assume is that God has to have an escape clause for those people who could not participate in the Eucharist because they lived before the last supper [b]or/and[/b] have been unable to participate because of ignorance, oppression or any fault not their own.

I know historical Jesus and the real Jesus that lives in you are one and the same because of the intense love and wisdom in[b] everything[/b] he said. Jesus said "Love your God and your neighbour and you will live" Sounds very simple doesn't it? But it's not! To fulfil that requirement we must [b]attempt to fulfil[/b] the Jewish 6?? laws and 3?? prohibitions. St Paul said that that was impossible, so once again God in his wisdom gives us an escape clause. It is only necessary to [b]try to obey[/b] and to seek [b]reconciliation every time we fail.

[/b]

[let_go_let_God]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1291910033' post='2191749']
I am simply asking, what is the meaning of official and unofficial teaching of Catholics. They say limbo of the fathers is unofficial teaching but, why it is included in Catechism. (since I assume that Catechism is ‘official’ teaching of Catholic Church). I just what to know the ‘reason’ behind this.
[/quote]

Question for you, where exactly and specifically does it mention "Limbo" in the Catechism? I am asking for the exact word "limbo."

God bless-
LGLG

[reyb]

[quote name='let_go_let_God' timestamp='1292017134' post='2192016']
Question for you, where exactly and specifically does it mention "Limbo" in the Catechism? I am asking for the exact word "limbo."

God bless-
LGLG
[/quote]

The word ‘limbo of the fathers’ is not stated in paragraph 633 of CCC nevertheless that same idea portrayed in Catechism was called ‘limbo of the fathers’ as a ‘holding place’ of the holy prophets in other Catholic writings. Please read http://www.catholicessentials.net/limbo.

[havok579257]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1292001605' post='2191972']

Okay, Maybe I missed something in my previous post. Can you please tell me what is that hard question I did not answer?
[/quote]


are you serious? go look at all the previous threads you started. or ignore, whatever. its business as usual with you.

[reyb]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1292037036' post='2192066']
are you serious? go look at all the previous threads you started. or ignore, whatever. its business as usual with you.
[/quote]

Okay. I will try to see it later. If it is in line with the topic I started, I will answer it right there and then. And if not, I will start another topic in relation to that question.

[havok579257]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1292052886' post='2192086']
Okay. I will try to see it later. If it is in line with the topic I started, I will answer it right there and then. And if not, I will start another topic in relation to that question.
[/quote]


don't start another topic, focus on the ones you started now. stop just starting a million topics. how about wait until the 2 you have come to an end and then start another one. no need to start 50 at one time.

[reyb]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1292077336' post='2192105']
don't start another topic, focus on the ones you started now. stop just starting a million topics. how about wait until the 2 you have come to an end and then start another one. no need to start 50 at one time.
[/quote]

okay.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='let_go_let_God' timestamp='1292017134' post='2192016']
Question for you, where exactly and specifically does it mention "Limbo" in the Catechism? I am asking for the exact word "limbo."

God bless-
LGLG
[/quote]
Limbo specifically means 'the edge' or like standing in a doorway neither in the room or outside and where nothing occurs. I may be wrong but in theology I visualised it as like being asleep, existing without sentience. The Catechism uses the words Hell and Hades but since this is not the Hell of damnation it probably is assumed to mean the same as Limbo. For my own learning is there a point in your question?

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1291678917' post='2191331']
Maybe this link could help.

[b][i][i][url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm"]Limbus patrum[/url][/i][/i][/b]


[/quote]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1292032179' post='2192062']
The word 'limbo of the fathers' is not stated in paragraph 633 of CCC nevertheless that same idea portrayed in Catechism was called 'limbo of the fathers' as a 'holding place' of the holy prophets in other Catholic writings. Please read [url="http://www.catholicessentials.net/limbo."]http://www.catholice...ials.net/limbo. [/url]
[/quote]

Your link is in Limbo!

Edited December 11, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[reyb]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1292100566' post='2192169']
Limbo specifically means 'the edge' or like standing in a doorway neither in the room or outside and where nothing occurs. I may be wrong but in theology I visualised it as like being asleep, existing without sentience. The Catechism uses the words Hell and Hades but since this is not the Hell of damnation it probably is assumed to mean the same as Limbo. For my own learning is there a point in your question?





Your link is in Limbo!
[/quote]

Thank you Mark for the info.

[Micah]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1291676379' post='2191316']
If Catholics cannot answer this simple question, whether limbo of the fathers is an official Catholic doctrine or not, how can you answer a much difficult question? How can you proved the truthfulness of this teaching and eventually Eucharist by Default?
[/quote]

I have to get back to my homework, but this demands an answer: I discount your original post, and any of your reasoning, your examples, your citations, and everything you say because you cannot prove to me that you are self-aware. See what I did there? We do not, as a rule, discount complex things because we do not know simple things. It is, in fact, the simple things that are the most perplexing in life. The basis of a theory is that once unlocked it explains a host of smaller.

Sure, you may ask, why that is the case. Why why why! In sum, your question is not relevant to salvation. The Bible, and the Church, are mechanisms of salvation. They are in effect the meat. You eat the meat and then toy with the parsley. You don't reject the meat because you don't know what to do with the parsley. Well I suppose you could, but things might not turn out so good in the long run.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Micah

[reyb]

[quote name='Micah' timestamp='1292196769' post='2192418']
I have to get back to my homework, but this demands an answer: I discount your original post, and any of your reasoning, your examples, your citations, and everything you say because you cannot prove to me that you are self-aware. See what I did there? We do not, as a rule, discount complex things because we do not know simple things. It is, in fact, the simple things that are the most perplexing in life. The basis of a theory is that once unlocked it explains a host of smaller.

Sure, you may ask, why that is the case. Why why why! In sum, your question is not relevant to salvation. The Bible, and the Church, are mechanisms of salvation. They are in effect the meat. You eat the meat and then toy with the parsley. You don't reject the meat because you don't know what to do with the parsley. Well I suppose you could, but things might not turn out so good in the long run.
[/quote]

You do not what to entertain my questions because you think it is ‘foolishness’. You have your faith which you think stable enough but, you will fail the test because you are running from them. Why not tell me that I am wrong in my previous post regarding false and true teachers and their Jesus, and correct me by giving a better instructions rather than to ignore it?

To tell you frankly, I do not care if no one will listen to me. Sometimes I said to myself ‘It is better to become blind than to see what will happen next - to them who thinks they are doing well in the sight of God but they are not. But I cannot help myself because I am a slave of love as Apostle Paul said ‘2 Cor 5:11-12

11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience. 12 We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart.

[havok579257]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1292392484' post='2192841']
You do not what to entertain my questions because you think it is ‘foolishness’. You have your faith which you think stable enough but, you will fail the test because you are running from them. Why not tell me that I am wrong in my previous post regarding false and true teachers and their Jesus, and correct me by giving a better instructions rather than to ignore it?

To tell you frankly, I do not care if no one will listen to me. Sometimes I said to myself ‘It is better to become blind than to see what will happen next - to them who thinks they are doing well in the sight of God but they are not. But I cannot help myself because I am a slave of love as Apostle Paul said ‘2 Cor 5:11-12

11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience. 12 We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart.
[/quote]


do you believe only you will get into heaven? that only you have the keys to heaven? that the apostles are in hell? i would say, being generous that maybe less than 0.00000000000000000000000000001% of people have the same beliefs as you about Jesus not being in real human form. so then does that mean only you and maybe let's say 20 people throughout all history will be in heaven? that everyone else will be in hell because of our beliefs about Jesus being in real human form?

Edited December 15, 2010 by havok579257