Posted on 02/05/2012 2:58:27 PM PST by marshmallow
Fidel Castro will be received back into the communion of the Roman Catholic Church during Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the island in March, the Italian press is reporting. If true, this is a remarkable story — and one that has yet to catch the attention of editors this side of the Atlantic.
On 1 Feb 2012, La Republicca — [Italy’s second largest circulation daily newspaper, La Republicca follows a center-left political line and is strongly anti-clerical; not anti-Catholic per se but a critic of the institutional church] — reported that as death approaches, the octogenarian communist has turned to God for solace.
ABC’s Global Note news blog is the only U.S. general interest publication I have found that has reported this story. It referenced the La Republicca story and said that Castro’s
daughter Alina is quoted as saying “During this last period, Fidel has come closer to religion: he has rediscovered Jesus at the end of his life. It doesn’t surprise me because dad was raised by Jesuits.” The article quotes an unidentified high prelate in the Vatican who is working on the Pope’s Cuba trip: “Fidel is at the end of his strength. Nearly at the end of his life. His exhortations in the party paper Granma, are increasingly less frequent. We know that in this last period he has come closer to religion and God.”
Some Italian websites have even speculated as to when Fidel will make his confession and credo — setting the date as 27 March 2012 at 17:30 when the two ottantacinquenni, Pope Benedict XVI and Castro, will meet at the Palacio de la Revolución when the pope makes his official visit to the head of state, Raul Castro.
During Pope John Paul II’s 1998 visit to Cuba, Castro attended mass, but did...........
(Excerpt) Read more at geoconger.wordpress.com ...
I’m afraid your mind reading skills need more work; they’re still over-powered by wishful thinking.
The Christian Church will continue to include the ministry of Christ as always prevailing against the gates of hell as well as lesser lights.
The charm of the “great discoveries” of 20th Century Darbyism will continue to appeal to some; then, likely as with other fads, disappear into the sea of obviously bad “what were we thinking?” exegesis.
Your constant attacks on the Church may hide the hole left by Christ’s teaching for a while, but, not forever. Your apparently compulsive fervor to attack the Church reveals a great deal. May you someday take clear look at it. Maybe then…
pax tecum.
Thanks, stfassis.
I think this is a good analogy/example of the underlying interpretive problem. We have a literalism challenge; if we could add legalism to the mix, we be extremely close to the idol quandry illustrated earlier.
Surely you don’t want lurkers and others who think for themselves to see that post do you stfassisi? Anyone who actually reads Daniel 4 understands that it was a DREAM of the King which Daniel later had to interpret. Dreams are never to be taken literally and if you had actually studied scripture for yourself you would have realized that. Are you so desperate that you don’t even read to understand in what context the scripture you quote is being used? Go embarrass yourself with someone else.
Let’s look at some of your quotes.
“Ah but where would the internet be without all the self-righteous Keyboard Preachers of the The Church of the Holy Me?”
Always backed up with proof and substance as well. /s
“BTW: Jay Carney is your ally, you are compatriot enemies of the Church. Send him an email care/of Obama; you should be getting paid for your efforts.”
“Seems to be the only thing in your spotlight - and your life on FR. From the evidence of your posting history, one can conclude that without the Church to attack, you’d have no religion at all.
Do you work for Jay Carney?”
You always stay with theological discussions and scriptural proof of your beliefs right?
All that post proved is that you’re no different than people who read scripture with self interpretation and claim the Spirit led them.
I doubt you have much in common in your Scripture interpretations with the people of your long ping list either which proves that point.
Also, reading mistranslated protestant scripture is not Biblical scholarship, it’s interpreting error from error
Those who can’t support their beliefs by scripture truly have left the teachings of Christ and the apostles there is no doubt.
Those who support their beliefs with carefully excised snippets of Scripture and who reject the teachings handed down by the Apostles, Apostolic Fathers and the Church Fathers leave no doubt about their beliefs vis a vis their own Magisterial authority. Usually any defense of this repellent and unScriptural self-determination of Christianity is immediately followed by blaming the Holy Spirit for their aberrent interpretations.
I’m sure Catholics would think that given they don’t use scripture without adding something to it. Catholics still think that the guy in the pointy hat has the same authority as scripture so pretty much anything goes with them.
Christianity existed for centuries with either no NT or had the landscape littered with literature which may or may not (in many cases not) be connected with true Christianity. In many cases, the variants were rejected at Nicea and the most accurate ones chosen. In some cases, there were some surprises (Apocalypse of John and Hermas were two).
The Church existed quite well for years until it was decided to actually write things down - Paul did not begin writing for 20 years after Jesus Ascended. We don't know when most of the NT was written - or who it was written by. The Bible does not come with a definitive definition of itself and its contents. The only reason that we have it is because the Church said so.
These are the same guys that you deride, yet you believe the words that they wrote and chose for you.
This smacks of rank hypocrisy. You accept completely their decision to choose Scripture. You then reject their interpretation of what they chose. Doesn't it seem to run from the incredible to the ludicrous?
Is this an example of "Theological" dialog you were asking for D-fendr? Because it sure looks a lot like grudge attacks to me. Nobody here is arguing for Osteen or Macpherson theology so why are all non-Catholics being swiped at?
Same basis for self-doctrinal determination. If you use the same basis, you will come up with the magnitude of doctrinal deviance determined by your own particular inventiveness.
Anyone who dares discuss the wrong theology of the Catholic Church is "attacking" the Church for liberals, but it's okay to attack a group based on wrong theology NOBODY is spouting???
What's the difference between the basis of your beliefs and Osteen's?
This is just a little bit too much hypocrisy to stomach.
The hypocrisy resides in those who would accept the writings of the NT Scripture from the Church because they say so and reject the interpretation of those who wrote the NT Scripture because they say so.
That's like walking up to Ian Fleming and telling him that no, he really didn't mean what he said about James Bond; he really meant ---. And every other Protestant spy novel reader tells him that he means what they interpret him to say.
Have you ever attended a reading by a great author of his works, listened to his explanation, and stood up and told him that he was wrong - he really meant something else?
“”Those who support their beliefs with carefully excised snippets of Scripture and who reject the teachings handed down by the Apostles, Apostolic Fathers and the Church Fathers leave no doubt about their beliefs vis a vis their own Magisterial authority. Usually any defense of this repellent and unScriptural self-determination of Christianity is immediately followed by blaming the Holy Spirit for their aberrent interpretations. “”
That is right,dear friend.
What the Bible worshipers fail to recognize, or are afraid to seek the truth is that the Bible alone is not perfection because there is not even accurate translations that can be traced back from Jewish and Greek Scripture we think could be original. Thus, without historical tradition and the Magisterium the legs of the stool collapses without all three
Good accurate article from UPENN
CHRISTIAN TRANSMISSION OF GREEK JEWISH SCRIPTURES:
A METHODOLOGICAL PROBE
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/journals/kraftpub/Transmission%20of%20Gk-Jewish%20Scriptures
So what are you saying? Are you claiming that nothing in any dream must be taken literally? If I am working hard on product development, and I dream of some solution, I must never take that solution seriously? If I am pursuing a goal and I dream of that goal, I must dismiss that goal?
Life amongst Protestant theologians never ceases to amaze.
I do not see any of the oddballs here completely or strictly anything. They construct their own potpourri of heresies and add a dash of this and a pinch of that as they 'grow' on their 'spiritual journey'. Yet we have the JWs and various nondenominationals here posting all kinds of things. We have various old school types here who often are more Catholic than many Catholics, on the other hand.
The Mormons were influenced by these guys as well as the Muslims. To a certain extent, the Reformation was, but more as an antiCatholic slogan than substance. Yet the basis of their whole mindset was that they could invent anything that they wanted. As long as it was supported by excised snippets, why then, the god in the mirror approved.
What the RCC teaches is so far from what the apostles taught it’s become nothing more than a cult similar to Mormon, Islam and others who claim to have extra “revealed” truth. Catholics can’t back up much of what the RCC teaches with scripture.
Sorry, your reply indicates you misunderstood or misinterpreted my post - your reply doesn’t apply.
I wonder how our friend C- bear interprets Saint Joseph’s dream to take Mary as his wife since dreams mean nothing literal in the Bible according to C-bear?
That ridiculous meme of the RCC having written scripture is absolutely an affront to the Holy Spirit and the audacity is beyond words. I know Catholics like to take credit for what God does but most of us know better.
What the RCC teaches is so far from what the apostles taught it’s become nothing more than a cult similar to Mormon, Islam and others who claim to have extra “revealed” truth. Catholics can’t back up much of what the RCC teaches with scripture.
I believe that you have been notified of scripturecatholic.com. Scripture means what the writers and the Apostles meant it to say. Not you as a person and not me as a person.
The teachings of Jesus and the Apostles existed for many years before the NT Scripture was written. Of course there are extra-Scriptural teachings. There have been since Jesus began His Ministry. The only problem is that the Catholics have them and the antiCatholics reject them.
Let's see you back up your rejection of the Eucharist. Scripturally, that is.
How about you give us a few good examples of what you call "open and honest" discussions on theological issues. Joining in on the "free-for-all" bash fest is hardly what I would term leading by example. What I HAVE observed when I read the "other side" - and I do - is that it takes but a smidgen of disagreement to be qualified as "Church bashing" and the subsequent comparisons to Liberal and Communist shills. Can't we at least comfort ourselves with knowing that long-time FReepers are not really the enemy in disguise? That perhaps there CAN be honest differences on theology without calling down an inquisition?
What I have learned in my years here is that adding more gas to the flame war NEVER settles it down and mud thrown is ground lost.
That ridiculous meme of the RCC having written scripture is absolutely an affront to the Holy Spirit and the audacity is beyond words. I know Catholics like to take credit for what God does but most of us know better.
Wrote and chose. The historical record is clear. The world of the Protestant is that he will ignore the reality of the situation because it does not sit well with him. How many Protestants were at Nicea, CB?
I'm sure that this moment's interpretation depends on mood and quantity of Jack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.