Last Temptation of Castro: Get Religion [To be Received Back into Church During Papal Visit]

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...........

That's what comes quickly to mind; discussions on the Most Holy Trinity tend show an amalgam of early Christological errors - not identical usually, but in a somewhat modern mix.

I agree with you on this. In fact, nearly every false quasi-Christian sect messes up on this very critical doctrine. And if they get this part wrong, there are usually other areas that are off as well. Yet, even if this one doctrine is straight, the Gospel of the grace of God is usually the second most doctrine to be compromised. For those who reject the Deity of Jesus Christ, their Gospel is also always wrong. I have never seen yet where this is not proved true. As to where the error originates, I think we need look no further than the "angel of light" who makes his minsters as minsters of righteousness. Counterfeits only work the closer they look to the real thing.

Ephesians 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Amen! The precious GOOD NEWS! Getting back to the subject of this thread, if Fidel Castro really desires to be reconciled to God, then he must do as all others who would be saved, fall upon the throne of grace and plead the blood of Christ. God is merciful and his will is that NONE shall perish. When we cast ourselves upon the mercy seat of grace, we are admitting we are sinners bereft and without hope in this world knowing that all our works compared to the work of Christ are but filthy rags in God's sight. Coming to God requires a humble and genuine sorrow for our sins knowing, because of them, Christ died a painful and humiliating death.

It is recognizing that God loved us even when we did not love him and that he made a way for us to be redeemed. A man such as Castro has much to repent for but not a one of us is any more worthy of God's grace. That is what grace means. Mercy is not getting what we deserve, in this case, hell, separation from God for all eternity. But grace is giving us what we do NOT deserve - we are redeemed and made joint heirs with Christ, clothed in HIS righteousness and will spend eternity in Heaven with God.

I sincerely pray that Fidel comes to saving faith in Jesus Christ and that, through his example, many others may do so as well. I pray that he doesn't wait any longer but, this day, surrenders to the grace of God. I pray for peace and prosperity for the Cuban people that they come to understand also that precious Gospel of the grace of God in Christ. It is not found in a church, but in the person of Jesus Christ. That is what truly changes a person from the inside. May God open this man's heart and pour in his grace.

This is just a little bit too much hypocrisy to stomach.

The threads seem to always end up with this tit-for-tat snarky round and round mouthing off whenever certain catholics are the least bit offended that a post disagrees with their doctrine. Rather than support their stance or even debating their position they simply resort to what we have seen time and time again...and often when they can't support their position.

Further why is it that, with very few exceptions, they won't discuss the scripture references? Is it they simply cannot understand scripture enough to present their own case from?

Additionally they throw in things which have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion...or tag it onto their comment with the intention of creating strife....all which is a known catholic tactic to divert attention away from the topic ...which further helps them to feel like they have the upper hand, when in fact it simply reveals how far they are away from the truth.

I doubt very much the catholics here can ever overcome their victim mentality....it's their only recourse when they have no argument or they can't defend what obviously can't be defended. I prefer the discussions, even when they get heated and passionate....but this other "stuff" is just "speaking into the air"....no value...and should be beneath them.

What is the Catholic definition of a cult?

Well I can say this...."When a Christian uses the word 'Cult', and that not generally speaking but as a Christian,... a cult is defined as that which claims to be rooted in Historic Christianity but has deviated or abandoned the finished work of Christ... or compromised on His person.

It is critical we understand Jesus said we are complete in Him, and when you add or detract from you can give yourself whatever 'name' you want but you're denying the finished work of Christ on the cross. Therefore it's not Historic Christianity at that point."

(Ravi Zacharias)

One of the very best descriptions of a cult I've noted because the "Centrality of Christ" cannot be compromised.

For me, the second biggest error is in the balance of God’s sovereignty with His creation of man with free will. The tendency is to look only at one without seeing the other, both views leading to error. I think this may also be the biggest argument/error historically as well.

See, I knew we could get along. :o)

As far as the "sovereignty" of God with free will contrast, I agree that there can be errors when both views are not acknowledged. I just don't happen to agree that it is "issue number two". Here's why. Whether or not one believes that God "predestines" some to salvation and others to condemnation, it doesn't change that faith is the deciding factor. Since God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing, and he is not bound by time - because time is merely an "island in the sea of God's eternity" - then it is logical that nothing happens unless he wills it to happen. God is never surprised by an outcome.

But, by the same token, God says in his word that it is his will that none shall perish but that ALL should come to repentance. Yet, we know not all will. So that lets in the free will concept to the mix. How all this really works with God's knowing before the foundation of the world who would turn to him and who would not and he still lets people come to be anyway is beyond my ability to comprehend.

I think men like Calvin looked at this conundrum and tried to come down on a side. Of course, all that goes along with this one side view had to be worked out as well and, on the face of it, it makes God sound hard. But we know God is love. Other men went to the other extreme and said to the effect things that make God sound like he doesn't really have all those all-something powers going for him. And that comes with its own set of contradictions as well.

I think, where people get in trouble is when they try to explain things in earthly ways when what they really need is a heavenly mindset. And we ain't got that yet. In the meantime, I think we can be assured that God IS in control, he DOES know the end from the beginning, and that he has predestined those of us who have turned to him in faith to be conformed into the image of his son, Jesus Christ. Regardless of whether or not the faith I now have was given as a gift to me by God or was exercised of my own free will in response to his grace, doesn't change the fact that I am, RIGHT NOW, his redeemed child.

That is why I think the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith is really the number two error. Because regardless of how or why one has faith, it is STILL faith that saves us. It is what incorporates the grace into our lives, makes us born again, from above, into the family of God and what gestates that new nature which lives to honor and glorify God. And it is that new nature which will be resurrected into resurrection bodies that will spend eternity with our Savior and Lord.

I hope you have a blessed night!

reading mistranslated protestant scripture is not Biblical scholarship, it’s interpreting error from error

Well now,....seems to me the Bible History we have to date denotes it was the Latin Vulgate (catholic bible) which was corrected for being filled with misquotes in order to support what they had been falsely claiming was scripture... when in fact it wasn't at all. However even then the catholics denied their translation was full of corruption.

Here's a little Bible History:

In the 1490’s another Oxford professor, and the personal physician to King Henry the 7th and 8th, Thomas Linacre, decided to learn Greek. After reading the Gospels in Greek, and comparing it to the Latin Vulgate, he wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.”

The Latin had become so corrupt that it no longer even preserved the message of the Gospel… yet the Church still threatened to kill anyone who read the scripture in any language other than Latin… though Latin was not an original language of the scriptures.

The great scholar Erasmus was so moved to correct the corrupt Latin Vulgate, that in 1516, with the help of printer John Froben, he published a Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament. ......The Latin part was not the corrupt Vulgate, but his own fresh rendering of the text from the more accurate and reliable Greek, which he had managed to collate from a half-dozen partial old Greek New Testament manuscripts he had acquired. ........This milestone was the first 'non-Latin' Vulgate text of the scripture to be produced in a millennium… and the first ever to come off a printing press.

The 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus further focused attention on just how corrupt and inaccurate the Latin Vulgate had become, and how important it was to go back and use the original Greek (New Testament) and original Hebrew (Old Testament) languages to maintain accuracy… and to translate them faithfully into the languages of the common people, whether that be English, German, or any other tongue.

No sympathy for this “illegal activity” was to be found from Rome… even as the words of Pope Leo X's declaration that... "the fable of Christ was quite profitable to him"... continued through the years to infuriate the people of God.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

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.

No the scriptures began even before Christianity.....It would of course seem reasonable that if God so preserved His words in the Old Testament... and told men to write...send and preserve...HE could certainly do so with the new testament...unless of course someone wanted to distort it to serve another purpose which we know happened with the Latin Vulgate Bible.....

Here's some interesting scripture about writing:

God told Isaiah to write...

Then the Lord said to me,... "Take for yourself A LARGE TABLET and WRITE ON IT IN ORDINARY LETTERS: Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey" (isaiah 8:1)

Go now, WRITE IT ON A TABLET for them, inscribe it on a scroll, that for the days to come it may be an everlasting witness (Is:30:8)

Jeremiah was told to write.

Take again another scroll and WRITE ON IT ALL THE FORMER WORDS that were on the first scroll which Jehoiakim the king of Judah burned (Jer 36:28).

The Lord said of Jeremiah's writings.

I will bring upon that land all the things I have spoken against it, all that are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK and prophesied by Jeremiah against all the nations (Jer 25:13).

Daniel wrote down a dream that God had given him.

In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying on his bed. HE WROTE DOWN the substance of his dream (Dan 7:1).

Habakkuk was commanded to write.

Then the LORD answered me and said: WRITE the vision; make it plain on tablets, so that a runner may read it (Hab 2:2). No One Was Allowed To Change Even One Word The people were given no authority to originate Scripture...... They were ordered to keep the commandments that the LORD had given.

The Scripture also commanded how the king was to relate to Scripture.

When he takes the throne of his kingdom, HE IS TO WRITE FOR HIMSELF ON A SCROLL A COPY OF THIS LAW, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees (Deut 17:18,19).

The Law of Moses anticipated the office of the king and commanded how the king should view the written Word of God. While the king had authority by which he could put to death anyone whom he desired.... he was not allowed to tamper with the Scripture...... He, like everyone else, was to be under the authority of the written Word of God.

This is the text of THE LETTER that the prophet Jeremiah sent from Jerusalem to the surviving elders among the exiles and to the priests, the prophets and all the other people Nebuchadnezzar had carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon (Jer 29:1).

Elijah sent a letter to the king.

Jehoram received A LETTER from Elijah the prophet (2 chron 21:12).

Also ...Jeremiah's message out loud to the people. Baruch son of Neriah did everything Jeremiah the prophet told him to do; at the LORD's temple HE READ THE WORDS OF THE LORD FROM THE SCROLL (jER 36:8).

I'll have more on the new testament once I have it gathered to post.....

What the Bible worshipers fail to recognize, or are afraid to seek the truth is that the Bible alone is not perfection

Well, let's just see what Jesus has to say about that as well as the Bible itself:

The Bible says that the simple become wise through reading and applying God's Word.

"The law of the Lord IS PERFECT, reviving the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple (Psl 19:7)."

The psalmist wrote.

"The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple" (Pslm 119:130)

In a dialogue with the religious leaders Jesus said.

But regarding the resurrection of the dead, HAVE YOU NOT READ THAT WHICH WAS SPOKEN TO YOU BY GOD, saying (Math 22:31).

You never find Jesus saying the Scriptures were unclear about any subject..... He always assumed the problem was failure to accept what the Scripture clearly said.

On the same occasion, Jesus said to the religious leaders...and note it was to the religious leaders not the people he said this...important fact.

But Jesus answered and said to them,..... "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God" (Matthew 22:29).

Whether speaking to the multitudes, His own disciples, or the religious authorities, Jesus assumed all of them could understand the Scripture.

There is also a spiritual dimension in the understanding of Scripture. Paul wrote.

Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God's Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:14).

Tthe Bible is written in such a way that it can be clearly understood, but those who are not willing to accept its truth will not appreciate the full importance of what it says.

Jesus said.

If anyone 'chooses' to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own (John 7;17)

I think when people take their dreams seriously they are treading on dangerous grounds. We have Christ and His written word to speak to us today, and HE does very well without using dreams for those who have His word and His Spirit within.

The problem people will have is how are you going to then explain to those who believe they are experiencing heavenly visitations in their dreams, especially those in various cults who depend on the "dream-state for their reality in what they believe or live...many Eastern religions and cults practice this actually....Further how do you then discern if a dream is true or just the imagination of ones mind? It's impossible to do so.

Again there is no need for dream works today as we have His word and Spirit who He has promised will guide and teach and show us the way we should go...and the faith HE gives to walk it.

Thank you for posting those links Boatbums.....am too tired tonight to check them out but have saved them for tomorrow after work. I have a family member who does believe in Christ but has a very science/ mathematic type mindset and we do get inot some interesting conversations on the reliability of the scriptures.

It's very interesting, especially today, that there are Christians and other faiths who seem to question the reliability of Gods word.....and of course satans most vicious attacks are to discredit it even if only causing one to doubt....then if he succeeds in making people doubt he's a long ways at introducing "other" than what God actually states....and this is how people do end up in cults and false religions....it's the first thing which leaves them open....doubt...and it was exactly what was used in the garden with eve....doubt God's word which he gave.

A distinction needs to be made between canonizing and collecting.

No man or council can pronounce a work canonical or scriptural, yet man was responsible for ‘collecting’ and ‘preserving’ such works.

F. F. Bruce writes:

“One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list;..... on the contrary,.... the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect.

The first ecclesiastical councils ‘to classify’ the canonical books were both held... in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393.... and at Carthage in 397.....-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but ‘to codify’ what was already the general practice of these communities .

(F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1960, p. 27).

Therefore the books we have as Scripture were inspired by God and ‘recognized’ as such by man.

He has predestined those of us who have turned to him in faith to be conformed into the image of his son, Jesus Christ................. Regardless of whether or not the faith I now have was given as a gift to me by God or was exercised of my own free will in response to his grace, doesn't change the fact that I am, RIGHT NOW, his redeemed child.

Well it's probably the first half of this we should all be looking at and see how we're measuring up to His image.... rather than which "side" of the issue we are on.

I have to admit I never realized there were sides until long into my walk with God. Then some threads really got into it here as well and did not change my mind that I can't really seperate the two sides as some can because, as you stated so clearly, it's that we ARE redeemed... and that is the 'now' of it.

I can adhere to both sides when I can see my beliefs rest on both sides....but when you get down to the very will and or predestined then it gets so hairy and tight I really cannot say other than both are true.

Thank you for your post, once again .....Golly I just love it when people put good things right out there! It becomes a banquet feast on the threads then.....

Here’s a list I’ve gotten from different sources who warn about cults and what to look for.

Signs of a cult.

1. They replace Christ or call a man a stand in for Him. --- Vicar of Christ
2. cult teachers will proclaim a "gospel message" that is ultimately is a message of works-centered salvation, in sharpest contrast to the Good News of saving grace through faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9). They'll preach "another gospel."
3. The revealed spiritual nature of the work of the cult claims to be, but actually is not, inspired by God the Spirit. Instead, a chilling reference is made to spiritual entities who lend tremendous spiritual power to their natural human puppets to preach deceptive gospels. They'll be empowered by "another spirit." This is the work of demonic agents in allegiance with Satan, the opposer of God throughout history.
4. Has a leader that is revered by cult members.
5. The leader claims special authority
6. Divine Revelation claimed by the leader which is non-verifiable.
7. Usually changes and/or evolves over time.
8. Intolerant – members cannot challenge or even question cult doctrine or decisions made by cult leadership.
9. Overrriding authority (i.e. correcting, amending or even replacing the Bible) attributed to the special divine revelation.
10. Denial of the authority and completeness of Scripture
11. Signs, signals or other means of identification and/or recognition
12. Dressing differently, sometimes in special uniforms or costumes.

How many of those can be applied to the RCC?

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.