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 ...
What members? What leadership?
You. You. Not a very successful cult yet, but who knows? With your keyboard and ISP, it's all ya need...
What am I intolerant of?
Um, Catholics?
where any of the non Catholics on this site have differed with what I believe.
Christmas. And I didn't see a lot chiming in with the "Da Vinci The Idolater" line. They can feel free to now if they wish. The rest of "what you believe" seems to consist of rejecting the Church.
FOTFLOL!!!!!!!! You have GOT to be kidding.
From Catholicism which uses beyond Scripture *holy* tradition to support its most critical, self-defining doctrines?
Which uses beyond Scripture *holy* tradition as the basis with which to interpret Scripture?
Which uses the beyond Scripture magisterium to determine truth and doctrine?
My goodness you sure need a lot of helpers with your posting.
:)
I typed that all by my little self.
Nobody helped me with it.
Fortunately you were able to eke out a call to your posse.
:)
Not once did you disagree with any of those points directly showing the RCC and Catholicism of being a cult. I didn’t make those points up. They come from professional organizations that work with people who have been in cults and those who need to know the signs of a cult in order to avoid them and know when someone is involved in a cult. Your failure to even attempt to defend the RCC is telling. Catholicism is a cult.
Hmm, the posse must be out tracking rustlers.
Yep, the cult game plays both ways.
Enjoy!
Have you noticed that not once did she disagree that each of those points describes the RCC? Tried to deflect because each of those points is true about the RCC.
SOP
If you can’t refute the facts, attack the character of the person presenting them.
I would love to see you show proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Scripture is 100 percent authentic.Every version has authenticity issues,including the Catholic ones.
None of this bothers me at all because I can see a flow of great unity for 2000 years of Catholicism and Church councils I believe are guided by the Holy Spirit to have dogmatic teachings that can never change regardless of even cafeteria Catholics who try and rail against this.
I’m fairly sure someone like you must be applauding the Catholic Church stand against Obamacare against abortion and contraceptives . These Catholic teachings are fixed teachings on morals that don’t exist within protestantism that can be changed within even mainstream protestantism.
“”Here’s a little Bible History:””
Honestly ,dear friend. What you posted is complete uneducated fantasy. Try starting with the Didache and the Church Father Origen and you will see for yourself the flow of translations and canon
"The law of the Lord IS PERFECT, reviving the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple (Psl 19:7)."
Jesus never said Scripture alone.It's pretty easy to figure out that the many varieties of Bible's lack perfect translations. Jesus obviously knew that and that's why He gave us His Church.
We finally agree on something ,dear friend!
Heaven forbid! I think the rules state you get to attack the Church, free shots, your church is ollie ollie in free.
"From the fifth century onward, Aristotle's view that the embryo goes through stages from vegetable to animal to spiritual was accepted. Only in the final stage was it human. Thus Gregory VI (1045-6) said, "He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body." Gregory XIII (1572-85) said it was not homicide to kill an embryo of less than 40 days since it wasn't yet human. His successor, Sixtus V, who rewrote the Bible, disagreed. His Bull of 1588 made all abortions for any reason homicide and cause for excommunication. His successor, Gregory XIV, reversed that decree. In 1621 the Vatican issued another pastoral directive permitting abortion up to 40 days. As late as the eighteenth century the Church's greatest moral theologian, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, still denied that the soul was infused at conception and allowed for flexibility, especially when the mother's life was in danger. Finally, in 1869, Pius IX declared that any destruction of any embryo was an abortion and merited excommunication- a view that remains to this day." Appendix F, pp. 519-520. "What About Tradition?". Dave Hunt. A Woman Rides the Beast.
You were saying?...
I can’t see anyone credibly doubting that the Church preserved Holy Scripture at the least.
And, I believe, BB’s position is that doctrine of sola scriptura is implicit in scripture, as opposed to explicit - not specifically stated.
That still leaves, IMHO, the problem of interpretation. In practice one cannot have scripture determine which of two interpretations are correct. I think this obvious in the fact that different interpretations and doctrines are justified by sola scriptura proponents.
I really haven’t seen a good argument against the scriptural and practical problems of sola scriptura.
BB, we disagree on the significance of disagreement between sola scriptura proponents. I would offer the non-Trinitarian brands as more than different enough. :)
Which church is that?
your church = “your church”
So the apostles taught the bodily ascension of Mary?
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.