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 agree. Hey, if it’s a lie, then sue the liar for libel. Bring your documents to court to prove it’s a disgraceful lie from the pit of hell. Or...
I don’t think narses even knew which “book” we were talking about being listed in.
Hey, smvoice, what did I just tell you? Can you believe this? This is really sad.
Good catch, smvoice....
I don’t either. Which is why we’ll see the cereal box soon...lol!
In the NT....
It's the body of Christ and we are individually members of it.
Evidently we need to tell them what book the members are listed in also.
I think it should be obvious to anyone that even back in the first century the Christians and their leaders knew very well that the remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood for our sins in the bread and wine of the Thanksgiving (Eucharist) observance was a spiritual one.No doubt you think that. It is clearly contradicted by the very words of Our Lord as well as voluminous historical records of the time. Like the other heretical nonsensical beliefs paraded around by the oddball whack=a=doodle sects, it simply is false to fact.
Amen and amen. And we baptize because of a previous action just as a person is arrested for committing a robbery rather than so he will commit a robbery.
Johann Tetzel
If eating the eucharist is what saves someone, then this guy is obviously saved.
It appears so.....
Contraception and Abortion
Sixtus V (Elected 1585) is noted for developing the Church's teachings on contraception and abortion. While the Catholic Church had always taught that abortion, homicide, and contraception were all gravely sinful actions ("mortal sins"), not all mortal sins demanded the added, highest penalty of excommunication[citation needed]. Although homicide had always required this penalty, contraception did not. Theologians and other scientists had debated over the exact moment the concepted being became a human. While there was no question that life was present at conception or that it would only become a human being, this does not necessarily mean God infuses the rational, immortal soul into the body at conception. Following Aristotle, many speculated that the matter had to be prepared to a certain point before this could happen and, prior to then, there was only a vegetative or sensitive soul, but not a human soul. This meant that killing an organism before the human soul is infused would still be a grave sin of abortion (or at least contraception), but that it was not properly a homicide and, thus, did not require excommunication.
Some theologians argued that only after proof of the "quickening" (when the mother can feel the fetus's movement in her womb, usually about 20 weeks into gestation) that there was incontrovertible evidence that ensoulment had already occurred. Until Sixtus V, Canon Lawyers applied the code from Gratian whereby excommunications were only given to abortions after the quickening. In 1588, however, the pope issued the papal bull, "Effraenatam" (Without Restraint), which declared that the canonical penalty of excommunication would be levied for any form of contraception and for abortions at any stage in fetal development. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sixtus_V
Also in 1591, Gregory XIV modified the Apostolic Constitution Effraenatam of Pope Sixtus V (1588) so that the penalty for abortion did not apply until the foetus became animated. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_XIV)
A brief timeline:
Circa 100 to 150 AD: The Didache (also known as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"), was a document written for the guidance of Christians. It forbade all abortions.
Prior to 380: Many Christian leaders issued unqualified condemnations of abortion. So did two church synods in the early 4th century.
Circa 380: The Apostolic Constitutions allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul.
St. Augustine (354-430) accepted the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment". He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. 3 Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated).
Pope Innocent III (1161-1216): He determined that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not "animated" at the time. Early in the 13th century, he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. Before that time, abortion was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human person, not an actual human person.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): St. Thomas thought that the soul did not come to the fetus ('ensoulment') until sometime after conception. In fact, he considered abortion gravely sinful, teaching that it was a grave sin against the natural law to kill the fetus at any stage and a graver sin of homicide to do so after ensoulment.
Pope Sixtus V (1588) issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.
Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull and reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).
Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus." The soul was believed to have entered the pre-embryo at conception.
Leo XIII (1878-1903): He Issued a decree in 1884 that prohibited craniotomies. This is an unusual form of abortion used under crisis situations late in pregnancy. It is occasionally needed to save the life of the pregnant woman. He issued a second degree in 1886 that prohibited all procedures that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman's life.
Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to "the fetus." The church penalty for abortions at '''any stage of pregnancy was, and remains, excommunication.'''
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Catholic_church_always_unequivocally_oppose_abortion
U 2! I have an early doctor appointment, so will be signing off shortly.
Maybe he will die before the Pope gets there...
Tsk, tsk! Calling down a posse to personally attack another Freeper. Isn’t this something we are supposed to avoid doing?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I have no personal beef with you, Narses, and I am capable of having a dialog with others who may not share my same beliefs. If you actually think everyone but you guys is spouting "heretical nonsensical beliefs paraded around by the oddball whack=a=doodle sects", and you have nothing to offer but insults, cartoons and gall, I would think you may want to avoid Religion Forum threads, because they do not bring out the best in you, I'm sorry to say.
And, about the Eucharist, just answer this one simple question. Does the small bit of "host" you receive physically change into human flesh and blood? Yes or no. Thanks.
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.