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

Cranmer ^ | 2/4/12

[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...........

[EnglishCon]

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.

---

Asked the Preist about that once, and his answer was illuminating:

“Of course it does. Whether before or after disgestion depends on your faith.”

He can be short tempered with silly questions.

[EnglishCon]

Too early here, sorry for the spelling/clarity fail.

Should of course be:

“Of course it does. Whether before or after digestion depends on your faith.”

Faith, in that context, does not mean the more devout you are, the more likely - it simply means your denomination.

[Lera]

Caw :“”Here’s a little Bible History:””
stfassisi :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


Origen a church father ? A church father that was anathematized Fifth Ecumenical Council . Either Origen taught heresies or the council that anathematized him were heretics . Which one is it ?

[caww]

Thank you Lera Good post...

the hour is late and I'm headed for the dentist, "House of Pain" tomorrow...I'll come back to this after the fact. But Lera, you go girl! Good post!

And stfassisi saying the history given was "uneducated" is just another use of the tactics we see all the time. Again I'll be back to address this further.

[Rashputin]

Every bit of the garbage Dave Hunt writes has been refuted multiple times.

Keating made Hunt look so bad in public debates that the audience was laughing when Hunt would stammer out a repetition of his lies rather than answering questions.

His "Berean" approach to Scripture is a total joke because it relies on The Lego Block Method of Scripture Interpretation and like all the brainwashed anti-Catholics around here, starts by throwing out the Scriptures Christ and the Apostles used and only then pretending to believe in Scripture as paramount.

The majority of the lies Hunt repeats about the Catholic Church come from "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop, a book frequently referred to as the most perfect example of shoddy research and fantasy passed off as fact. Anyone who accepts any of what Hunt and Hislop blather about the Catholic Church is not only gullible, they're not even Christian, just dedicated anti-Catholics pretending to be Christian in hopes of having a wider audience for their lies. The Aryan Brotherhood folks and several other groups do that all the time as do some JW folks. But who knows, maybe some people are just so gullible and deluded that they honestly believe that they can be Christian even though they routinely call Jesus Christ a liar, lie about their own background, their sources, and their beliefs, in hopes of finding more gullible folks to join their club.

I don't know about the current publishing arrangements, but Hunt and Hislop were both at one time being printed by He Who Can Not Be Named, sold at his site, and Hislop is the primary source of information for one or more of his little anti-Catholic comic strips. As usual, the anti-Catholic crowd here refers to their favorite comic book but pretend they're referring to either Hunt or Hislop. Anyone rational knows that those referring to the same sections of the same sources a comic book uses are just trying to hide the fact that they're in the same camp full of liars as He Who Shall Not Be Named and repeat the exact same lies over and over again.

Birds of a feather flock together and all this pretense about not being in bed with He Who Shall Not Be Named is funny. Seems like all the "honest" posters would have references that don't always trace back to the very same two books our favorite "baby chicken" comic strip author relied on to create his anti-Catholic comic books. Then again, if they couldn't take things out of context, pretend their dementia was reasonable, and indirectly refer to their comic books, they'd have to clearly repeat their slanders of Jesus Christ and the Apostles rather than pretending they're only attacking the Catholic Church.

[stfassisi]

Origen a church father ? A church father that was anathematized Fifth Ecumenical Council .

Origin’s non heretical teachings were valid and in line with the the majority of Church Fathers. Origen would have been a Saint if he did not stray into the belief of pre existence of souls.

Are you willing to throw out Origen’s historical involvement in Scripture canon? He played a major rolen case you don’t know.

Origen on the Canon
http://www.bible-researcher.com/origen.html

[stfassisi]

Origen a church father ? A church father that was anathematized Fifth Ecumenical Council .

“”Origin’s non heretical teachings were valid and in line with the the majority of Church Fathers. Origen would have been a Saint if he did not stray into the belief of pre existence of souls.””

Are you willing to throw out Origen’s historical involvement in Scripture canon? He played a major rolen case you don’t know.

Origen on the Canon
http://www.bible-researcher.com/origen.html

[stfassisi]

Wikipedia,are you kidding me,bb.

The Council of Eliberis in 305 is concrete church teaching against any kind of abortion .

This means what anyone wrote after this to the contrary means nothing unless it upholds this.

[stfassisi]

What morals that don't exist within Protestantism and can be changed by them?

There is no dogma,which means any group can believe whatever they want and twist scripture to support that view in the realm of faith and Morals

You even do this with denying that Jesus is God and the Trinity.

[stfassisi]

“”And stfassisi saying the history given was “uneducated” is just another use of the tactics we see all the time. Again I’ll be back to address this further.””

Try starting here and you will realize the sources you use are meaningless. (It’s best you learn for yourself rater than me putting in my own words)

From Jewish Scribes to Christian Scriptoria?: Issues of Continuity and Discontinuity in their Greek Literary Worlds

by Robert A. Kraft, University of Pennsylvania Emeritus
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//earlylxx/SBL2004.htm

[Iscool]

The majority of the lies Hunt repeats about the Catholic Church come from "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop, a book frequently referred to as the most perfect example of shoddy research and fantasy passed off as fact. Anyone who accepts any of what Hunt and Hislop blather about the Catholic Church is not only gullible, they're not even Christian, just dedicated anti-Catholics pretending to be Christian in hopes of having a wider audience for their lies.

I've read Hislop's stuff...I've read the Catholic disagreements about Hislop's stuff...I've never seen a Catholic refute anything Hislop wrote...I don't see any reason at all to disbelieve Hislop...

[Iscool]

Are you willing to throw out Origen’s historical involvement in Scripture canon? He played a major rolen case you don’t know.

Of course he did...He created the Septuagint...

[stfassisi]

Here is more good stuff for you to read

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/jewishpap.html
excerpts

Scriptio continua, marginal breaks, diacritics, etc.—
Was the use of spacing between phrases, words, etc., standard Jewish practice?
To what extent do early Christian scriptural copies use unspaced Greek?
How do Christian texts use line formatting, maginal marks, enlarged letters, etc.?
How extensive was use of marginal markings in non-Christian (Jewish & other) texts?
What is the evidence for the early use of diacritics (breathings, accents, dieresis)?
Conclusions:

A large part of the problem is inability to identify clearly the evidence (what is “Jewish,” what is “Christian”?). It is reasonable to suppose that early Christian copyists learned from Jewish Greek predecessors from whom they also received scriptural and other texts and/or that some professional Jewish copyists may have joined the early Christian groups (as also some non Jewish professional copyists). Another part of the problem is our desire to simplify, despite our recognition that life then, as now, was not simple. Some people, scholars included, sometimes also feel the need to priviledge some streams of history over others — in this case, it is important to some theorists that Christianity make its unique contribution to the developments. My own take on it is that most of the developments cited as evidence are either general tendencies in the Greco-Roman world of that time, or are most easily understood as developments from the practice of some Jewish scribal groups that somehow influenced early Christian practice. The evidence is still indecisive, but there is enough of it to call into question the older simplifications.

The whole point of this is that the Catholic/Orthodox Church traditions and writings from the Early Church fathers brings synergy into believing the Bible is the word of God.

Separating one from the other means things start collapsing.

[metmom]

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.

And add to that...

Does eating the eucharist impart salvation to the person?

Yes, or no will suffice.

[metmom]

There is no dogma,which means any group can believe whatever they want and twist scripture to support that view in the realm of faith and Morals You even do this with denying that Jesus is God and the Trinity.

Show me where I did this. ANY of it.

[Rashputin]

.As usual, people who deny the deity of Jesus Christ naturally like their propaganda and just "can't find" or "have never seen" any facts that contradict their personal opinions. Just like our President, the LDS, the JW, the SDA and their prophecy road shows, and all the little individual flakes each with their own personal religion, those who want to believe a lie refuse to see the truth. A great many of them cannot see the truth because they've already been given over to a reprobate mind.

http://sites.google.com/site/christadelphianinfo/articles/apologetics/dbhislop

http://ezinearticles.com/?Book-Critique-of-Alexander-Hislops:-THE-TWO-BABYLONS&id=6196808

http://mdcalexatestblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/rebuttal-of-hislops-two-babylons.html

http://newprotestants.com/2babylons.htm

http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2011/06/two-babylons-alternate-history.html

http://www.ukapologetics.net/1hislopbaby.html

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_babylon.html

http://thehive.modbee.com/node/22477

http://www.diggingsonline.com/pages/rese/books/comment/genesis01.htm

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/5267-is-catholicism-pagan/

//strictandparticular.blogspot.com/2009/08/bad-ways-to-argue-against-roman.html

http://42976.activeboard.com/t38028845/beware-of-all-doctrines-test-every-faith-according-to-the-bi/?page=1

http://www.thejournal.org/issues/issue95/herman-hoeh-tribute-2.html

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Semiramis

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/Faith-correct-church.htm

http://aheathensday.com/2011/03/odin-is-not-yhwh.html

There's a lot more, most of in further along in search engines than the advertising for the book and the blather references to it by anti-Catholics and ignorant or stupid people who don't care about the truth. If you haven't seen Hislop torn to shreds, it's because you don't want to. I think it's very interesting that it was actually Garner Ted Armstrong who pretty much introduced the book to the US, and He Who Cannot Be Named who keeps it in print even though it's free to download all over the place. Hislop had to be revived because he was so completely debunked in the early part of the 20th century that only the Jehovah's Witnesses ever referred to it. Garner Ted figured everyone had forgotten the book had been totally debunked and used it to butress his own personal religion just like Hunt copied a ton of his work for his own personal religion, and He Who Cannot Be Named figures no one will bother to check the facts rather than accepting the lies.

But somehow, the vile liars who are anti-Catholic rather than Christian just can't seem to find any of the references that tore Hislop apart in the early nineteen hundreds as having lied about all the archaeological digs he referred to, lied about the various ancient language translations he referred to, and picked up copies of anti-Catholic propaganda leaflets from Islamic Turkey along with then popular British-Israel books to incorporate into his brochures that later became a book.

It just goes to show you, those who don't want to know the truth won't find it because they won't look for it. That's typical of people who cannot accept that His flesh and His blood are present in our remembrance of him and by refusing to accept that, call Jesus Christ a liar. As Scripture says, they have no life in them and with no life in them, they're always adopting anti-Christian sources. It's the same way with Scripture for those sorts of folks, quoting Scripture to them is like throwing pearls before swine.

[stfassisi]

Do you believe Jesus is God? Do you believe in the the Trinity?

If so, please explain the Trinity according to your belief
I have lot’s of work to do and will catch your response later.

I wish you a Blessed day!

[SaintDismas]

Imperfect contrition yes, but he obviously is a believer, which is good - he is afraid of hell. I just wonder what sort of penance he is willing to do??? He has so much blood on his hands. If he is truly repentant, he will free those poor Cubans. For this I pray!!!

[Lera]

“”Origin’s non heretical teachings were valid and in line with the the majority of Church Fathers. Origen would have been a Saint if he did not stray into the belief of pre existence of souls.”” Are you willing to throw out Origen’s historical involvement in Scripture canon? He played a major rolen case you don’t know. Origen on the Canon http://www.bible-researcher.com/origen.html


You can't have it both ways . Origen was basically in not so many words accused of teaching reincarnation . Either he was teaching this or he was not . If he was teaching this he did not get this from the Holy Spirit . If he was not teaching this and he was accused of teaching this falsely then his accusers were not being led by the Holy Spirit. That either makes Origen a heretic that is teaching a form of gnosticism or it makes the council that accused him guilty of bearing false testimony against him. Either he was getting his information from some other spirit or he was not .

[D-fendr]

In the NT....

Did it disappear after the NT?

Where's your church's history after the NT?