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 ...
You claimed your church has billions of members. Where is your support for that?
So you cannot cite one piece of history of your church?
Non sequitur, deflection and red herring combined completely dodging the point.
Your argument makes no sense,dear friend
Falling into error does not cancel out the sound teachings and truthfulness one walked in before that point.
Origen is in the same boat as Luther in the Catholic view. Their pride in their personal beliefs caused them to separate themselves from the Church instead of humbly submitting to the teachings of the Church like many great Saints did
Why would I need to show source when you don’t?
With respect Stfassisi I'm not interested in your links to so called "educational" material. I'm very much aware of and who brought us the Scriptures. As for the Didache it's not a theological document but rather a practical guide for Christian living in those times. A Pastoral type manuel. It should be viewed like any other religious material..... Read it for what you can get out of it but do not expect it to have the inerrancy of Scripture...... I happen to believe in the inspired word of God, and that 'God was in full control' of his word during the entire process all the way through the final stages of canonization, thus controlled which scripture would be pertinent to the church today.
Thank you for the answer, it was what I sincerely was seeking. You have also made my point. It most certainly IS a matter of faith, as all things concerning the truths of Christianity are. It is obvious to me, and it was obvious to those early Christians that what Jesus meant was spiritual. He said specifically after his sermon on the need to "eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life", "This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (John 6:58) When his disciples starting murmuring about not understanding what he really meant, he said to them, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life." (John 6:63) After he said that, he added, "Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (John 6:64-66).
At the Last Supper, when Jesus demonstrated the objects that make up the Sedar Passover observance, the bread he broke and gave to them saying, "This is my body which is broken for you, take and eat in remembrance of me." Did the bread change into his human flesh then? No, it did not. It was an object lesson for them and the bread symbolized his body broken for the sins of man. The same with the cup, it was the cup of a new testament, a new covenant of his blood. Did the wine in the cup change into his blood? No. It was symbolic of his blood which would be shed for sins of man.
This is my point concerning the Eucharist. It was instituted by Christ as a memorial of his sacrifice and partaking of those elements symbolized that they had received him, believed on him, had faith in him, and because of that, they had eternal life. The same for us today. Anyone who would participate in this observance who has not already believed in Christ, brought judgment upon himself because he did not believe. To him, they were merely bread and wine, something to slake his thirst and hunger, but they meant nothing more to him than that. But we, because we HAVE believed, receive these as a constant reminder of what he did for us. Partaking of this observance is NOT what gives us eternal life, but the faith in what they represent - Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord.
Thank you again for your comments.
Even Wikipedia uses sourced documents and plenty of your FRiends use it. Prove these sources wrong rather than try to impugn an entire site. From the article, their sources are:
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
1.Pope Pius XI, "Christian Marriage," 1930-DEC-31 at: http://www.vatican.va/
2.John Cardinal O'Connor, "Abortion: Questions and Answers," Priests for Life, at: http://www.priestsforlife.org/
3.St. Augustine, "On Exodus", (21, 80)
I believe the same thing,dear friend. Where we differ is how we apply this to our faith and the interpretations of Holy Scripture.
We do have common ground on many other things too, and Protestants working together with Catholic's for love of the poor and neighbor etc.. can bridge the gaps.
Wikipedia is misleading because it does not mention Contraception was condemned in the first Council Of Nicaea in 325 Canon 1, and Abortion was condemned at The Council of Eliberis in 305. Both of these Councils are dogmatic.
It;s not that the Church did not teach this before these councils either.It was that Christianity was illegal before this and having these councils was next to impossible
There are many writings from the Church Fathers against Abortion and Contraception and the consensus patrum was concrete on this
That’s not showing me where I said what you accused me of.
No dice.
It must be one of the dirtiest jobs in the word: Trying to scrub Catholic history and polishing what's left until it appears shiny and pretty. It must be a full time venture. And all for naught. Because the truth always outs. Always.
I gave a source earlier, is that your church? If not: Your turn.
As opposed to 'no history'? Cute and convenient, yes; convincing, no.
The position of the Church was closed on the issue ,via the council's I pointed out.Anything that differed from this meant nothing and anything that agreed was following the councils.
It's no different than if a Bishop or Pope came out today and denied Christ's Divinity. They don't have power to overturn these dogmatic teachings.
The physical, material act alone? No. No more than sitting by a stereo playing a recording of the Holy Scriptures being read brings the faith that comes by hearing. So, neither are magic, there's more involved than the physical.
For the limited purposes of a quite limited explanation, you can think of the Holy Eucharist as a means of God's grace, and whatever questions you have about salvation and the Holy Eucharist, apply the term 'grace' instead.
"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to MY GOSPEL, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, ACCORDING TO THE REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY, which was KEPT SECRET SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN, "BUT NOW" is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the OBEDIENCE OF FAITH." Rom. 16:25,26.
There Paul goes again. Calling it "MY GOSPEL". Being established according to his gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ. Formerly a MYSTERY since the world began, until revealed to Paul.
"Time Past", "But Now", "Ages to Come"...Eph. Chapter 2.
There is a LOT of history for you to learn. The history of the Church the Body of Christ. According to the Bible, not the RCC.
My pleasure!
One explanation of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation I was given - and note, this was from our last Father, who was called to Rome to teach before retiring to our parish, was that it is a way of focussing on the remembrance aspect.
The sheer awe and dread of actually partaking of Christ would focus the mind wonderfully, especially in the 13th century when the only way most had to receive the Word was through their Priest or a monk. Few others could read.
Now the huge majority of us can read the word for ourselves, it is still a useful thing, as is the tradition of stained glass telling stories in church windows
God is infallable. Men are easily distracted. I was raised as the Eucharist being spiritual, as you are. I still concentrate hard on the moment of transubstantiation as it is my duty and it does really help in feeling the spirit.
According to Holy Scripture, the is a visible Church, the one Paul wrote to. Did this disappear?
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.