Posted on 03/08/2013 9:01:51 PM PST by daniel1212
Caracas, Venezuela, Mar 6, 2013 / 12:01 pm (CNA).- A source in Venezuela has revealed to CNA that President Hugo Chavez died “in bosom of the Church” and received spiritual direction and the sacraments in his last days.
In announcing Chavez’s death to the nation on March 5, Vice President Nicolas Maduro said the Venezuelan leader died “clinging to Christ.” The source in Venezuela told CNA that during the last weeks of his life, Chavez requested spiritual direction and asked to receive the sacraments.
Ever since he assumed power in 1999, Chavez butted heads continuously with the Catholic Church over statements by the bishops warning of the risks and excesses of his Socialist agenda. In 2002, Chavez accused the Venezuelan bishops of being a “tumor” for his revolutionary goals and demanded that the Vatican not intervene in the internal affairs of the country.
In recent years, Chavez occasionally took part in the religious services of distinct denominations, but he surprised the press in April 2012 when he showed up at a Catholic church in his hometown of Barinas to attend Holy Week services. He wore a rosary around his neck and prayed for strength to fight his illness. Last July, Chavez made public his request to meet with the Catholic bishops.
After Chavez’s death, the Archdiocese of Caracas, led by Cardinal Jorge Urosa who is currently in Rome for the conclave, sent its condolences
The secretary general of the Bishops’ Conference of Venezuela, Bishop Jesus Gonzalez de Zarate, called for national unity. “At this time let us all put forth our best sentiments,” he said during an interview on Venezuelan television. “Death is not the end of our life,” he added. “Death only opens the way to a life of complete happiness, at the side of God our Father.”
Lovely.
If you feel you must ignore me and not ever respond to me in the future, I assure you, it will not grieve me in the least.
Peace be with you.
God doesn't see those 'in Christ' as sinners. Since our sins have been washed in the Precious Blood of his Son. He sees things in the supernatural - in the spirit we are sinless! It's how God sees things, not man.
It's good you expect TRUTH - it's a pity you don't have it.
Obviously they could not eat of the real flesh of demons as demons have no real flesh to offer. And the food they offered as sacrifice were offered to false gods and if one ate of that food knowing that, it signified a fellowship with the demons or submission to the false gods.
Jesus, however, did have true flesh, just as He said, and His flesh is true food, His blood true drink. His flesh was the sacrifice, once and for all that frees us and redeemed us so that we may share in His inheritance. By partaking of the Eucharist, we have fellowship with each other because we are sharing of the one loaf of Christ.
You are wrong about the elements not being discussed the NT for we read St. Paul saying the same words Jesus spoke at the Last Supper. We know that Paul never learned those words from the other Apostles because he tells us this himself. So there is only one way in which Paul would know them and that is if Jesus shared them with him and instructed him in them.
The elements came from the mouth of Jesus, “This is my body” and “This is my blood”. He was not pointing at those gathered with Him at the meal, He was holding bread and it was bread He gave them to eat.
On the road to Emmaus, the disciples recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread and then the Jesus that had walked with them was no longer there.
Catholics do not read the desired substance into the text of Scripture. The belief was there before the words were written, before they were considered Scripture and long before others came along and decided the Church was wrong after centuries.
Rather, those who refuse to accept the truth are missing the forest for the trees, picking apart Scripture for assurance they are right and the Church is wrong.
Apparently some can’t handle the truth.
Prayers for you which appears to be much needed.
They ignore JESUS in favor of man which is the result of brainwashing. Common sense doesn't even seem to break through that form of brainwashing nor does it allow them to be open to correction.
Although, I believe it's also because of their EGO/PRIDE. We all know destruction follows that but pride is that strong, they think it won't happen to 'them'/the RCC.
The two thieves on the cross shows the difference between one who is open to TRUTH and knows it immediately when they see/heard it vs one who isn't open to Truth and/or doesn't recognize it when they see/hear it - 'something else' has their attention/mind/heart.
So one is w/Jesus forever and one isn't. Their own choice.
JESUS ALONE is Truth. Do you listen to; hear and obey Jesus ALONE?
Repent from believing man/worldly/teachings instead of God ALONE or not - your choice.
The bread is the Word of God/Jesus that imparts LIFE that we/believers feast on daily. Jesus is The Word. And we remember, in thankfulness, His Precious Blood that He shed for us that cleansed us.
On the road to Emmaus, the disciples recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread and then the Jesus that had walked with them was no longer there.
Because they didn't have spiritual eyes to see/recognize Him. Sound familiar? Those who ignore The Word/Jesus and don't recognize IT as the ONLY TRUTH which He is.
long before others came along and decided the Church was wrong after centuries.
'Others' are Jesus? Jesus condemned the 'religious' and their man made teachings which void His Word/Truth and only serve Him with their lips.
He, also, taught who His 'mother' (and brothers/sisters) are. "Pointing to His disciples, He said, "Here are My mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother." Do YOU recognize that as Truth?
You are wrong about ..
You don't know what is right as your posts show, so you can't claim that someone is wrong. Man/their teachings are designed to deceive to led people to serve 'another' and Adam/Eve would agree with that.
"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."
those who refuse to accept the truth are missing the forest for the trees, picking apart Scripture for assurance they are right and the Church is wrong.
The Church isn't wrong - for believers have The Truth as Jesus The Word ALONE is the ONLY Truth, the ONLY Way there is. The counterfeit 'church'/worldly organization/ RCC/Vatican IS wrong and they claim they are the way.
Born again BELIEVERS are assured of their salvation. While you are under man made teachings and need to pick apart Scripture trying to make it 'fit' with what 'man' says and then you feel 'you got it' right. Nothing like deceiving yourself, also. So it's entertaining to read how you plan on praying for others.
Mo-ron. You could freep for a hundred years and it still wouldn't rectify your room-temperature IQ.
I DID NOT SAY WHAT THAT POST MADE IT SEEM LIKE I SAID.
SO YES, THAT IS PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH IF THEY ARE IN ITALICS AS IF IT IS A DIRECT QUOTE.
Ah, but you are right. The bread IS Jesus the Word of God which we believers feast on daily just as He told us to do.
“Take and eat, this is my body.”
The problem with your understanding is that it wasn’t a book that Jesus gave to them and it wasn’t a book that Jesus was speaking of in the Gospel of John when He said I am the bread which came down from heaven.”
It was bread.
The disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Jesus because He did not want them to recognize Him until the breaking of the bread. Because since His ascension He is present with us only in the Eucharist.
Jesus said unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood you will not have life within you. I’ll take His word over others’ every day.
As for the rest of that prideful and arrogant post, there is a LOT of supposition in there regarding my faith and actions and abilities, all spoken as truth.
None of which is in fact truth.
And I am to be cowed by your truth?
But it is my experience that RCs cannot deal objectively with the evidence so as to even allow the allegorical as a possibility, so i will leave you to your choice.
I am not Catholic...but Evangelical...I am intrigued by this one following phrase that's been making its way into MANY, MANY Evangelical church "statements of faith" -- which also incorporates the verse you cited Daniel, 1 Cor. 10:16...note particularly the highlighted portion:
"We also teach that whereas the elements of Communion are only representative of the flesh and blood of Christ, the Lord’s Supper is nevertheless an actual communion with the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16).
Now, I've looked around for a source re: where these Evangelical churches are getting this exact statement, and have thus far settled upon this as THE source: The MacArthur Bible Commentary
(But it may not be original with John MacArthur; he may have/likely have? garnered it from yet ANOTHER source...if somebody can enlighten me, that'd be great)
I have five questions for Daniel & Presently No Screen Name:
1. Do you view Communion as an "actual communion with the risen Christ (1 Cor. 10:16)"?
2. While I don't believe in an actual "trans" of the actual elements, what do you do with many of the phrases Jesus utilizes in describing Himself in John 6? Allow me to ESPECIALLY highlight the words I am talking about:
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread IS my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh IS REAL FOOD and my blood IS REAL DRINK. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
3. Given that Jesus allowed the above to simply either "sink in" -- or rebound off of His disciples...especially rebounding off of His disciples that were "more on the margin"...you can see vv. 66-67 for these disciples' exodus upon hearing these words...If Jesus wanted to highlight these words as ONLY "symbolic" and ONLY "signifying" some deeper "spiritual" parallel...then why didn't He make that clear to those disciples who parted ways with Jesus vs. simply letting them go?
4. Why don't we see very many Evangelical churches (& individuals) utilize John 6 as part of their proof-texting in their "Statements of Faith" on Communion?
5. Could it be that if more Evangelicals took John 6 to heart, perhaps some of them might react the same way many of Jesus' "outer" disciples reacted to His message in John 6? (As they did in John 6:66-67)
I'm very interested in your responses. (Thank you ahead of time for responding)
I don’t think Chavez worshiped any other but himself.
Actually, the non Catholic position is the premise that must be proved, as it is the rejection of what the universal Church has held as firm belief since the beginning.
First, there is no evidence that Jesus ate of the bread which He gave to the Apostles or that He drank of the wine in the cup which He gave them.
Second, we must take into account ALL the words Jesus spoke regarding this subject, all of which are unflinchingly supportive of the Catholic belief in the actuality of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.
Third, we must consider the story of Ezekiel and the eating of the scroll which the Lord gave him. The story is similar to what Jesus says of His flesh, that those who ate of it would never be hungry.
Fourth, we see that the first Christians regularly shared in the breaking of the bread and that bread was not just ordinary food. Some of it was reserved and taken to those who were not present.
So we see that there is abundant support for the Catholic belief from the OT, the NT and the early writings of the those who learned from the Apostles themselves.
I would particularly be interested in the answer to question #3 as no one, to my satisfaction anyway, has ever expressed a reasonable argument as to why Jesus would use such graphic language and then allow some of them to leave Him because of it?
John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
Do people who partake of communion thinking that it is changed into His literal body and blood ever get hungry or thirsty again? And I'll betcha, when people go home from church, they get hungry and thirsty.
If we're going to take the passage literally to mean that it is His literal body and blood, then the rest of the passage needs to be interpreted literally as well, to be consistent. That means anyone who has taken communion, it being the literal body and blood of Christ, would neither hunger, nor thirst, nor die any more.
There are also MANY places in Scripture where the eating of blood is strictly forbidden, the last being the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. God says the life is in the blood, it is given for atonement. It is NOT to be eaten.
At the end of John 6, which is the primary source Catholic use to support their doctrine, Jesus says this..... John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Additionally, if Jesus had given His followers actual blood to eat, He would have caused them to sin as that would have violated the Law, which as Peter said in Acts 10, he had never eaten anything unclean. Being observant Jews, the disciples could not have eaten blood and remained clean for the Passover. They would not have done it had they thought it was actual blood.
Rnmom has an excellent explanation of the Last Supper and its meaning.
Catholics also do not take this verse literally, not recognizing the security of the believer....
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
And yet here is the promise of eternal life without the necessity of eating or drinking, but merely believing.
It's only the position that the Catholic church has had from the beginning, not the *universal* church. So it's only rejection of Catholic teaching, not rejection of Scripture or Jesus.
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.