Posted on 05/05/2010 10:48:55 AM PDT by markomalley
"Fatima is a particularly significant place for this Pope," said Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi on Tuesday, noting that it was also a destination for two former Popes. The Holy Father has a thorough knowledge of the history of the Marian sanctuary, he added.
Fr. Lombardi held a press conference at the Vatican to prepare the media for the Pope's next trip out of the Vatican. He will be visiting Portugal from May 11-14.
The spokesman referred to the Pope's stop in Fatima on May 13 as the highlight and "heart" of the upcoming four-day trip to Portugal, according to Vatican Radio. But, he pointed out, Benedict XVI will not be the first Pope to visit the Marian shrine.
Two other Pontiffs have been to Fatima. In 1967, the sanctuary hosted Paul VI, and John Paul II visited in 1982, 1991 and 2000, at which time the visionaries Jacinta and Francesco were beatified.
The Portuguese shrine is not unfamiliar to Pope Benedict, since as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger extensively studied the message of Fatima. Fr. Lombardi said on Tuesday that the Pope has been involved with history of the Marian sanctuary in a "very deep, personal way."
It was him, for example, who was called upon to give a theological perspective when the third secret of Fatima was made public in 2000.
The Vatican spokesman said that the Holy Father will also deliver an intense message during his Fatima visit. Upon his arrival at the sanctuary on May 12, he will remember John Paul II and the 29th anniversary of the assassination attempt that nearly took his life on May 13, 1981.
This visit marks the Holy Father's 15th Apostolic Journey abroad in his five years and is his first to Portugal as Pope.
During today's general audience, the Holy Father greeted the people of Portugal in their language, telling them that he will be there this coming weekend at the invitation of the president of the nation and the episcopal conference.
He said he was "happy to be able to visit the 'land of Holy Mary'" on the 10th anniversary of the beatification of the shepherd children.
According to Portuguese press reports, local police are planning for a cumulative total of 450,000 people at the celebrations in Lisbon, Fatima and Portugal during the four-day visit.
“....corrupt lense of your Sola Scriptura heresy...”
Are you saying that the Word of God is a corrupt lens?
“Christ entrusted his Word not to a book, but to his disciples...”
Who then wrote it down into a book.
“Apostolic Tradition preceded the bible...”
And what Traditions are those?
“The really sad thing is that you may never know how wrong you are.”
Yeah. I get the impression that you are never going to post any Scripture to show where anything I’ve said is in conflict.
“The Catholic Mass is a celebration of worship..”
Of who? Man? Everything you posted about the Mass is a doctrine of man.
“Christ said; “This IS my body”, he did not say “this is a symbol of my body”.”
So when Christ called the Pharisees “You snakes! You brood of vipers!” it was because he was talking to actual snakes and not men?
Hmm. Pharisees... Holysees... Holy See...
“Were you implying that Calvin and Luther are correct in changing the words of God in this and many other instances?”
I am unfamiliar with the teachings of these men. Please explain further what you mean.
“...your shaky belief system...”
Whoa, looks like you’ve got a bad case of projection!
“...against Christa’s Church...”
I don’t know who Christa is but I can tell you she’s got a LONG way to go before her idol gets to anywhere near the outrageousness of the Vatican “Mary” idol.
“It shows confirms that all are called to Salvation and that a plan for Salvation exists for all.”
So you believe that everyone is going to be saved?
“I pray that in your heart and in your deeds you will achieve it.”
I would ask that you please don’t pray for me as I have no idea who or what you are praying to. I don’t want any evil coming my way.
“That is only the case when one does not understand the concept of filial love.”
Please, explain further.
And the reason(s) I said it include these. I have been told my tag is upsetting. I have been told that a Catholic Thread, not one attacking non-Catholics, just one professing what we believe is upsetting -- offensive! I really don't get this. When I see a Protestant thread on TULIP stuff, I generally just want to read what's being said. I don't have any need to attack it. I'm interested in what any brother has to say as long as he's not mugging me at the time.
But here, you asked one thing - whether we put Mary on an equal level with Jesus(which to me is ridiculous on its face.) And I answered it. So you replied, "Okay," (one word) and then set off to attack Marian stuff on another line. There wasn't even a sort of pause to savor the idea. Just attack, attack, attack.
And I would think you'd have to know it's not going to change MY mind. Every time I get accused of believing something or feeling something I do not believe or feel it just gets my dander up. Then there are the attacks based not on what I believe or on the official teaching of the Church but on the perversions of that belief by superstitious people who generally are in disagreement with the Church and would prefer their "pious" excesses to sitting down and doing some serious thinking and learning. I remember a "Catholic" who told me he hadn't been to church in years, telling me "sex is original sin." O-o-o-Kay. Never mind that many Church teachers have suggested that sex would have been WAY better (no need for cigarettes after?) before the Fall...
To me that's analogous to blaming the Constitution for the Ku Klux Klan or blaming Pasteur and Lister for surgical malpractice.
Guys like Forest Keeper and some others of the "you ain't gettin' ME across that Tiber" persuasion" at least show a real, lively, interest in what we say. Answering their questions educates me about my faith -- and theirs -- and persuades me all the more that we are brethren, albeit separated, and the brother part is more important than the separated part.
I know, and regret extremely, that some of the Catholics on FR are also sort of knee-jerk contentious. So Maybe I am unaware of their coming onto threads posted by Protestants and other non-Catholics and gratuitously accusing them of blasphemy and idolatry.
But my impression is that here the attack, the fact of attacking, is far more important to far too many non-Catholics than anything else.
Someone asks something about indulgences. I do not DEFEND the idea, I just try to clarify one little feature of it and of the thinking behind it -- with hints at what is these days called "virtue-based ethics" (something I find VERY persuasive.)
But, if you'll pardon the grandiosity, I get the impression of being one of Tolkien's elves in the Silmarillion. My presence on the battle-field attracts others who attack from any direction whatever. So, suddenly I'm being told that what I am saying is not Biblical.
Maybe, maybe not. But could we spend a little time getting clear on what I am saying and on settling the misunderstanding leading to a false accusation before I have to deal with another accusation? That's what would happen if clarity and truth were a goal prized above discomfiture and apparent victory.
Similarly, people ask me 'have you stopped beating your wife,' questions and then blink at me innocently and say they simply want to know my thinking.
This isn't the way to develop real understanding of the differences and samenesses between us. It's not the way to get a good understanding of the question. It doesn't provide the reliable information requisite for mature and free decision making.
I was tasked by someone for expressing a desire to leave the fray. it was, as far as I know a non-Catholic who wanted me to stay and defend MY side of the argument in the interests of Truth -- NOT that I had the Truth but that it might come out in the exchange.
I find that kind of thinking extremely congenial. But when it increasingly seems that the MO of the other side is attack, attack, attack, as though this were Patton campaigning across France and not brethren seeking the truth, I think that I am contending not with the children of Him whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light (if you think crosses are light, that is) but slaves of Ares, Deimos, and Phobos, or worshippers of the fell Norse gods for whom life is battle and Valhalla will be warfare forever.
So that's what lay behind my remark.
Here is the problem:
“Is the mother of the head NOT the mother of the Body?”
Mary is not the mother of the Body of Christ.
Rome’s idolatry and blasphemy knows no bounds.
LOL.
Are you saying the inquisitions didn’t happen?
Right here:
“Is the mother of the head NOT the mother of the Body?”
Mary is not the mother of the Body of Christ.
Pure idolatry.
See? That's what I mean. Do you seriously think I am not aware of their stories? If you DO, on what basis do you say I do not read the Bible? If you don't why bury the false charge in the 'if-clause'?
Quix, have you any words to say to my attackers about what you saw on the Caucus thread about Catholics and the Bible?
“What we post is not filled with idolatry nor blasphemy.”
The Mary stuff is absolutely idolatry. So is the Saints stuff. And the praying to angels and the Eucharist and elevating men to be ‘another Christ’ in the roles of the clergy.
Calling the Pope by the titles of the Father and the Holy Spirit (Holy Father, Vicar of Christ) is blasphemy.
“Why is it that you have an anniversary date of 2006 on your FReeperpage but have no posting history before this threa”
I’m guessing you figured it out before you were even finished with the last sentence of your post. But in case you haven’t, I believe the problem is that you are clicking on the wrong link. I have plenty of posts on FR. lol.
“I assume when you use the term “Vaticanian” you are using it as a pejorative for Catholic.”
No. I use the term because it is more accurate. Also, it is the Vatican’s use of the word Catholic that is a pejorative against Christians.
It’s like hearing a Scientologist call themselves a Christman.
Catholic is another word for the Body of Christ, so what the Vatican is trying to have people believe is that 1) they are actually Christians, and 2) if you are not a member of their edifice then you are not in the Body of Christ. Utter blasphemy.
So EITHER Mary had a baby without a body
OR the body of Jesus is not the Body of Christ.
And there you have it.
You have no arguments.
“...within your denomination...”
What denomination is that?
“...3x to 10x more prevalent...”
So because you allege you have found some group that “does it more” that then absolves the Vatican?
“...the Church that Christ founded...”
Please. The Church that Christ founded is the Body of Christ which is made up of all Christians and which He is the Head. I have said nothing against the Body of Christ. In fact, I’m in it.
“...that speaks volumes about your lack of Christianity.”
So because I said the Vatican has a pedophile problem that means I’m not a Christian? You do realize that the Vatican is not a god right? It is certainly not the Elohim.
Is reading newspapers now outlawed in Rome as well? How could anyone avoid seeing the stories any longer? They are everywhere. Is everyone who sees them and doesn’t immediately hush up and pretend it didn’t happen not a Christian?
What is with all this fuss over something I saw in a newspaper? What did I do? I’m not the pedophiles. Why aren’t you mad at them?
For that matter, why didn’t the edifice get mad at them and immediate remove them the minute they were discovered, instead of hushing it up and moving them to new locations filled with new targets?
And why aren’t followers of the edifice mad at the edifice for not getting rid of them and instead hushing it up and moving them around where they could continue their attacks?
Why all this fuss towards somebody who’s only “crime” was to accidently bump into a newspaper with their eyes open and mention what they saw printed there?
I understand your concepts & beliefs . . . in significant measure, I think.
I think I understand your feelings.
I think . . . in ‘normal’ life . . . whatever that is . . .
it is rare for many RC’s and Prottys to interact very significantly, intensely, regularly, day in and day out about strongly held RELIGIOUS beliefs and practices.
SOME few may do so at work or in a club or sport or some such context. Yet, even there, usually, after some initial flurry of however many hours, it will die down and the relationship will go on at whatever level of closeness both seem comfortable with.
Perhaps imagine at the gym or health club . . . one is on the exercise bicycle . . . and within 2-5 minutes, every time one gets on the bicycle . . . a person with an opposite perspective—in your case a Protty—comes by with a screamingly headlined article about some Roman Catholic belief and/or practice the Protty believes is dooming you to a spiritual demotion, if not hell.
Or at least a significant percentage of the articles scream that your theology and/or practices are grossly deficient, originate in hell, are devoid of proper ‘salvivic’ !!!!TRADITION!!!! or proper ‘salvivic’ church structure or proper ‘salvivic’ working salvation out with fear and trembling as prescribed by the kosher church structure etc. etc. etc.
It’s not quite easy or fitting to quickly get off the bike and pretend to go relieve one’s self. The person’s persistent presence and dogged almost stalking habits are just hard to avoid.
Besides, he seems to desperately need to be set right on a list of points whether he agrees, or not. And he has an uncanny knack of pushing all your STAND-STRONG-IN-BEHALF-OF-THE-FAITH-AND-CHURCH/INSTITUTION buttons . . . or all your TO-EVERY-MAN-AN-ANSWER buttons. Besides, there’s 50 other blokes in the health club within ear shot and you know good and well that some of them NEED to hear such a defense of the faith—even if for the 50th time—else they fall into that dreadful Protty ditch.
And even some of the RC’s in the club NEED to hear the proper defense of the RC dogma so they’ll hopefully get their act together and become active once again.
So you don’t slap the bloke down. You don’t change health clubs. You don’t complain to the management. You just keep relentlessly replying as relentlessly as he keeps coming by and shoving things in your face.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I think that’s pretty close to how some of us Prottys feel hereon.
No. That is according to your own personal interpretation of scripture, which is of no import. In fact, the term Catholic equals the term Christian. Only through God's infinite and divine mercy are those who espouse blasphemy (i.e., those who do not cling to the teachings of the apostles, as preserved by the Church) allowed to be considered "separated" brethren.
Catholic is another word for the Body of Christ
Indeed. In other words, the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
So, please answer this simple, multiple choice question:
"I think that Catholics who won't denounce their beliefs should:
Thanks for your help by answering the above.
“Lol. Of course Jesus founded the Catholic Church. He made Peter the first Pope. Pretty instense story in that Bible. You should really read it sometime.”
Can you believe that I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not? You could even have said Paul was insane and I still wouldn’t know.
Just for the sake of sanity, would you mind posting the Scripture of the story you are referring to? Or a sarcasm tag.
“The so-called explanation is that calling Mary the mother of Jesus’ body puts her above him.”
No. The original inferred statement was:
‘Mary is the Mother of the Body of Christ.’
Now I can tell you understand where I am coming from by your act of not confronting the actual claim, and instead making a strawman in its place.
I’ve clicked back a post or two . . . I don’t know what you’re referring to about the caucus thread and the Bible.
I think you know I found the prayer to Mary beginning that particular caucus thread to be very offensively unBiblical, to me . . . to an idolatrous, blasphemous degree.
In terms of you and Scripture, I find you way above average knowledgeable of Scripture and have no doubt that you read Scripture daily and mediate on it prayerfully and God has confirmed to me directly that you have a significant relationship with Him regardless of the puzzling Mary stuff [very puzzling that any earnest Christian familiar with Scripture would hold onto any of it to the degree that you do—even though your degree does not SEEM to be as outrageous as the perspectives of many or most of those in the rabid cliques]. That you hold to as much Mary stuff as you do is disturbing to me, nevertheless. So, per His instructions to me on that score, I trust your relationship with and to Him and the Mary stuff to Him in your case, as well.
I respect and care for you highly. I respect your right to your Mary beliefs though I cannot respect some of those beliefs and consider them greatly hazardous. I can understand some of your justifications for arriving at them and holding them in the sense that I know you were not thoughtless nor lock-step mindless in sucking up to or following some hierarchical authority just for compliance sake.
Nevertheless, it is still mind-boggling to me that a man of your IQ, Biblical knowledge and experience can persist in holding onto some of the Marian stuff you still hold onto, though thankfully, it is seemingly not as outrageous as say Ferraro is in so many places.
I think the way you live out your faith and relationship with God in sacrificial servant-heartedness and candid humility and realness is a significant measure of spirituality that helps me trust God with your holding onto the Marian stuff that you do believe in. Otherwise, it might be tooooo much of a stretch to trust that as easily as I can.
I’m not sure what else you might like my comment on. If you will ask a more specific question, I’ll try again.
I agree.
I don’t think that issue is resolvable between the two sides.
From the Protty perspective . . . Mary’s task, duty, role essentially ended when Christ began His ministry, if not before. Certainly when He ascended, she was likely active in the local congregation in redemptive Christian ways. When she graduated from this life, that was it. Done, fini. She entered Heaven as a respected person with a unique role in The Faith and the respect that all the graduated saints have from each other etc. But that was it. There was Nothing particularly special about her Heavenly role. Certainly there was nothing special in terms of extra graces or powers or competing roles with Holy Spirit or Jesus etc.
If St Paul could pray HE MUST INCREASE, BUT I MUST DECREASE, then Mary would certainly pray that even more. Therefore, her phoney elevations at the hands of the Vatican magicsterical are seen as horrendously outrageous and UnBiblical on their face from the git-go.
We understand RC’s have a VERY opposing perspective. We understand that RC’s believe they have a rational foundation for those beliefs.
We do NOT see the faintest Biblical foundation for such roles.
We do NOT see an authentic verifiable historic foundation for such roles.
We do NOT see any authentically logical justification for a shred of such roles.
We don’t see it. The RC ‘evidence’ is grossly lacking to us in a list of respects and ways. Some of it is outrageously silly, shallow, ridiculous, to us. and the evidence of the horrific levels of blasphemy and idolatry e.g. Ferraro and others is screamingly UNBIBLICAL and logically absolutely indefensible in any way, shape or form, by any imagination.
I don’t see those basic differences being moderated by the other side, much at all—until Jesus comes and sets us all straight on everything.
I do believe there is some merit in PROVIDING FOR EVERY MAN, AN ANSWER in behalf of the lurkers. And, my own style is to do so vigorously and somewhat dramatically. Some RC’s have their own versions of vigorously and dramatically. That makes their wailing about my version really super disingenuous and patently silly and absurdly hypocritical.
Which reminds me . . . the degree of double standard stuff—in terms of severity, grossness of the double standard as well as the frequency of it it horrifically outrageous to every thinking rational Protty hereon.
And, personally, it boggles my mind that you and MarkOMalley don’t rise up in outrage yourselves over it. SOMETIMES, it seems like even you two are somewhat snookered into lock-step submission and blindness to it. That’s REALLY disturbing to us watchers from the outside.
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.