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.
Do you think there were any Christians in 100AD?
Sure—family and extended family, house churches and tribal groups loosely associated, if at all, with other Christians all over the place as travelers criss crossed the world then.
I don’t believe the Vatican et al secured it’s political power-mongering pseudo supremacy and really came into formal being as anything like we are led to believe until 300-400 years after Christ.
ROFL! Agree with you? ROFLOL!
Were there Christian ministers in 100 AD?
I would agree if you are referring to the writings of Calvin and Luther. However, unless you can completely substantiate your toothless, bogus Sola Scriptura claim from the Synoptic Gospels I don't want to discuss it as a threshold for judging the Catholic Church.
Probably depends on one’s def’s.
I’m not going to end up where you seem to be trying hard to lead me.
What’s your definition?
I’m not trying to lead you anywhere. I’m trying to have a conversation.
The sequence of posts, so far, do not come across congruent with that statement.
I’m a believer in the Biblical concept of the priesthood of all believers.
I knew you would not be able to assemble a cogent response.
Quix, I know you are a serious Christian. I assume you are knowledgeable of the Bible and understand that according to Scripture diakonos, presbyteros and episkopos were appointed in the early Church. I want to know what you think that looked like, ca. 100 AD.
In the Catholic Church we believe what the bible says about how Christians are members of the one body whose head is Christ.
And we believe what the Bible says about how Mary gave birth to the Christ.
So we believe that the mother of the head is mother of the body.
And so we believe that Mary is our mother, since we are members of the Body whose head is Christ.
Non-Catholics find the Bible hard to believe.
Evidently that
chronic rabid clique folks’ problem of
being able to handle the
DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN
SAME VS DIFFERENT
has struck again.
UNWILLING is NOT THE SAME as UNABLE.
I’m usually not that impressed when
folks resort to
Greek terms:
e.g.
diakonos, presbyteros and episkopos
English has the largest vocabulary of any language . . . probably ever . . . there are enough English words to convey accurate meaning.
My view of the early church and what God desired for all congregations in the Church Age is captured best in
Acts 2 and in I Cor 12-14.
I guess some folks will just have to continue
pondering their untrue, unBiblical fantasies.
Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe. Can't is can't.
Related thread:
Is There Missing Text Of The Third Secret?
You are going to have to take that up with the Protestant heretics. This Catholic can't speak for them.
Enjoy the fantasies.
Most folks hereon know that kind of ‘can’t’ is highly unlikely to apply to me, very often.
However, given such givens and such fantasies . . .
We can discuss this in English but we were talking about the New Testament, which was written in Greek. I didn't want to offend you with imprecise and controversial translations of these terms, so I used the originals. Again, I am sorry if I caused offense.
I love the preaching of Acts 2, and the regulation of liturgy in I Corinthians 12-14, but you said that it was mostly house churches and tribes and I wanted to know how you accounted for the "leaders" and "elders" in Acts 15:22, for example.
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.