Ever Heard Of Apparitions of Mary On Coptic Orthodox Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tony9712262
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tony9712262

Guest
I read a thread on here the other day, and I wrote about a Marian apparition on top a Coptic Orthodox Church, but I don’t think anyone read it. So…I am starting a thread on it.

The Virgin Mary’s apparition on top of a Coptic Orthodox Church, in 1969, in Zeitun, Egypt.

Muslims even brought their Qur’an and came to pray, and some converted to Christ. Muslims, Coptics, and Catholics, came…there were miraculous cures. The Muslim government thought that it was the Coptics who were trying to deceive, so the government tried to find a one of those thingys that would give off images, but they were unsuccessful. The first person to witness it was a Muslim, who thought that a person was trying to commit suicide, because she was walking on top of the church. Ya’ll can google it and read more details.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I absolutely read about this. Her Apparitions which are many, are here for others to see that she is in fact “real” and her message has always been the same. “God exists.” Astonishing photos…by the way, your signature says it all, especially from a Cardinal who was in fact a Protestant for many years…until he started researching his history of the church. 👍
 
Yes I know! Is that beautiful? I have always wondered by all of her apparations have happened in Europe though! Imagine how different the U.S. would be if she did that infront of the White House or the Statue of Liberty!
 
She has 🙂 Our Lady of Guadalupe and Our Lady of America, with Our Lady of America being less known and oft confused with Our Lady of Guadalupe, because the earlier is also known as Our Lady of the Americas. And yes, Our Lady of America does have approval, at least on a Bishop level.
 
kristanl said:
Yes I know! Is that beautiful? I have always wondered by all of her apparations have happened in Europe though! Imagine how different the U.S. would be if she did that infront of the White House or the Statue of Liberty!
Click to expand...
I’ll readily admit to being a minority voice on this, but frankly, I think the Church can be better off by not paying attention to most of these sites. Even acknowledging the holiness of a few select seers should not automatically guarantee a stamp of approval that the apparitions are “real.” The post-Conciliar theological or liturgical vacuum has created an appetite for much of this. But how do you shut these places down? How do you shut Medjugorje down?
 
I’ve heard of this! One of my professors at school, from whom I took a class on religion and culture in Egypt, says he grandmother was there to see it! Pretty cool!
 
John_Larocque said:
I’ll readily admit to being a minority voice on this, but frankly, I think the Church can be better off by not paying attention to most of these sites. Even acknowledging the holiness of a few select seers should not automatically guarantee a stamp of approval that the apparitions are “real.” The post-Conciliar theological or liturgical vacuum has created an appetite for much of this. But how do you shut these places down? How do you shut Medjugorje down?
Click to expand...
So you’re the authority we should trust in judging the worthiness or otherwise of these events? I think God might disagree with you. He’s the one who’s been sending her.
 
kristanl said:
Yes I know! Is that beautiful? I have always wondered by all of her apparations have happened in Europe though! Imagine how different the U.S. would be if she did that infront of the White House or the Statue of Liberty!
Click to expand...
The bit that intrigues me is that at Zietoun she appeared in a Moslem country, but not over a mosque, but rather a church. It’s a statement. At the same time she gave no outright message, as at Lourdes or Fatima for example, which I assume would have been to avoid violent controversy.

The site is alleged to be a site where the Holy Family rested while fleeing to Egypt.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
The bit that intrigues me is that at Zietoun she appeared in a Moslem country, but not over a mosque, but rather a church. It’s a statement. At the same time she gave no outright message, as at Lourdes or Fatima for example, which I assume would have been to avoid violent controversy.

The site is alleged to be a site where the Holy Family rested while fleeing to Egypt.
Click to expand...
The last thing Our Lady said, as recorded in the Gospels, is “Whatever my Son says to you, do it.”

Why need she say anything else?

FWIW, the Greek Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and Coptic Catholic have inscribed these apparitions into their respective calendars.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
So you’re the authority we should trust in judging the worthiness or otherwise of these events? I think God might disagree with you. He’s the one who’s been sending her.
Click to expand...
That really depends on what site you are talking about.

The type of thing I am talking about is where people view Marian apparition cults - especially condemned places which I won’t name - as a kind of parallel magisterium to the church. They obviously fill a spiritual need for people, otherwise people wouldn’t flock to them. But we don’t need them. We have everything we need in the sacraments and the teachings of the church and sacred scripture.

I find often when researching various such places - when they aren’t attributing the phenomenon to God, they are attributing them to Satan. My view is that neither approach should be our first reaction to them. Also, you have to weigh what they say against both church teaching and the fidelity of the so-called prophecies. Specific things are critical as well. If someone says that there are only three popes after John XXIII, for example, where does that place Benedict XVI? (I’m not even going to bring up St.Malachi, who gave us five…) My views are those of an ordinary believer who thinks that time is better spent on existing revealed truths.
 
John_Larocque said:
I’ll readily admit to being a minority voice on this, but frankly, I think the Church can be better off by not paying attention to most of these sites. Even acknowledging the holiness of a few select seers should not automatically guarantee a stamp of approval that the apparitions are “real.” The post-Conciliar theological or liturgical vacuum has created an appetite for much of this. But how do you shut these places down? How do you shut Medjugorje down?
Click to expand...

I have a pamphlet about the Zeitoun “apparitions” - that first photograh is typical; they are all so indistinct that they could be anything. They remind me of the more recent “apparitions” in windows, fence-posts, & other ridiculous locations. The BVM is not a playing hide-and-seek, for crying out loud. Once has to wonder whether the people who see apparitions in a lavatory-pan, a knee, boiled eggs, & suchlike places, are quite sane.​

One thing the Church could do is to forbid the publication of accounts of alleged apparitions until they are approved as worthy of credit. It could also punish those who spread prophecies, as well as those bishops who fail to stamp out these scandals.

The flood of pseudo-apparitions, & of the pseudo-messages & false prophecies that have resulted, is a scandal & a disgrace. It brings the Faith into contempt. It is not faith, but sheer superstition, wghen what is missing is sober & well-founded theology & doctrine. The Popes are largely to blame: they have let this plague spread, & have fostered the sickly eschatological fantasies that are part & parcel of this foolishness; JP2 was a notable offender.

I agree with everything you say. 👍👍👍 The ghastly thing is that this scandalous state of affairs is a self-inflicted wound.

Some examples of pareidolia:
 
John_Larocque said:
That really depends on what site you are talking about.

The type of thing I am talking about is where people view Marian apparition cults - especially condemned places which I won’t name - as a kind of parallel magisterium to the church. They obviously fill a spiritual need for people, otherwise people wouldn’t flock to them. But we don’t need them. We have everything we need in the sacraments and the teachings of the church and sacred scripture.

I find often when researching various such places - when they aren’t attributing the phenomenon to God, they are attributing them to Satan. My view is that neither approach should be our first reaction to them. Also, you have to weigh what they say against both church teaching and the fidelity of the so-called prophecies. Specific things are critical as well. If someone says that there are only three popes after John XXIII, for example, where does that place Benedict XVI? (I’m not even going to bring up St.Malachi, who gave us five…) My views are those of an ordinary believer who thinks that time is better spent on existing revealed truths.
Click to expand...
I do not believe all Marian apparitions. There was one in Conyers, Georgia, that my aunt went to. She bought a book from there. The woman who claimed apparitions, sounded fake the way she “spoke to Mary” and she even talked with Satan. LOL. She didn’t sound like the way others spoke to Mary in other Marian apparitions. I would also say that I don’t believe in Medjjugorjie either. Once there was a journalist who was asking her questions about why they didn’t become nuns and priests, and the way she spoke to the journalist was in a very rude manner.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

I have a pamphlet about the Zeitoun “apparitions” - that first photograh is typical; they are all so indistinct that they could be anything. They remind me of the more recent “apparitions” in windows, fence-posts, & other ridiculous locations. The BVM is not a playing hide-and-seek, for crying out loud. Once has to wonder whether the people who see apparitions in a lavatory-pan, a knee, boiled eggs, & suchlike places, are quite sane.​

One thing the Church could do is to forbid the publication of accounts of alleged apparitions until they are approved as worthy of credit. It could also punish those who spread prophecies, as well as those bishops who fail to stamp out these scandals.

The flood of pseudo-apparitions, & of the pseudo-messages & false prophecies that have resulted, is a scandal & a disgrace. It brings the Faith into contempt. It is not faith, but sheer superstition, wghen what is missing is sober & well-founded theology & doctrine. The Popes are largely to blame: they have let this plague spread, & have fostered the sickly eschatological fantasies that are part & parcel of this foolishness; JP2 was a notable offender.

I agree with everything you say. 👍👍👍 The ghastly thing is that this scandalous state of affairs is a self-inflicted wound.

Some examples of pareidolia:
Click to expand...
Ah, but I also said that a Muslim was the first to her walking on the roof. She was walking. How can “something” walk… And…indistinct? That’s a halo on Mary’s head with the Holy Spirit above her head.
 
John_Larocque said:
That really depends on what site you are talking about.

The type of thing I am talking about is where people view Marian apparition cults - especially condemned places which I won’t name - as a kind of parallel magisterium to the church. They obviously fill a spiritual need for people, otherwise people wouldn’t flock to them. But we don’t need them. We have everything we need in the sacraments and the teachings of the church and sacred scripture.

I find often when researching various such places - when they aren’t attributing the phenomenon to God, they are attributing them to Satan. My view is that neither approach should be our first reaction to them. Also, you have to weigh what they say against both church teaching and the fidelity of the so-called prophecies. Specific things are critical as well. If someone says that there are only three popes after John XXIII, for example, where does that place Benedict XVI? (I’m not even going to bring up St.Malachi, who gave us five…) My views are those of an ordinary believer who thinks that time is better spent on existing revealed truths.
Click to expand...
I stick to the approved apparitions. The church is pretty tardy about approving such events, and checks them out thoroughly. We had a weeping, bleeding statue of Mary in a Catholic Church not far from here a few years ago, and at the time I was inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. But further research showed it was a fraud. I think a few people got hauled over the coals for it.

I don’t have a problem with your discernment about being wary of unapproved apparitions, but I think the approved ones are real, and have a message.

A grim message in some cases, particularly Akita.
 
Tony9712262 said:
Ah, but I also said that a Muslim was the first to her walking on the roof. She was walking. How can “something” walk… And…indistinct? That’s a halo on Mary’s head with the Holy Spirit above her head.
Click to expand...
If that’s the Holy Spirit, then maybe it’s Jesus.

Anyway, the image could be an old bishop or priest.

Halos are traditionally depicted as circles around the head, but that is a convention. It might look that way because people expect it to, or it might look that way because it is supposed to.

I was interested to learn that the image was moving. I had not ever seen someone post that before.
 
Hesychios said:
If that’s the Holy Spirit, then maybe it’s Jesus.

Anyway, the image could be an old bishop or priest.

Halos are traditionally depicted as circles around the head, but that is a convention. It might look that way because people expect it to, or it might look that way because it is supposed to.

I was interested to learn that the image was moving. I had not ever seen someone post that before.
Click to expand...
Or it may look that way because you want it too…:rolleyes:
 
Tony9712262 said:
Ah, but I also said that a Muslim was the first to her walking on the roof. She was walking. How can “something” walk… And…indistinct? That’s a halo on Mary’s head with the Holy Spirit above her head.
Click to expand...

There is something visible, certainly - but it’s so shimmery that it reminds me of nothing so much as of a mashed potato 🙂​

  • The position of the alleged apparition is one of the reasons I don’t believe it is genuine - for why would an apparition occur on top of a roof, of all places ? It’s a bit too convenient: because it means the alleged apparition can’t be seen up close - which reminds me of the line:
"She may very well pass for forty-three, in the dusk, with a light behind her"¹ 🙂
  • Inappropiate, no doubt, but very much to the point.
  • The very idea of photographing a supposedly heavenly being does not “ring true” - how can such an entity (for lack of a better word) be photographed ? The BVM ought to be numinous, and there is something all too “this-worldly”, not numinous at all, in the prospect of treating a heavenly being like something one would snap during a holiday. The atmosphere is too like that of a seance, with its ectoplasm and all-too-earthlike descriptions of Heaven - as though Heaven were nothing better than a very high-class hotel. That degrades the BVM horribly - I can’t believe a genuine apparition is like that.
  • As for the walking - those photographs can’t show whether there is motion or not.
**¹ FROM: The Judge’s Song, “Trial By Jury”: **
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

There is something visible, certainly - but it’s so shimmery that it reminds me of nothing so much as of a mashed potato 🙂​

  • The position of the alleged apparition is one of the reasons I don’t believe it is genuine - for why would an apparition occur on top of a roof, of all places ? It’s a bit too convenient: because it means the alleged apparition can’t be seen up close - which reminds me of the line:
"She may very well pass for forty-three, in the dusk, with a light behind her"¹ 🙂
  • Inappropiate, no doubt, but very much to the point.
  • The very idea of photographing a supposedly heavenly being does not “ring true” - how can such an entity (for lack of a better word) be photographed ? The BVM ought to be numinous, and there is something all too “this-worldly”, not numinous at all, in the prospect of treating a heavenly being like something one would snap during a holiday. The atmosphere is too like that of a seance, with its ectoplasm and all-too-earthlike descriptions of Heaven - as though Heaven were nothing better than a very high-class hotel. That degrades the BVM horribly - I can’t believe a genuine apparition is like that.
  • As for the walking - those photographs can’t show whether there is motion or not.
¹ FROM: The Judge’s Song, “Trial By Jury”:
Click to expand...
These apparitions took place over a period of about 3 years, and there were over a million witnesses. A couple of the people on this site had relatives who saw her.

If she was photographed, then maybe she deliberately allowed herself to be photographed, for the record.

Secondly, what form should an apparition take? I had the experience of my father appearing in my room the night he died. He started with an apology, we argued and conversed, and at the end he gave this terrifying scream and disappeared. But had I been able to photograph him, it would have looked like him, but I could still see through him.

He also moved around a bit, but as I pointed out elsewhere in another thread, if the whole exchange took place over two minutes (it wasn’t very long), then in that time I’d moved through space to the tune of about 60,000 kms or more, probably in a series of interlocking spirals. Since his spirit was not bound by gravity, either he had to keep himself in the room somehow, or whoever was holding him there had to play some high-speed footsie.

You either believe it or you don’t. In the case of Zeitoun, I think it was real enough, even though it was not a “Catholic” apparition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top