Our Lady of Zeitoun info

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fatima-Crusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fatima-Crusader

Guest
Does anybody have info on Ibrahim Khalil Pasha?it was claimed that he recived a vision of Mary to build a church instead of hotel in egypt, but I cannot find any sources on this
 
Last edited:
Can a Catholic accept the miracle? I mean Mary told him to build an coptic orthodox church which would be wrong
 
The Catholics did their own investigation (as shown by the Miracle Hunter page) so it’s considered “local bishop approved” and we can accept it.

Mary is everybody’s mother, not just Catholics. She wants to make peace and have us all be one. And the Orthodox love and venerate her just as Catholics do.

Edited to remove link to Papal Residence statement. That was my error, it’s referring to the Orthodox Pope. The “local bishop” who approved was Cardinal Stephanos I, the local Patriarch of the Coptic Catholic Church, who was put in that position by Pope Paul VI and provided his findings to the Vatican. I cannot find his official statement online but there are multiple sources saying he approved it.
 
Last edited:
But wouldnt her calling for the creation of a coptic church cause desacration towards the Body of Christ since they have valid sacraments and coptics are under the mortal sin of schism?
 
The purported private revelation of her allegedly calling for the church to be built and saying she’d return after 40 or 50 years has not been investigated or approved by the church. It’s just mentioned in some sources. To be honest we are relying on oral tradition that it ever even happened.

The Church investigated and approved the private revelation of her appearing to a mixed group of people of varying religions in 1968-1969. That’s all they approved. Surely Mary can appear on any church or any place she wishes.
 
Modern Copts are not guilty of schism. The Copts who initiated the schism after Chalcedon are. The burden of schism decreases with each generation.
 
Regardless of the decreasing of the burden of schism, the Orthodox churches are still in schism.
The Roman Catholic Church would not be able to endorse in any way the building of a schismatic church, and would not be able to approve any purported private revelation of Mary telling somebody to build one.

Doesn’t matter if it’s Coptic Orthodox or Church of England - schismatic church is wrong and against Church teaching, although the people who attend it may mean well and try to lead holy lives. And yes, those people are still guilty of schism, perhaps to just a small amount but still guilty, because they are not members of the one true Church, which is Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
To be in “schism” one has to have been a Catholic who left Catholicism for another faith. Assuming the Coptic Orthodox or the Anglican in question has never converted to Catholicism then back, then no, they are not guilty of schism.
 
They are supporting a schismatic church. Like I said, if they were taught through generations that their church is the correct one and is the one doing what Christ wants us to do, etc. then it’s a different situation from someone who is a Catholic and walks away. The person who is taught for generations that their non-Catholic way is the correct way may be less culpable.

However, the Catechism is very clear that “Outside the Church there is no salvation”, which means that these people are not achieving salvation directly through their schismatic churches, but only through the fact that their schismatic church may be in communion with the Church in some important respects (for example, Trinitarian baptism, and in the case of Orthodox, valid sacraments (though they are illicit in the eyes of the Catholic Church)).

Additionally, if the person has reasonable access to a Catholic church and rejects it in favor of continuing to attend the non-Catholic church, then to some degree he is culpable for that in God’s eyes. Maybe “in schism” is the wrong word to use for the individual, but they are definitely like I said attending and supporting a schismatic church. This is not okay. Even if you make some argument that it’s 90 percent okay or whatever, it’s still 10 percent not okay.

By continuing to attend and support a schismatic church, the attendees propagate the original schism and its errors. If they all converted to Catholicism, the schismatic church would cease to exist, which would be a desirable outcome.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn’t want to derail the OP’s thread by reopening the tired old question of whether the Orthodox are outside the Church. Nor do I have the energy for it. But I still see your point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top