Tears of Blood Appear on Virgin Mary Statue

  • Thread starter Thread starter CindyGia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
CindyGia:
Oh well, no new news. But I did find these amazing stories from around the world about blood weeping statues of the Virgin and Jesus:
Click to expand...
Here is a link with a huge list.

visionsofjesuschrist.com/weepingstatuesandicons.htm
 
Has any authority at least concluded that the substance was human blood? Seems easy enough to do.
 
40.png
Mijoy2:
Has any authority at least concluded that the substance was human blood? Seems easy enough to do.
Click to expand...
I was thinking that days and days ago.
 
So was I…ya know…call me jaded, but if they were tested and found NOT to be blood I can imagine the immediate headlines, e.g. “Statue Fraud! Pope Benedict A Suspect, Bush/Haliberton Implicated” or something along those lines. It takes about 2 minutes to do the test. Cops do it right at the scene of many crimes…hmm…
 
40.png
MarkR:
So was I…ya know…call me jaded, but if they were tested and found NOT to be blood I can imagine the immediate headlines, e.g. “Statue Fraud! Pope Benedict A Suspect, Bush/Haliberton Implicated” or something along those lines. It takes about 2 minutes to do the test. Cops do it right at the scene of many crimes…hmm…
Click to expand...
Actually, while the “miracle” of tears on a statue tend make headlines, the declaration of a hoax appears months later on page 8. If you do a web search, you will find many instantces of fraud, but it isn’t big news. Keep in mind that many pranksters have used human blood, so such a test would prove very little.

cathnews.com/news/408/37.html
catholic-forum.com/saints/news0067.htm
 
Depends on the hoax. I worked in the media for a while and hung out with many media types for many years (discovering the true meaning of boredom). If the hoax is damaging to religion it appears on page one before it’s discovered to be a hoax and when discovered to be a hoax it appears (if at all) months later on page 8. The fairly recent “Brother of Jesus Found” incident (implying that Mary was not a perpetual virgin) comes to mind. If the hoax is perpetrated by a priest or religious individual/community, the order is reversed.

IMHO, if the tears were found not to be blood it would have been ballyhood immediately which leads me to believe that something’s going on. The Church too is reticent about proclaiming/publicizing “miracles” with good reason.

That said, even if the tears have been found to be blood it can, as you say, still be a hoax and great caution is needed. I’ll wait for the official Church decision if any, which might take years, decades or more…but I can have my own opinion!
 
40.png
MarkR:
That said, even if the tears have been found to be blood it can, as you say, still be a hoax and great caution is needed.!
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same the thing. But the perpertrator certainly would have gone to much greater extremes. It’d be tougher and more laboreous to have pulled off.

I’d think if the substance were tested to have not been blood we’d have heard. If it is blood, it is alos likely the church would be quiet about it. I think someone else made a similiar point.
 
40.png
Mijoy2:
I was thinking the same the thing. But the perpertrator certainly would have gone to much greater extremes. It’d be tougher and more laboreous to have pulled off.

I’d think if the substance were tested to have not been blood we’d have heard. If it is blood, it is alos likely the church would be quiet about it. I think someone else made a similiar point.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind too that the Church has much bigger fish to fry than chasing down every teary statue on the planet. Silence from Rome can mean anything, including indifference.
 
40.png
CindyGia:
I spoke with a friend of mine who is a 45 year old cradle catholic who owns a Catholic bookstore. She told me that it is absolutely true that SVII de-throned Mary because the church was afraid the faithful were looking at Mary now as a Goddess - and She had to be “done away” with.

This coming from someone who has lived through it and had to deal with these drastic changes that took place in the church. She said it was awful when they started removing the statues of Mary from the parishes.
Click to expand...
I think this removing of statues had nothing to do with the actual Second Vatican Council and more to do with certain bishops, priests, and laypeople running with the myth of “the spirit of Vatican II.” The fact that some people took advantage of the new council as an excuse to do what they wanted doesn’t mean that Vatican II dethroned Mary or did anything of the kind. I echo quasimodo’s suggestion that you read the documents that actually came out of the council. You’ll find no conspiracies to “do away” with the Mother of God.
 
Kristina P.:
I think this removing of statues had nothing to do with the actual Second Vatican Council and more to do with certain bishops, priests, and laypeople running with the myth of “the spirit of Vatican II.” The fact that some people took advantage of the new council as an excuse to do what they wanted doesn’t mean that Vatican II dethroned Mary or did anything of the kind. I echo quasimodo’s suggestion that you read the documents that actually came out of the council. You’ll find no conspiracies to “do away” with the Mother of God.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is nonsense. The friend is buying the dribble broadcast by liberal “theologians”, sisters, and priests.

Virgin Mary is key to Vatican II, Pope says
 
One of the advantages of being Catholic is that you’ve got a Catechism to make statements like that look…silly. Check out 966 through 972 for example. That and considering the pope that mandated the Catechism’s writing and the former Cardinal, now pope, who was in charge of it’s writing were both driving forces within Vatican II should pretty much end to the argument.
 
visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping63.htm

Just a piece of the story here:
"We have not proclaimed that the tear-shedding of the Madonna was miraculous," Grillo told the ANSA news agency Sunday. “But the facts speak for themselves.” Corriere quoted the Rev. Stefano De Fiores, a Madonna scholar and professor at the Vatican’s Gregorian University, as concluding: “There’s the hand of God here.” At the time, investigators concluded that the red liquid on the statue was male human blood. An X-ray and CAT scan found no cavities that could house a device to squirt liquid. The statue was ordered held in a cabinet for months pending tests, and in June 1995 was put back on display.
This seems to be happening in a lot of places. I believe!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top