Photographs of Blessed Mother?


#1

Out of curiosity, is anything on the page below approved by the Church as far as apparitions go? They are some lovely photographs of someone who certainly LOOKS like the Blessed Mother might have looked:

jesusphotos.altervista.org/


#2

[quote=Mike O]Out of curiosity, is anything on the page below approved by the Church as far as apparitions go? They are some lovely photographs of someone who certainly LOOKS like the Blessed Mother might have looked:

jesusphotos.altervista.org/
[/quote]

ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/northamerica/Photo401.htm


#3

[quote=Mike O]Out of curiosity, is anything on the page below approved by the Church as far as apparitions go? They are some lovely photographs of someone who certainly LOOKS like the Blessed Mother might have looked:

jesusphotos.altervista.org/
[/quote]

Certainly NOT the ones in Mejugorie because three bishops commissions have declared nothing supernatural has taken place in Medjugorie. The visionaries, apparitions, messages are false.
Even Pope Benedict while he was still a Cardinal talked about Medjugorie being a hoax.


#4

Just noticed, too, on that page with the pictures how the cloud formations are almost identical in each and every picture.

Surely a case for those taking a picture and running with it!


#5

Yes, it is especially noticible with the apparitions of Mary pictures, the ones labled to be from medujorge (sp?) are using the same bush in the background as the ones supposedly taken in Arizona and elsewhere, though certain ones are certainly reversed.

Also, many other ones, that show far more detail of the apparition, the apparitions themselves seem to be statues of mary or Jesus, not “real” people.

Oh well, it is truly a shame that real apparitions are hidden amongst an overabundance of well-meaning, if misguided, constructed apparitions.


#6

[quote=thistle]Certainly NOT the ones in Mejugorie because three bishops commissions have declared nothing supernatural has taken place in Medjugorie. The visionaries, apparitions, messages are false.
Even Pope Benedict while he was still a Cardinal talked about Medjugorie being a hoax.
[/quote]

I think you are wrong.

In addition to seeing a number of positive comments by Pope John Paul II related to the conversions Medjugorje was inspiring, I found this:

Let me first say that the Holy See and Pope John Paul II have kept a close watch on the messages of Medjugorje over the last 23+ years. They have never found anything that contradicts scripture or the Church. If they had, Medjugorje would have been condemned years ago. Our Lady’s message in Medjugorje calls us to: Daily prayer of the rosary, monthly Confession, daily reading of Scripture, fasting on Wednedays and Fridays on bread and water, and attending Holy Mass as often as possible. This is a simple message meant to help us in the lifelong process of conversion.

Bishop Pavao Žanic originally visited Medjugorje five times in the first two months of the apparitions in 1981 and performed a thorough investigation. Afterwards he came only to confer the sacrament of Confirmations to the faithful. In front of over 3000 people at Holy Mass, he declared:

"I am deeply convinced that no child who says that they have seen Our Lady, has been talked into doing so. If we were speaking about one child only, one might say he could be stubborn and that not even the police could make the child renounce what he said. But six innocent, simple children in the space of half an hour, would, if they were pushed, admit all. None of the priests, I guarantee, had any idea of putting the children up to something.... I am also convinced that the children are not lying. The children are only speaking out what's in their hearts... It is certain: the children are not lying". (From a sermon given on the feast of St. James, the patron saint of Medjugorje, on the 25th of July 1981)
In "Glas Koncila", the Croatian national catholic newspaper, 16th of August 1981, he stated; "It is definite that the children were not incited by anyone, and especially not by the church, to lie."

It is unclear why in the months to follow that Bishop Zanic changed his mind. Some say it was due to threats and pressure by the Communist government of imprisonment of both Fr. Jozo and the Bishop if the apparitions did not cease. We all know that Fr. Jozo served 18 months of harsh inprisonment for refusing to denounce Medjugorje. Others say that a reported comment from Our Lady regarding a wrong judgement the Bishop had made with a Franciscan priest infuriated the Bishop. But regardless the ultimate outcome was that the Bishop turned against Medjugorje.

Then in 1984, a commission of 14 people was formed by Bishop Zanic that consisted mainly of members that had already declared themselves to be against the alleged events. They made two statements which basicly said that they agreed with the Holy See that a decision should not be rushed. Then in 1987 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger entrusted the investigation into the hands of the Yugoslavian bishops’ conference. After three years of study the former Bishops’ Conference of Yugoslavia on April 10, 1991 published their declaration in which among other things it states:

"On the basis of investigations up till now it cannot be established that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations."

#7

Continued…

This statement does not mean that there is no apparition, but only that it is not yet established or proven. Words like these were really a compromise between the position of Bishop Zanic and the good fruits, which the events of Medjugorje were producing. The commission for pastoral life in the parish of Medjugorje decided to meet again on June 27, 1991. However, one day before, Serbia attacked Slovenia and the war broke out that put the last nails in the corpse that was called Yugoslavia. With the dissolution of the state of Yugoslavia, the Bishops Conference of Yugoslavia was also dissolved.

After the commission findings were made public in 1991, Pope John Paul II retired Bishop Zanic of his duties and handed over the responsibility to investigate and render a final decision on Medjugorje to a hand picked commission of Bishops. It is the current belief that this commission will not issue a final decision or continue its investigation until the apparitions have ceased. But of great importance is the last statement that they rendered in 1993 which states:

"We bishops, after a three-year-long commission study accept Medjugorje as a holy place, as a shrine. This means that we have nothing against it if someone venerates the Mother of God in a manner also in agreement with the teaching and belief of the Church. . . Therefore, we are leaving that to further study. The Church does not hurry." (Glas Koncila, August 15, 1993).

The replacement for Bishop Zanic was Bishop Ratko Peric. Bishop Ratko worked closely with Bishop Zanic for years, and it was no surprise that he held, and still holds the same negative opinion of Medjugorje. Bishop Ratko is reported to have never investigated Medjugorje, never spoken with or interviewed the visionaries, and visits Medjugorje only rarely for Confirmations and official functions. The important issue here is that Bishop Ratko Peric does not have authority over the final decision on Medjugorje. This responsibility still rests with the commission of Bishops. The local Bishop’s negative comments about Medjugorje were addressed directly in 1998 by the Holy See in a letter to his Excellency Mons. Gilbert Aubry, Bishop of Saint-Denis de la Reunion. The letter states that Bishop Peric’s position on Medjugorje is his personal opinion, which he is entitled to as local Bishop, but his opinion does not reflect the official position of the Church. The URL for this letter is Newletter.htm

Lastly is Pope John Paul II himself. Our beloved Pope is also very much a supporter of Medjugorje (although unofficially, which he must be until Medjugorje is finally approved). Please take a look at our document Pope John Paul II’s Comments, which list numerous quotes as reported by priests, bishops and cardinals over the years. Most recently, in August 2002, Pope John Paul II wrote a personal note to Fr. Jozo Zovko thanking him for his ministry, and giving him his blessing. Fr. Jozo Letter.

The Holy See has also stated and confirmed on numerous occasions over the years that traveling to Medjugorje is permitted. The only restriction is a pilgrimage can not be organized by the Church (because Medjugorje is not fully approved). It is perfectly ok for priests, bishops, and cardinals to travel to Medjugorje alone or with groups.

Please also refer to our page “All About Medjugorje” for a tremendous amount of information and documents specifically about “Medjugorje and the Church”.

medjugorje.org/faq.htm#no11


#8

[quote=askeptic]ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/northamerica/Photo401.htm
[/quote]

Check out information about Lourdes or Fatima, sir. Your inclusion of photographs of a supposed UFO is asinine and unrelated to the topic.

It seems you revel in beginning a number of threads attacking the Church–unsurprising given your moniker–and then scurrying away when intelligent responders dismiss your claims. Consider finding a location where this nonsense is welcome; demeaning the Catholic faith on a Catholic message board is a very poor choice indeed.


#9

[quote=Mike O]Check out information about Lourdes or Fatima, sir. Your inclusion of photographs of a supposed UFO is asinine and unrelated to the topic.

It seems you revel in beginning a number of threads attacking the Church–unsurprising given your moniker–and then scurrying away when intelligent responders dismiss your claims. Consider finding a location where this nonsense is welcome; demeaning the Catholic faith on a Catholic message board is a very poor choice indeed.
[/quote]

I understand askeptic’s post may have seemed immature and somewhat offensive, however I did appreciate the sentiment. Why is it that every time there is an apparition of a lady in a robe it’s automatically assumed by Catholics to be Our Lady? There was at one point an “apparition” of Mary in Sydney, it was in fact two fence posts that when looked at from a certain angle did look remarkably like Mary. It is possible for us to take all of this too seriously.

God bless
Levi


#10

Hopefully we will all have the opportunity to meet Jesus and Mary face-to-face soon enough. That hope should be enough for any Catholic.


#11

Please tell me where I ran away when “intelligent responders dismissed my claims.” I would like to respond to all such people, at the same time I simply don’t have the resources to read and respond to every single post.

I have read a great deal about Fatima, believe it or not, and came to the conclustion that it was not a miracle. Here is why:

lysator.liu.se/skeptical/newsletters/Georgia_Skeptic/GS05-02.TXT

Elsewhere in the United States, thousands of devotees flock to the Mother Cabrini shrine near Denver, where the Virgin Mary appears to a charimastic blonde named Theresa Lopez.

The Conyers messages, says Ms. Fowler, are similar to those from Medjugorje, as they emphasize prayer, conversion, and sacrifice. Ms.Fowler has also pointed out similarities between her apparitions and thoseat Fatima.

On October 13, 1991, fellow Georgia Skeptic Larry Johnson and I went to Conyers to see the event for ourselves. Larry phoned ahead to assure that we would not disrupt the worship services by doing this, and we were heartily welcomed. We took along my 13" Dobsonian telescope (stopped down to a 2" aperture and equipped with a solar filter), and about 50 small solar viewers assembled from aluminized mylar chips and index cards. We
also had homemade mylar filters on two pairs of binoculars.


Experienced pilgrims described to us what to expect, explaining that the miracles vary with the individual and each person sees something different. Some people see nothing. Similarly, they said that photographs and video-recordings of the miracle show many different phenomena, depending on what the Virgin Mary allows. Although everyone sees a different miracle,
the consensus among those queried was that the camera would record what the person holding it was seeing. However, we were told that cameras pointed at the sky frequently revealed previously unseen apparitions when the film was later developed.

Part of the miracle, we were told, is that the Virgin Mary protects the people’s eyesight as they stare at the sun. Nonetheless, the 50 solar viewers disappeared within a matter of minutes and I regretted that I had not made more of them.

After the message from Mary concluded, people began looking skyward. Before long, a man’s voice on the PA system announced that the sun would provide a sign. He briefly advised the crowd to be careful of their eyes when looking directly at the sun, but was not specific as to how to accomplish this.

Excitement mounted and people began pointing to the sky and gesturing. Soon the voice on the PA was shouting that the miracle of the sun was occurring at that very moment. I had kept the telescope trained on the sun and could see several sunspots, but nothing moved. Everyone else seemed to be seeing things.

A localized mild hysteria broke out in one section of the crowd when someone shrieked that a host of angels could be seen above the trees. A great many people were pointing in that direction and yelling, and several fell to their knees. Another group saw Mary above the house.

As the miracle continued, people began swarming around my telescope. Everyone wanted to know what I had seen. They all said they had just seen the sun do miraculous things, and wanted a closeup look through the scope. I estimate that well over two hundred people viewed the sun through one of
our solar filters, and without exception they saw nothing unusual when looking through the mylar.
Many became quite curious about the sunspots, and asked very intelligent questions about solar astronomy. I was fascinated by the sudden switch to a mode of scientific inquiry. However, some did go back to the field to continue staring into the sun.

A number of people were walking around with one eye closed and watering. I asked them to describe how the miracle had appeared to them. ** Some people said that they had seen the sun spinning. I asked several of them to explain just how one could tell that a featureless ball was spinning, and the usual answer was “You can just tell.” One man did elaborate, though,
and said that the spinning was apparent because flames were shooting from the sun and balls of light were chasing around the edge.**
**Most people said that the sun was either pulsating or dividing into
multiple lights. The apparent pulsation did not surprise me, since the eye would certainly rebel at focusing on the sun. From the descriptions of the multiple lights, I concluded that these were afterimages caused by looking toward the sun several times. ** lysator.liu.se/skeptical/newsletters/Georgia_Skeptic/GS05-02.TXT


#12

[quote=Mike O]Check out information about Lourdes or Fatima, sir. Your inclusion of photographs of a supposed UFO is asinine and unrelated to the topic.

[/quote]

Furthermore, the supposed prophecies were “revealed” after the events had already taken place:

Did this prophecy come true? World War I did indeed end and was followed by a worse war, World War II. But remember that Lucia revealed this prophecy in writing during 1940 - after the Second World War had already begun. Also, it’s interesting that Pius XI is actually named in the prophecy. When the apparition of Our Lady allegedly made the prophecy in 1917, Benedict XV was Pope. Pius XI became Pope in 1922. So either Our Lady also predicted the name of the future Pope, who reigned until 1939, or Lucia did some prophecy fulfilling of her own.

What about the sign of “a night illuminated by an unknown light” before the outbreak of war? According to Fatima Prophecies, “on January 25, 1938, a remarkable display of aurora borealis was visible across Europe, the year before World War II began.” The Secrets of Fatima elaborates: “This aurora appeared as far south as Galicia, Spain, where Sister Lucy was then cloistered, and she, the only survivor of the three Fatima shepherds, recognized it immediately as the sign. Visible even to Pius XI in Rome, the unprecedented aurora was accompanied by a ‘crackling’ sound, possibly attributable to discharges of atmospheric energy. Indeed, in many areas of Europe, panic broke out, as the populace concluded that the world was on fire and that the End had come.” This display of northern lights might have illuminated the night in some spectacular fashion, but even in 1917 the aurora borealis was hardly an “unknown light.” Also, again, Lucia revealed this prophecy after the fact.

etc. paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa070300a.htm

But what is really puzzling to me is why Mary would bother appearing to peasant children. If she really wanted to make a difference politically, why not appear to a political leader? Why not appear to everyone and allow many to film the miracle?

Another thing that puzzles me is that if 70,000 people witnessed an act of God, where are the 70,000 identical accounts of the event?


#13

[quote=askeptic]Furthermore, the supposed prophecies were “revealed” after the events had already taken place:
[/quote]

Pope John Paul II gave the last secret after he was shot. Do you propose that the Holy Father was “lying” to trick people up?

The website you provided is ridiculous; the “skeptics” visited sites which have not earned any sort of approval and have nothing to do with Fatima.

catholic-forum.com/catholicteacher/lourdescontents.html

fatima.org/miracle1.html

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

sancta.org/eyes.html

Faith should not be based in miracles, and that is not what my question was getting at whatsoever.

But what is really puzzling to me is why Mary would bother appearing to peasant children. If she really wanted to make a difference politically, why not appear to a political leader? Why not appear to everyone and allow many to film the miracle?

Christ and His Mother have special love for the poor.

Consider Mary’s Magnificat in Luke 1.

Christ was impoverished, not a political leader, and He was the one who spawned the world’s greatest change.

Another thing that puzzles me is that if 70,000 people witnessed an act of God, where are the 70,000 identical accounts of the event?

I can only consider this last question a joke.

If you put 10 different people in the middle of the street and had another person walk across the street, then questioned the 10 about what had happened, even for this simple action, you would have 10 different accounts. Now imagine the consequences for a supernatural event, where there is no compendium of known and customary reply.


#14

[quote=Mike O]I think you are wrong.

QUOTE]

Search the threads on Medjugorie and you will see the links to the official statements by the bishops commissions. Medjugorie is not a case which has not yet been approved as a supernatural event but it has been declared that nothing supernatural has taken place there. The local franciscans who are trying to perpetuate this hoax have been instructed that they can no longer say mass or hear confession.
[/quote]


#15

[quote=askeptic]Please tell me where I ran away when “intelligent responders dismissed my claims.” I would like to respond to all such people, at the same time I simply don’t have the resources to read and respond to every single post.

I have read a great deal about Fatima, believe it or not, and came to the conclustion that it was not a miracle. Here is why:

lysator.liu.se/skeptical/newsletters/Georgia_Skeptic/GS05-02.TXT


[/quote]

Thanks for posting that :slight_smile:

There is also good reason to wonder about the alleged apparitions at Knock in 1879, the alleged messages at La Salette in 1846, and others. The sheer number of so-called Marian apparitions inspires doubt of their authenticity - someone should see whether there is any correlation between advances in technology, and reports of mystical phenomena (such as apparitions): the results might be interesting.

Teddy in the Sky… with the explanation.

How many religious apparitions are “teddies in the sky” (or window, or fencepost) ?

And how does one explain the milk-drinking elephant god ? ##


#16

[quote=Gottle of Geer]## Thanks for posting that :slight_smile:

There is also good reason to wonder about the alleged apparitions at Knock in 1879, the alleged messages at La Salette in 1846, and others. The sheer number of so-called Marian apparitions inspires doubt of their authenticity - someone should see whether there is any correlation between advances in technology, and reports of mystical phenomena (such as apparitions): the results might be interesting.

What a pity James Randi can’t give these accounts of apparitions a good seeing-to. ##
[/quote]

There definitely seems to be a negative correlation between scientific literacy and belief in various supernatural phenomena. Have you ever watched televangelist healing shows? Presumably those people believe they are being healed. People have also been fooled by psychics and the likes of the spoon-bending Uri Geller.

If Mary really is appearing, she is not doing a very good job of distinguishing her genuine apparations from the fake ones.

I never understood why Mary would waste her time appearing in some backward part of the world to tell people to pray lest they go to hell.

Why not come and tell people how to cure cancer or to preserve the environment? And if she is going to show people hell, why not appear to North Korean leaders and threaten them with hell unless they stop murdering and torturing civilians?

There are people who claim to have been abudcted by aliens, people who claim to have seen ghosts etc. I don’t believe any of them, and I see no reason to believe those who claim to have seen Mary.

To debunk another “miracle” consider bleeding/crying statues:

I have read that these statues are made of somewhat porous material, but are painted with waterproof paint. Filling the statue with liquid and scratching the paint in certain areas will let the liquid drip from it and create the illusion of bleeding/crying statues.


#17

[quote=askeptic]I never understood why Mary would waste her time appearing in some backward part of the world to tell people to pray lest they go to hell.

Why not come and tell people how to cure cancer or to preserve the environment? And if she is going to show people hell, why not appear to North Korean leaders and threaten them with hell unless they stop murdering and torturing civilians?
[/quote]

Why not, indeed ?

There are people who claim to have been abudcted by aliens, people who claim to have seen ghosts etc. I don’t believe any of them, and I see no reason to believe those who claim to have seen Mary.

I’ve edited my post a bit, but I stand by my first version too :slight_smile:

I find the apparitions dubious because she never appears to anyone with well-developed critical skills. Only to people who - presumably - do not. According to the Gospels, Jesus mixed with all sorts: quite a contrast.

In addition, she seems to have developed a taste for autobiography - and she never never stops talking at Medjugorje. She could almost be a blogger :slight_smile: - there she goes, regular as clockwork. And if all those secrets for the Popes are genuine - why choose children to give them to him ? Why not appear to him ? Why bother with secrets at all ?

The whole gallimaufry is completely lacking in credibility. I think most if not all of these are seen because it is the current fad to do so. Levitating nuns used to be ten a penny - you hardly hear of that sort of stuff these days. These things go in fashions, just like so much else ##


#18

Here’s a picture of the Virgin at Zeitun, Egypt. The apparitions were verified by both the Orthodox and Catholic churches.

zeitun-eg.org/zeitoun1.htm

Subrosa


#19

[quote=Subrosa]Here’s a picture of the Virgin at Zeitun, Egypt. The apparitions were verified by both the Orthodox and Catholic churches.

zeitun-eg.org/zeitoun1.htm

Subrosa
[/quote]

I have a booklet on it somewhere- photos included.

They are terribly fuzzy - that white blur could be anything

And, there is nothing numinous about them - that is the real problem. ##


#20

Hi Mike O, none of those pictures look Jewish to me.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.