Garabandal and Medjugorje - What's happening?

[JFonseka]

What is the official Vatican stance regarding the incidents with Garabandal and Medjugorje?

I haven’t heard much from the vatican on the issue.

Even googling doesn’t bring much, just a few blogs.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I did a Google search of the CA Forums (click “Search” at the top of the window) of the two names and found this thread, in which (regarding Garabandal) Karl Keating says,

Proponents of Garabandal emphasize that it has not yet been condemned by the Church. But the Church, in the personage of two successive bishops of the Diocese of Santander, has said that “nothing supernatural” occurred at Garabandal.

What need is there for a formal condemnation when the Church has said “there is no there there”? If “nothing supernatural” happened at Garabandal, then there was no apparition. For there to be a real apparition, there must be some sort of supernatural intervention.

So what happened? There may have been hallucination, there may have been confusion, there may have been daydreaming, there may have been made-up stories. All such things are natural phenomena, not supernatural. But there was no authentic apparition.

In short, there is no reason to give the least credibility to Garabandal.

It is my understanding that the same is true of Medjugorje, but I could be wrong.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Shoshana]

Here is a Catholic site on the Apparitions of Jesus and Mary and whether they are approved or not from the Church:

apparitions.org/

 

[thistle]

What is the official Vatican stance regarding the incidents with Garabandal and Medjugorje?

I haven’t heard much from the vatican on the issue.

Even googling doesn’t bring much, just a few blogs.

They are NOT approved by the Church and consequently cannot be discussed here (forums rules).

 

[Good_Fella]

What is the official Vatican stance regarding the incidents with Garabandal and Medjugorje?

I haven’t heard much from the vatican on the issue.

Even googling doesn’t bring much, just a few blogs.

May I suggest you visit www.catholicplanet.com and see “True and False Claims of Private Revelations”.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Shoshana]

They are NOT approved by the Church and consequently cannot be discussed here (forums rules).

Methinks your message could have been said with a bit more charity.

 

[Corki]

Here is a Catholic site on the Apparitions of Jesus and Mary and whether they are approved or not from the Church:

apparitions.org/

Thanks Shoshana,

That is a very helpful link to have.

 

[adrift]

Methinks your message could have been said with a bit more charity.

I do not know what was uncharitable about this post. It is correct unapproved apparitions are against forum rule. I think it was a very charitable post. As for the link to apparitions, they do not state anything about these alleged apparitions and merely link to sites that support them.

Garabandal has had all the Bishops say that it is not a supernatural event. Medjugorje had a commission that said the same thing.

 

[Shoshana]

I do not know what was uncharitable about this post. It is correct unapproved apparitions are against forum rule. I think it was a very charitable post. As for the link to apparitions, they do not state anything about these alleged apparitions and merely link to sites that support them.

Garabandal has had all the Bishops say that it is not a supernatural event. Medjugorje had a commission that said the same thing.

I was not speaking to you my friend. The link I offered does say that these apparitions are approved or disapproved by the Church. They are not condemned yet.

 

[Good_Fella]

They are NOT approved by the Church and consequently cannot be discussed here (forums rules).

It would be more accurate to say that the apparitions have not yet been approved by the Church. But neither have they been disapproved yet. Regardless of all the controversy surrounding the supernatural events in Garabandal, Bishop del Val Gallo reopened the investigative commission in 1986. So a final verdict on Garabandal is currently in suspension. The apparitions in Medjugorje hold the same status. Bishop Peric’s predecessor, Bishop Zanic, apparently set up a bogus investigative commission, so it was shut down and its conclusions were dismissed by Pope John Paul ll. In fact, the CDF, under Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, took all authority to investigate and judge the apparitions away from the local ordinary bishop. This authority was transferred to the Conference of Bishops of former Yugoslavia. In 1990 the ‘Zadar’ Declaration stated that a final verdict on the apparitions in Medjugorje would be reached after they have ceased. The apparitions are continuing to this day.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[adrift]

I was not speaking to you my friend. The link I offered does say that these apparitions are approved or disapproved by the Church. They are not condemned yet.

Now that truly is uncharitable.
This is a public forum. If you want to send a private message, than do so. What ever you post here is open for comment. You do not control it. You don’t know me so don’t be arrogant and call me your friend. The link you offered says nothing about their approval

1961 Garabandal, Spain Conchita Gonzales, Mari Loli Mazon, Jacinta Gonzales, Mari Cruz Gonzales 1 2

1 and 2 are links to web sites that support Garabandal

1981 Medjugorje, Bosnia-Herzegovina Six young people 1 2 3

Note there is nothing that gives the status of Church only links to the web pages that support them.

 

[adrift]

It would be more accurate to say that the apparitions have not yet been approved by the Church. But neither have they been disapproved yet. Regardless of all the controversy surrounding the supernatural events in Garabandal, Bishop del Val Gallo reopened the investigative commission in 1986. So a final verdict on Garabandal is currently in suspension. The apparitions in Medjugorje hold the same status. Bishop Peric’s predecessor, Bishop Zanic, apparently set up a bogus investigative commission, so it was shut down and its conclusions were dismissed by Pope John Paul ll. In fact, the CDF, under Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, took all authority to investigate and judge the apparitions away from the local ordinary bishop. This authority was transferred to the Conference of Bishops of former Yugoslavia. In 1990 the ‘Zadar’ Declaration stated that a final verdict on the apparitions in Medjugorje would be reached after they have ceased. The apparitions are continuing to this day.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

would you care to document this.
This letter written in 1996 from the Bishop would contradict what you have written

1. ll the bishops of the diocese since 1961 through 1970 agreed that there was no supernatural validity for the apparitions.
2. In the month of December of 1977 Bishop Dal Val of Santander, in union with his predecessors, stated that in the six years of being bishop of Santander there were no new phenomena.
3. The same bishop, Dal Val, let a few years go by to allow the confusion or fanaticism to settle down, and then he initiated a commission to examine the apparitions in more depth. The conclusion of the commission agreed with the findings of the previous bishops. That there was no supernatural validity to such apparitions.
4. At the time of the conclusions of the study, in 1991, I was installed bishop in the diocese. So during my visit to Rome, as limina visit which happened in the same year, I presented to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the study and I asked for pastoral direction concerning this case.
5. On Nov. 28, 1992, the Congregation sent me an answer saying that after examining the documentation, there was no need for direct intervention (by the Vatican) to take away the jurisdiction of the ordinary bishop of Santander in this case. Such a right belongs to the ordinary. Previous declarations of the Holy See agree in this finding. In the same letter they suggested that if I find it necessary to publish a declaration, that I reconfirm that there was no supernatural validity in the alleged apparitions, and this will make a unanimous position with my predecessors.
6. Given that the declarations of my predecessors who studied the case have been clear and unanimous, I don’t find it necessary to have a new public declaration that would raise notoriety about something which happened so long ago. However, I find it necessary to rewrite this report as a direct answer to the people who ask for direction concerning this question, which is now final: I agree with [and] I accept the decision of my predecessors and the direction of the Holy See.
7. In reference to the Eucharistic celebration in Garabandal, following the decision of my predecessors, I ruled that Masses can be celebrated only in the parish church and there will be no references to the alleged apparitions and visiting priests who want to say Mass must have approval from the pastor, who has my authorization. It’s my wish that this information is helpful to you.

My regards in Christ,

Jose Vilaplana

Bishop of Santander

Oct. 11, 1996

Bogus? can you document that?

 

[Catherine_Grant]

**As has been noted and discussed, unapproved private revelations are a banned topic for discussion at CAF. **

Out of respect for the Bishop of Mostar and his request to not further discuss or promote the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje, this board has included it in the Banned Topics list since June, 2006. Before that time, it was included on the list because of its status as a private revelation without approval from the church, so discussion was limited to the church’s stance on the alleged apparitions. Bishop Ratko Perić has since clarified the church’s stance, which the Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls supported and defended. Therefore, there is nothing further to discuss specific to Medjugorje that cannot already by located through a search of the boards.

This thread is now closed.