Garabandal Status?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dean24us
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dean24us

Guest
Hello! This is a follow-up to another thread that brought up the subject of Garabandal. I didn’t previously know much about the subject, so the previous thread prompted me to read more on the subject. I must admit that the “message” is interesting, but I’m having trouble determining the Church’s position on Garabandal.

In the aforementioned thread, some people seem to indicate Garabandal is “condemned” and should be considered false, while others claim it is worthy of belief but “unconfirmed” due to the fact that the predictions have not yet come to pass. Indeed, I have seen many respectable organizations on both sides of the issue. Here is a quote from an EWTN article on the subject:
While two commissions convened by bishops of Santander, Spain, have stated that there were no phenomena which would authentic the events as certainly supernatural they did not condemn the message. In this regard, the first commission stated, “we have not found anything deserving of ecclesiastical censure or condemnation either in the doctrine or in the spiritual recommendations that have been published as having been addressed to the faithful.” The bishop who called the second commission, Bishop del Val, upon retiring from office stated in an interview that the message of Garabandal was “important” and “theologically correct.” Indeed, some of the prophetic elements of the message can be found in private revelations which have been approved since the initial decision on Garabandal in the 1960s. For example, the concept of a worldwide warning can be found in the Diary of Saint Faustina (Diary n.83), and both the message of Divine Mercy given to her (Diary n.1588), and that of Akita (approved by the local bishop), speak of chastisement if mankind does not ultimately repent. Similar prophetic content can be found in the writings of Elizabeth Canori-Mora and Mary of Jesus Crucified, both of whom were beatified by Pope John Paul II, as well as in prophecies given by God to Blessed Anna Maria Taigi and St. Caspar del Bufalo. Finally, the principal promoter of Garabandal, Joey Lomangino, testifies that it was Saint Padre Pio who told him the Blessed Virgin was appearing at Garabandal and he should go.
It seems, therefore, that notwithstanding the decisions of two commissions accepted by the bishops of Santander, that there are reasonable grounds for individual Catholics to find Garabandal credible. The children themselves predicted that the message of Garabandal would be approved with difficulty, but in sufficient time to spread it. Perhaps this means that the “warning” (a clearly supernatural event) must occur first for approval to be given. Given the seriousness of the times we do well to heed the message of conversion, whether proposed by Fátima or some other source such as Garabandal, Medjugorje or another, without fear, that is, with complete confidence in God’s providence for us and the world. The future will take care of itself if we remain spiritually prepared for anything. This has always been the advice of the saints, anyway.
On the other side of the coin, there are no shortage of web sites stating the Garabandal is false and (at worst) evil. One such site is unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/Garabandal2.html. Also, I have seen other CAF members vehemently refute Garabandal.

At this point, I’m not sure what to think. Can anybody shed any light on the Church’s position on Garabandal?

On a side note, the purpose of my post isn’t to promote or refute Garabandal. Nor am I asking “do you believe or not believe in Garabandal”. Rather, I’m trying to understand the Church’s position on the issue and (hopefully) get some more authoritative references that can give me better insight.

God bless,
Dean
 
It’s up to the local Bishop. If he says it’s unapproved, it’s unapproved. For us “regular” Catholics, there isn’t really a difference between unapproved and condemned. Either way, we aren’t supposed to participate and we aren’t supposed to discuss it on CAF. 😉
 
Have a devotion to Lourdes (or Fatima) instead. Problem solved.😃
 
It’s up to the local Bishop. If he says it’s unapproved, it’s unapproved. For us “regular” Catholics, there isn’t really a difference between unapproved and condemned. Either way, we aren’t supposed to participate and we aren’t supposed to discuss it on CAF. 😉
Corki is right forum rules say we cannot discuss unapproved apparitions. Three Bishops have ruled that there was nothing super natural.
Have a devotion to Lourdes (or Fatima) instead. Problem solved.😃
👍
 
Have a devotion to Lourdes (or Fatima) instead. Problem solved.😃
I agree. But, I believe anything outside the realm of approved apparitions should be left to the Church. I’m not saying the Vatican’s God or anything like that. But when it comes to Roman Catholicism, I’d say they’re the experts.
 
There are a number of profound approved apparitions that are credible. Like Our Lady of Good Help in Wisconsin approved in December of 2012 right here in the USA. It is worthy of devotion. Check it out.
 
Wait,

Don’t jump on the first boat. The Warning, the Miracle and the Chastisement are not exclusive to Garabandal and Medjugorje.

-La Salette
-Fatima
-Akita
-Betania
and others echo the same.

Don’t be quick to discard. Wait and pray the Rosary.
 
Thanks to everyone for the replies! While informative, I was hoping for more insight in to the Church’s position on the matter. I’ve read several sources on the Internet, all of which cite apparently authoritative sources in the Church, but claim different statuses of Garabandal. Generally speaking, they fall in to one of the following:
  • Some sources that say Garabandal is condemned and is to be suppressed
  • Some say it is not condemned and might be credible, but the Church is awaiting some
    future event to come to pass to “test” the predictions.
  • Others say it has been approved by the local bishop and is simply awaiting approval by the Church’s hierarchy.
So, which of the above is the correct? Is there any authoritative documents to support one position over the other?

Again, I want to reiterate that I am asking for information on the Church’s stance, not individual beliefs on Garabandal. In other words, I’m not asking for debate on the merits for/against Garamandal, but rather the Church’s “official position”.

P.S. (for the moderators): I don’t believe that asking for information regarding the Church’s position is against CAF rules. However, if I’m wrong, please delete this thread and accept my apologies. 🙂

God bless,
Dean
 
There are a number of profound approved apparitions that are credible. Like Our Lady of Good Help in Wisconsin approved in December of 2012 right here in the USA. It is worthy of devotion. Check it out.
Thanks for sharing this – I’ve never heard of it before. 👍

God bless,
Dean
 
Bishop Eugenio Beitia Aldazabal stated in 1965 that “we have found no grounds for an ecclesiastical condemnation.”

According to Bishop Jose Cirada Lachiondo, the messages of Garabandal “do not contain anything contrary to traditional Church teaching on Faith and Morals.”

Bishop Beitia stated that the spiritual recommendations made at Garabandal were under “traditional praiseworthy forms.”

However, the *supernatural nature *of Garabandal has not been established (non constat de supernaturalitate). This is quite different than a ruling that states that an alleged apparition is not supernatural (constat de non supernaturalitate). This means that the door remains open for future confirmation of the supernatural veracity of the alleged events so long as the date of the predicted miracle is still pending.

In the meantime, it is better to focus on approved apparitions like Fatima and Lourdes.

My personal opinion is that Garabandal is authentic and that Medjugorje is a Satanic hoax, but I could be wrong. We should be getting a final, definitive ruling on Medjugorje from the Vatican anytime now.
 
Here I am, I only followed what every local Bishop said about Garabanal. I don’t believe I protested louder than their clear prohibitions.

On the Medjugore website over and over they say: “Local Bishop softens up on Medjugorje.” Then I found a complete translation of his sermon given at a Confirmation service.
Code:
 I don't see where he "softens up."
IUM, 2012-05-19

The Bishop’s sermon

Brothers and sisters, dear confirmandi!

Babylon. The Bible in the first chapters describes for us a strange undertaking of the citizens: "Let us go build ourselves a city and a tower that reaches to heaven! Let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered over the earth "(Genesis 11:4). The people, far away from God through original sin, intended to build a city with a tower reaching to heaven. In proud independence from God they were not able to make a rational decision. They began to build: the foundation, bricks, walls, enviable progress. But at a certain time the masons are not understood. They look for bread, and they get a stone instead, a hammer instead of a trowel. Babel or Babylon means confusion, chaos. God was not able to tolerate human conceit and “goes down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men built” and he jumbled their words “so they could not understand each other’s speech”. (Gen 11,5.7).

Sons of the same nation and language, of the same intention and crafts, as one till yesterday, now can not understand each other’s words or signs. Someone might say that this is not a historical fact: how can you build a tower up to heaven? The Bible gives far more instruction on salvation than on historical data. But we do know that a tower of sin in human hearts can be built to the pit of hell. And the more that people think of living without God, of throwing his name out of their system and society, of bypassing God, wanting to create a common union or region, of making a name for themselves in this world, all the more do economic and political accounts embroil them.
  • The heaviest blow that strikes the Church is disunity of the faithful, especially fragmenting of its servants. God expects us to everyone dutifully performing his task, and be their responsibility. Who is this elusive and works on his own, by the Church against the Church, this city of Babylon tower. God expects each of us obediently to perform his duty and bear his own responsibility. Anyone who dodges that and works on his own, bypassing the Church, against the Church, is building a Tower of Babel. He can even speak in various languages, but he is not uniting, he is rather tearing down and scattering.
JERUSALEM. In the early days of Christianity the Holy Spirit is revealed not as an invisible power, power from on high, but as a person. Like us, the Holy Spirit through Mary gave Christ, the incarnate Son of God, so we are risen and glorified Christ, together with the Father gave the Holy Spirit through the prayers of Mary, the same apostolic community in Jerusalem.The Spirit: Comforter, Paraclete, advocate, introducer into all truth. At the beginning of Christianity the Holy Spirit is no longer revealed as some unseen power, as strength from above, but as a Person. He is the Father’s and Son’s Gift to the believing world. Just as the Holy Spirit through Mary gave us Christ, the incarnate Son of God, so the risen and glorified Christ, together with the Father, gave us the Holy Spirit through the prayers of the same Mary, in the Jerusalem community of Apostles. He is the Spirit: the Advocate, the Comforter, the Intercessor, the Leader into all truth.

The historical “Apparition” of the Spirit was with an audible “roaring sound” and visible “tongues of fire.” And the consequence of that Apparition was perfect understanding of each other, despite the diversity of nations and languages (Acts 2:2-6). That’s the result of the wisdom of Pentecost. A consequence of this phenomenon was perfectly understand each other, despite the diversity of peoples and languages (Acts 2.2 to 6). That results Pentecost wisdom.

In Babylon the fruit is from the human spirit: incomprehension of speech, breaking down of unity, loss of name, ruin of the city, destruction of the tower. Misunderstanding and chaos! Misunderstanding and fuss!

In Jerusalem the fruit is from God’s Spirit: unification, diversity of human gifts, respect of every language, nation and gift. Understanding and harmony.

All the efforts and services flow into one organism. The Church is put in order like the visible Mystical Body of Christ. Three thousand people were baptized that day. So that day of the Holy Spirit is the supreme sensation of God on earth, the manifestation of God’s power among us humans beings. Only by the power of that Spirit are people able to build “a tower whose top reaches heaven,” that will not be destroyed, and will “get a name for itself,” that will last forever.
  • Are we as Christians building a city of unity according to the plan of Christ at the Last Supper when he admonished his apostles: “Till now you have not asked anything in my name”? (Jn 16:24). Are we praying in His name for the gifts of the Third Divine Person, whose primordial attribute is unification and mutual understanding? The Second Vatican Council emphasizes the power of the Holy Spirit, the one who enlightens, sanctifies, vivifies, unites, rejuvenates, teaches and purifies us. The Holy Spirit gives us his seven-fold gifts, the seven basic qualities of his Kingdom.
Whoever says that they renounce the devil, as you, confirmandi, will now say, let them no longer even mention him, either by way of swearing or of cursing. Whoever has the devil in his mouth and on his tongue, will soon have him in his heart.

Whoever says that they believe in God, let them humbly revere him, and not blaspheme!

Whoever respect their body and preserve themselves in chastity and all those with whom they keep company, will have virtue grow in them and yield the fruit of life. Do not live in dire want and misery, but be heroic, chaste and honest, healthy in heart and body, strong in spirit.

Whoever’s heart and hands cleave to earthly things, and forget God, will not go money-grubbing just to have more of it, but will also utilize frauds and defamations and thefts, jumping from bad to worse, to achieve his heart’s desire. .

GETTING RICH, BUT NOT IN GOD. The Acts of the Apostles tell us (5:1-11) Peter exposed the hypocrisy of a husband and wife in the first community. The Bible honestly portrays even the most dishonest actions, wherever they may be.

Ananias, one of the first Christians in Jerusalem, sold a piece of his property and in agreement with his wife brought the apostles only a portion of the money from the sale, the other part he kept for himself, yet he wanted to live from the community table. Peter called him for an interview:
  • Ananias, where were you this morning? - I sold my property.
  • For how much did you sell it? - For so and so much.
  • Did you give all the money for the community purse as agreed? - Yes (but he didn’t. He kept part of it for himself). And Ananias trembled before Peter’s tribunal.
  • And how much did you bury in the ground behind the house? Peter looked into the double-dealing eyes of Ananias. - I buried so and so many shekels, stammered Ananias, lowering his eyes in shame.
 
Bishop of Mostar’s Sermon continued:
  • Look at me! - Peter looked around him with a sharp voice: “Why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the Holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land?” (Acts 5:3), and said that you brought it all?
  • I was afraid of sickness and old age for myself and my wife, said Ananias.
  • Does not God care for you in your old age and in your illness? And for your wife Sapphira? While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? Could you have left all the proceeds, since it was yours? - I could have.
  • It means, you not only stole, but you have also lied. A Christian, and he lies. Not only does he lie, but he steals, he cheats. Do you see that sin always produces sin. "While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours: And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? (Acts 5:4). Had you sold it and kept all the money, it would still all be yours. You could have sometime even come to the community meal. Had you even sold it and kept a portion for yourself and said that you had done so, everything would have been in order. But this way: “Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings but to God” (Acts 5:4). You have not stolen from the community but from God. At these words, Ananias fell before the Apostle Peter and died. “And great fear came upon all who heard of it” (Acts 5:5).
Sapphira. After about three hours, his wife Sapphira came in, unaware of what had happened with her husband. Peter was waiting for her at the entrance.
  • Madam, tell me, did you sell the piece of land for so and so many shekels? - We did, the woman admits right away.
  • How much did you bring for the community purse? -About half, so it seems to me.
  • And did you say that you brought all the money? - Yes, we did.
  • But where is the other half? - The wife stood trembling, the blood froze in her veins.
  • They carried out your husband a while ago. As soon as the grave diggers get back, they will carry you out too. And at once she fell to the ground. And she died.
Brothers and sisters, what kind of punishments these are! Those who stood around were struck with great fear. God in the beginning let the people learn a lesson and start on the right path. “And great fear came upon the whole Church” (Acts 5:11). In a charismatic way Peter disciplines the whole community. If we will live according to God’s commandments, then the seventh and eighth are of equal value, and the fifth and the sixth and every commandment of God!

What is actually the most painful thing in this event? Well, it seems to us to be that this couple - Ananias and Sapphira - did not have time either to repent or to seek forgiveness. It is sudden death. “Thus will it be for the one who stores up treasure for himself, but is not rich in what matters to God” (Luke 12:21).

Dear faithful, confirmandi! You have the opportunity to turn this Medjugorje into Babylon, confusion and chaos; to show a false pride up to the clouds, to give in to the race for foreigners and their money, to allow tourism to flood and defeat you with a multitude of languages, to compete over who will build the most Babylonian floors and villas, over who will open a profitable business and get richer.

You have the opportunity to make Jerusalem out of this parish, a place of action of the Spirit of God, where a multitude blends into unity, where each one understands everyone in God, and not in false wealth: where Peter’s word is heard: "Repent … and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit "(Acts 2.39).

You have the opportunity to live devoutly, not in pride, but to crush it in wisdom: not being selfishly avaricious, but advancing in good sense, not losing yourself in the immorality of your body, but gaining a true knowledge of God’s saving law: not permitting a measure of envy, but rejoicing at true advice; expressing strength of spirit, all in the fear of God, and not weakness and a painful end like that of Ananias and Sapphira.

Get rich in God, and not in wealth that passes away! - is the Lord’s word to us.
 
eightandsand,

Thanks for the reply – the info you provided is along the lines of what I was looking for. Just a follow-on question… You wrote:
Forget what that or any other site says. Stick to what the Bishops have wrote, and the proper translation of what the Bishops have wrote.
Maybe I’m reading too much in to what you’re saying, but are you saying that there is false information floating around on Garabandal based on bad translations? If so, could you elaborate and point me to a source for “good” translations?

God bless,
Dean
 
Here I am, I only followed what every local Bishop said about Garabanal. I don’t believe I protested louder than their clear prohibitions.

On the Medjugore website over and over they say: “Local Bishop softens up on Medjugorje.” Then I found a complete translation of his sermon given at a Confirmation service.
Code:
 I don't see where he "softens up."
BluesPicker,

Thank you for the reply. I hate to sound dense, but I’m having trouble determining what message you’re trying to relay. Would you mind explaining?

God bless,
Dean
 
eightandsand,

Thanks for the reply – the info you provided is along the lines of what I was looking for. Just a follow-on question… You wrote:

Maybe I’m reading too much in to what you’re saying, but are you saying that there is false information floating around on Garabandal based on bad translations? If so, could you elaborate and point me to a source for “good” translations?

God bless,
Dean
False may be too strong a word. Perhaps mistaken would suffice.

Whenever bishops deal with private revelation which requires them to render a judgement, they use very specific terminology. There are three classifications:
  1. Constat de supernaturalitate - It is certain that the events are of supernatural origin.
  2. Non-constat de supernaturalitate - It is not certain that the events are of supernatural origin, or the supernatural origin has not been established. In this classification, the events in question are still open to eventual recognition as being authentic.
  3. Constat de non supernaturalitate - It is certain that the events are not of supernatural origin.
An apparition in the second category is in the safe zone and open to future recognition.

The letter in dispute is the one from Bishop Vilaplana. You can find a copy of the original on the Unity Publishing site that you referenced earlier and also here: theotokos.org.uk/pages/unapprov/garaband/garaband.html

The relevant section is section 5 paragraph two, where one will find the sentence, “En la misma carta se me sugiere que, Si lo estimo oportuno, publique una declaración en la cual reafirme que **no consta la sobrenaturalidad **de las referidas apariciones, haciendo propias las unánimes posiciones de mis predecesores.”

Notice the phrase that I have bolded above. It corresponds to the classification Non-constat de supernaturalitate, putting Garabandal in the safe zone.
 
False may be too strong a word. Perhaps mistaken would suffice.

Whenever bishops deal with private revelation which requires them to render a judgement, they use very specific terminology. There are three classifications:
  1. Constat de supernaturalitate - It is certain that the events are of supernatural origin.
  2. Non-constat de supernaturalitate - It is not certain that the events are of supernatural origin, or the supernatural origin has not been established. In this classification, the events in question are still open to eventual recognition as being authentic.
  3. Constat de non supernaturalitate - It is certain that the events are not of supernatural origin.
An apparition in the second category is in the safe zone and open to future recognition.

The letter in dispute is the one from Bishop Vilaplana. You can find a copy of the original on the Unity Publishing site that you referenced earlier and also here: theotokos.org.uk/pages/unapprov/garaband/garaband.html

The relevant section is section 5 paragraph two, where one will find the sentence, “En la misma carta se me sugiere que, Si lo estimo oportuno, publique una declaración en la cual reafirme que **no consta la sobrenaturalidad **de las referidas apariciones, haciendo propias las unánimes posiciones de mis predecesores.”

Notice the phrase that I have bolded above. It corresponds to the classification Non-constat de supernaturalitate, putting Garabandal in the safe zone.
Excellent – this is exactly the type of information I was looking for! 👍

God bless,
Dean
 
False may be too strong a word. Perhaps mistaken would suffice.

Whenever bishops deal with private revelation which requires them to render a judgement, they use very specific terminology. There are three classifications:
  1. Constat de supernaturalitate - It is certain that the events are of supernatural origin.
  2. Non-constat de supernaturalitate - It is not certain that the events are of supernatural origin, or the supernatural origin has not been established. In this classification, the events in question are still open to eventual recognition as being authentic.
  3. Constat de non supernaturalitate - It is certain that the events are not of supernatural origin.
An apparition in the second category is in the safe zone and open to future recognition.

The letter in dispute is the one from Bishop Vilaplana. You can find a copy of the original on the Unity Publishing site that you referenced earlier and also here: theotokos.org.uk/pages/unapprov/garaband/garaband.html

The relevant section is section 5 paragraph two, where one will find the sentence, “En la misma carta se me sugiere que, Si lo estimo oportuno, publique una declaración en la cual reafirme que **no consta la sobrenaturalidad **de las referidas apariciones, haciendo propias las unánimes posiciones de mis predecesores.”

Notice the phrase that I have bolded above. It corresponds to the classification Non-constat de supernaturalitate, putting Garabandal in the safe zone.
The English translation of the paragraph is
5- Dated 28th November 1992, the Congregation sent me their reply in which it is stated that, after
having examined carefully all the documents, they did not find it necessary to intervene directly
or to withdraw this affair from the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop of Santander, which is
his by right.
Previous declarations from the Holy See agree with this statement.
In the same letter it is suggested that if I considered it appropriate, I should publish a
declaration to reiterate the fact that there is no evidence to support the supernatural nature of
the alleged apparitions
, and so make my own the unanimous position of my predecessors.
It seems to me that it does not correspond with 2. Non-constat de supernaturalitate but with 3. Constat de non supernaturalitate - It is certain that the events are not of supernatural origin.
 
The English translation of the paragraph is

It seems to me that it does not correspond with 2. Non-constat de supernaturalitate but with 3. Constat de non supernaturalitate - It is certain that the events are not of supernatural origin.
I am concerned with the original Spanish **no consta la sobrenaturalidad **, which appears to correspond to the Latin non constat de supernaturalitate. Remember, the bishops must use very specific terminology when dealing with these matters. If I am in error, please show me where I am wrong using the original Spanish.
 
I am concerned with the original Spanish **no consta la sobrenaturalidad **, which appears to correspond to the Latin non constat de supernaturalitate. Remember, the bishops must use very specific terminology when dealing with these matters. If I am in error, please show me where I am wrong using the original Spanish.
This was a letter answering an inquiry not a formal declaration. Since he does not use the Latin we cannot know for certain which classification it falls under. In fact, I don’t think he was using any of the three terms
Are you assuming that consta in Spanish is the same word as constat in Latin? . Consta may be translated as to be clear from, be evident from, consist of. The Latin constat is certain. To translate the Latin it would be it is not certain of supernatural. Where as the Spanish it would be as the site translated it.
no evidence to support the supernatural
I to not think in answering the letter, it was the intent of the Bishop to be using the specific terminology of the Church but only reaffirming what his predecessors said that nothing supernatural took place. The Bishops have also not allowed mass to be said at the site only at the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top