Garabandal Status?

[EIRCOMNET]

Of course until there is a definitive statement from Rome it will be left as it is. However one should not discount the importance of the re study of the findings of the original Commision, on which Bishop del Val served. The other bishops merely rubber stamped the findings of that Commision. It must be remembered also that Dr Morales who was chiefly resonsible for the negative finding, later changed his mind & compared Garabandal to other church approved apparitions & this in front of a packed hall in Santander & with the approval of Bishop del Val.
Anyway nobody could expect the Church to make a definitive statement until the prophesied events take place, which they will if it’s true.

 

[thistle]

Of course until there is a definitive statement from Rome it will be left as it is. However one should not discount the importance of the re study of the findings of the original Commision, on which Bishop del Val served. The other bishops merely rubber stamped the findings of that Commision. It must be remembered also that Dr Morales who was chiefly resonsible for the negative finding, later changed his mind & compared Garabandal to other church approved apparitions & this in front of a packed hall in Santander & with the approval of Bishop del Val.
Anyway nobody could expect the Church to make a definitive statement until the prophesied events take place, which they will if it’s true.

The definitive declaration was done a long time back that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings at Garabandal. Support for the bishops position was confirmed by the CDF.
Unless new evidence comes to light that is the valid and in force position of the Church. Please remember that the local Bishops are the competent Church authorities.
Again I don’t want to go through 300+ posts but my understanding is that at least one of the prophecies has already been proven false.

 

[EIRCOMNET]

If the only bishop who served as a priest on the original Commision felt that a new evaluation was required, it surely says something. You obviously see no significance in the turn about by Dr Morales. Anyway this is my last post here re Garabandal unless a particular reason calls me forth again. Everyone is free to study the total situation and come to their own conclusion. It is worth remembering that Fatima was only approved 13 years after the great miracle of the sun.

 

[Mousey]

Again I don’t want to go through 300+ posts but my understanding is that at least one of the prophecies has already been proven false.

The prophecy that Father Pio would see the miracle.
He died but it was revealed he saw it as he died. What a ridicules explanation but the true believers accept it
The prophecy that there would only be three more popes there have been six. First it was explained that Pope John Paul I didn’t count then it was explained that it was misunderstood that it wasn’t the end of time but end of epoch what that means is not explained.

The prophecy that Joey would have his sight restored wasn’t fulfilled either. I haven’t heard an explanation for that since he died.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This interview is more than 20 years old. He mentioned the documents are with the CDF. I don’t want to scroll back through all 300+ posts in this thread but I’m sure the CDF supported the local Bishops declaration that there is no evidence of anything supernatural at Garabandal.

If you are so sure on this important point then the burden is on you to provide the documentation you purport to recall surely .

So far as I recall the only thing the CDF “supported” was that the decision at the moment is in the hands of the Local Ordinary - and the CDF had nothing at all to say either way re the LO’s statements.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The definitive declaration was done a long time back that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings at Garabandal. Support for the bishops position was confirmed by the CDF.
Unless new evidence comes to light that is the valid and in force position of the Church. Please remember that the local Bishops are the competent Church authorities.
Again I don’t want to go through 300+ posts but my understanding is that at least one of the prophecies has already been proven false.

Thistle I do not believe you understand the process accurately nor do you represent the CDF’s comments in a balanced matter…

(a) I believe you will find NO documentary evidence that the CDF “backed” the latest position of the Local Ordinary. The CDF have simply supported “the authority” of the Local Ordinary which for the moment they are not superrogating (which they may do at any time).

(b) The Local Ordinary can only make one of three judgements. The one they have given is NOT what you appear to interpret it to be. They have in fact given the “we cannot establish anything supernatural” judgement. This is hardly a “definitive” judgement. You seem to be confusing it with the “definitely not supernatural” type (negative) judgement…which the Local Ordinary HAS NOT GIVEN.
In other words, as you yourself admit, the jury is still out until such time as more evidence might be available.

So, just like Fatima before the positive Papal judgement many years later, we are in the waiting time and personal, non public belief is acceptable for the moment.

On a personal note, unlike yourself it seems, I have done my homework on all these matters. I even travelled to Spain from Australia precisely to check out Garabandal and speak to some of the people closest to the Visionaries to ascertain the truth as best I can for myself.

There is more than enough half-truth out there for people who just sit in their armchairs with their already pre-formed views to convince themselves either way.

I found nothing contrary to traditional Catholic faith or piety. There are a lot of “side-show” “prophecies” due to one off comments from one or other of the Seers that may well be mistaken.

However wrt the three main predicted prophecies (the Warning, the Miracle at Garabandal, the Chastisement) that have been repeated many times in different ways or corroborated accurately by the other Seers…there has been no incongruity or "failures’ as yet.

They simply have yet to pass - but we do know for them to be true they must be within the lifetime of the main Seer, Conchita, who is to announce the Miracle 7 days beforehand.

As she is still alive (at least one of the other three Seers has died) and now in her sixties it seems not too long to go for Garabandal to be definitively proved or disproved.

Clearly the CDF is playing “the long game” on Garabandal and also waiting in this regard.
As we know that the Pontiff knows the date of the Miracle…this suggests it is still in the future and has not expired…otherwise a decision would already have been made by the Pope himself perhaps.

Personally I see the characteristics of the Virgin Mary all through the events recorded of Garabandal. Esp obedience to Church authority. However if the Church one day says I was deceived, then I will accept that and let it go.

Regardless, her message is true:" lead good lives, visit my Son in the Eucharist, make many sacrifices for each other and the world" for we live in increasingly dark and wicked times.

 

[Mousey]

If you are so sure on this important point then the burden is on you to provide the documentation you purport to recall surely .

So far as I recall the only thing the CDF “supported” was that the decision at the moment is in the hands of the Local Ordinary - and the CDF had nothing at all to say either way re the LO’s statements.

Garabandal Letters

This Sacred Congregation despite requests form various Bishops and faithful has always refused to define the supernatural character of the events of Garabandal. After the definitive negative judgment issued by the Curia of Santander this Sacred Congregation, after attentive examination of the proceedings forwarded to this office has often praised the prudence that characterized the method followed in the examination but has still decided to leave direct responsibility for the matter to the local Ordinary.

"The Holy see has always held that the conclusions and dispositions of the Bishop of Santander were sufficiently secure guidelines for the Christian people and indications for the Bishops to order to dissuade people from participating in pilgrimages and other acts of devotion that are based on claims connected with or founded on the presumed apparitions and messages of Garabandal. On March 10, 1996, this Sacred Congregation wrote a letter to this effect to the Bishop of Santander who had also asked for a more explicit declaration of the Holy See to the matter.

BTW promotion of an unapproved apparition is against forum rules.
The status at the moment, one that I don’t think will ever be different is it has not been declared supernatural. There is nothing that is against the faith. There are many others that have the same ruling. The Church just lets them writher and die. No need to do more but I will bet even with last “seers” death there will be those who will believe that she will be coming back from the dead to reveal the date. Just like they said Father Pio saw the miracle before he died ( reticules) That there would only be three popes until the end of time and then changed to epoch (either one didn’t happen) that Joseph Lomangino would regain his sight and when he died. He died on the date of the last message of Mary so lets forget he didn’t receive his eyesight and concentrate on the coincidence of a date and make it mean something “mystical” No, her death will be explained away too!

 

[thistle]

Thistle I do not believe you understand the process accurately nor do you represent the CDF’s comments in a balanced matter…

(a) I believe you will find NO documentary evidence that the CDF “backed” the latest position of the Local Ordinary. The CDF have simply supported “the authority” of the Local Ordinary which for the moment they are not superrogating (which they may do at any time).

(b) The Local Ordinary can only make one of three judgements. The one they have given is NOT what you appear to interpret it to be. They have in fact given the “we cannot establish anything supernatural” judgement. This is hardly a “definitive” judgement. You seem to be confusing it with the “definitely not supernatural” type (negative) judgement…which the Local Ordinary HAS NOT GIVEN.
In other words, as you yourself admit, the jury is still out until such time as more evidence might be available.

So, just like Fatima before the positive Papal judgement many years later, we are in the waiting time and personal, non public belief is acceptable for the moment.

On a personal note, unlike yourself it seems, I have done my homework on all these matters. I even travelled to Spain from Australia precisely to check out Garabandal and speak to some of the people closest to the Visionaries to ascertain the truth as best I can for myself.

There is more than enough half-truth out there for people who just sit in their armchairs with their already pre-formed views to convince themselves either way.

I found nothing contrary to traditional Catholic faith or piety. There are a lot of “side-show” “prophecies” due to one off comments from one or other of the Seers that may well be mistaken.

However wrt the three main predicted prophecies (the Warning, the Miracle at Garabandal, the Chastisement) that have been repeated many times in different ways or corroborated accurately by the other Seers…there has been no incongruity or "failures’ as yet.

They simply have yet to pass - but we do know for them to be true they must be within the lifetime of the main Seer, Conchita, who is to announce the Miracle 7 days beforehand.

As she is still alive (at least one of the other three Seers has died) and now in her sixties it seems not too long to go for Garabandal to be definitively proved or disproved.

Clearly the CDF is playing “the long game” on Garabandal and also waiting in this regard.
As we know that the Pontiff knows the date of the Miracle…this suggests it is still in the future and has not expired…otherwise a decision would already have been made by the Pope himself perhaps.

Personally I see the characteristics of the Virgin Mary all through the events recorded of Garabandal. Esp obedience to Church authority. However if the Church one day says I was deceived, then I will accept that and let it go.

Regardless, her message is true:" lead good lives, visit my Son in the Eucharist, make many sacrifices for each other and the world" for we live in increasingly dark and wicked times.

You are wrong. There is no evidence of any supernatural happenings in Garabandal is a definitive declaration (as it also is for Medjugorie).
It means that the Bishops Commissions have looked at all the evidence and there is nothing there that supports a supernatural event.
Now that may change if something new comes up but the current declaration of the Church authorities is definitive and stands valid and in force unless something new comes up to support a supernatural event or to say it was not a supernatural event.
The only possible new event would be if the prophecies came true but to my understanding they have proved to be false.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You are wrong. There is no evidence of any supernatural happenings in Garabandal is a definitive declaration (as it also is for Medjugorie).
It means that the Bishops Commissions have looked at all the evidence and there is nothing there that supports a supernatural event.
Now that may change if something new comes up but the current declaration of the Church authorities is definitive and stands valid and in force unless something new comes up to support a supernatural event or to say it was not a supernatural event.
The only possible new event would be if the prophecies came true but to my understanding they have proved to be false.

Linus it is hard for people here to have any respect for your unsubstantiated and merely personal opinions when you provide no documents and by your own admission have not well read this thread.

It seems the Local Ordinary followed the new norms promulgated by the CDF of 1978.

WRT alleged Apparitions one of the following three legal phrase rulings is traditionally given:

1. constat de supernaturalitate (it is established as supernatural)
2. constat de non supernaturalitate (it is established as not supernatural)
3. non constat de supernaturalitate (it is not yet established as supernatural (or not supernatural for that matter))

Your personal translation of the Local Ordinary’s ruling is unbalanced as the ruling currently is (3)… yet your ambiguous translation makes it also appear like ruling (2).

The clear conclusion of (3) is that nothing can yet be definitively established … unlike (1) and (2) which are final, definitively established (“constat”) rulings.

This is backed up by the numerous re-openings of the case since the sham first investigation by the biased Local Ordinary in the 1960s. Currently the latest investigation is still open.

In other words the jury is still out and so Catholics are free to privately believe or not as they wish in Garabandal. Just as was the case with the 13 years leading up to the affirmative ruling wrt Fatima.

 

[thistle]

Linus it is hard for people here to have any respect for your unsubstantiated and merely personal opinions when you provide no documents and by your own admission have not well read this thread.

It seems the Local Ordinary followed the new norms promulgated by the CDF of 1978.

WRT alleged Apparitions one of the following three legal phrase rulings is traditionally given:

1. constat de supernaturalitate (it is established as supernatural)
2. constat de non supernaturalitate (it is established as not supernatural)
3. non constat de supernaturalitate (it is not yet established as supernatural (or not supernatural for that matter))

Your personal translation of the Local Ordinary’s ruling is unbalanced as the ruling currently is (3)… yet your ambiguous translation makes it also appear like ruling (2).

The clear conclusion of (3) is that nothing can yet be definitively established … unlike (1) and (2) which are final, definitively established (“constat”) rulings.

This is backed up by the numerous re-openings of the case since the sham first investigation by the biased Local Ordinary in the 1960s. Currently the latest investigation is still open.

In other words the jury is still out and so Catholics are free to privately believe or not as they wish in Garabandal. Just as was the case with the 13 years leading up to the affirmative ruling wrt Fatima.

You are addressing Linus but using my comments in your quotes so I don’t know who you are addressing.

As you very well know there are three possible declarations about private revelations once the Bishops Commissions have investigated. You have listed them. They are ALL definitive. You seem to be confused by definitive and final.
Number 3 is still the valid and in force declaration unless anything changes, i.e. new evidence would need to come to light because all existing “evidence” proves nothing either way.

You also seem to have avoided talking about the prophecies. Has the time expired for some of the prophecies or not and did they prove genuine or false? As you are an ardent supporter of Garabandal you must know all the prophecies. It just takes one to be false for the whole revelation to collapse. Its not a case of best out of three wins.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You are addressing Linus but using my comments in your quotes so I don’t know who you are addressing.

Apologies Thistle, I have been having a lot of discussions with Linus as well recently!

Number 3 is still the valid and in force declaration unless anything changes, i.e. new evidence would need to come to light because all existing “evidence” proves nothing either way.
Thistle your use of the modern word/concept “evidence” is an appalling translation of the meaning of these ancient phrases.

The seminal difference is “not established supernatural” or “established not supernatural”
“Not established” suggests many matters are far from definitive but gray…including even the “evidence” of the supernatural. Therefore a deeper insight or enquiry into old evidence could also one day bring about a more definitive judgement of “established supernatural” or “established not supernatural.”

**You also seem to have avoided talking about the prophecies. **
I don’t get this. I mentioned the three main prophecies …what is you beef with them.
Do you think they have convincingly failed already? Why?

As you are an ardent supporter of Garabandal
I am not an “ardent” supporter of Garabandal but of the likely veracity of the unexplained paranormal events that are reasonably judged to have occurred there.

Given that no human explanations come close to making sense of these events I, as a seeker of truth and a person capable of reasonable acts of faith, find myself provisionally accepting the explanation offered by the alleged subject of those paranormal events.

You are welcome to refrain from making that leap of faith - but if its because you believe paranormal activity did not take place or the Villagers are frauds…then I believe you are factually mistaken.

It just takes one to be false for the whole revelation to collapse. Its not a case of best out of three wins.
You have failed to accept the clear distinction that can reasonably be made, and which I made below, between “side show 'prophecies”" and the three main prophecies. I repeat the criterion for your edification - not that it will make any difference to your set, pre-rational views on this matter. But it may be helpful in aiding those who do take an as yet unformed approach on this topic.

*"There are a lot of “side-show” “prophecies” due to one off statements from one or other of the Seers that may well be mistaken (of the Virgin) or mis-interpreted by others.

However wrt the three main predicted prophecies (the Warning, the Miracle at Garabandal, the Chastisement) that have been repeated many times in different ways or corroborated accurately by the other Seers…there has been no incongruity or “failures” as yet. "*

 

[thistle]

Apologies Thistle, I have been having a lot of discussions with Linus as well recently!

Number 3 is still the valid and in force declaration unless anything changes, i.e. new evidence would need to come to light because all existing “evidence” proves nothing either way.
Thistle your use of the modern word/concept “evidence” is an appalling translation of the meaning of these ancient phrases.

The seminal difference is “not established supernatural” or “established not supernatural”
“Not established” suggests many matters are far from definitive but gray…including even the “evidence” of the supernatural. Therefore a deeper insight or enquiry into old evidence could also one day bring about a more definitive judgement of “established supernatural” or “established not supernatural.”

**You also seem to have avoided talking about the prophecies. **
I don’t get this. I mentioned the three main prophecies …what is you beef with them.
Do you think they have convincingly failed already? Why?

As you are an ardent supporter of Garabandal
I am not an “ardent” supporter of Garabandal but of the likely veracity of the unexplained paranormal events that are reasonably judged to have occurred there.

Given that no human explanations come close to making sense of these events I, as a seeker of truth and a person capable of reasonable acts of faith, find myself provisionally accepting the explanation offered by the alleged subject of those paranormal events.

You are welcome to refrain from making that leap of faith - but if its because you believe paranormal activity did not take place or the Villagers are frauds…then I believe you are factually mistaken.

It just takes one to be false for the whole revelation to collapse. Its not a case of best out of three wins.
You have failed to accept the clear distinction that can reasonably be made, and which I made below, between “side show 'prophecies”" and the three main prophecies. I repeat the criterion for your edification - not that it will make any difference to your set, pre-rational views on this matter. But it may be helpful in aiding those who do take an as yet unformed approach on this topic.

*"There are a lot of “side-show” “prophecies” due to one off statements from one or other of the Seers that may well be mistaken (of the Virgin) or mis-interpreted by others.

However wrt the three main predicted prophecies (the Warning, the Miracle at Garabandal, the Chastisement) that have been repeated many times in different ways or corroborated accurately by the other Seers…there has been no incongruity or “failures” as yet. "*

Oh dear me. Here we go. So if a prophecy proves to be false then it is considered a sideshow prophecy and doesn’t count. Talk about being blinkered!

“not established supernatural” means exactly what I said in different words. It means that nothing that has been investigated by the Bishops Commission shows anything supernatural has happened. You can try to play around with words to distract people but the bottom line is the same.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Oh dear me. Here we go. So if a prophecy proves to be false then it is considered a sideshow prophecy and doesn’t count. Talk about being blinkered!

“not established supernatural” means exactly what I said in different words. It means that nothing that has been investigated by the Bishops Commission shows anything supernatural has happened. You can try to play around with words to distract people but the bottom line is the same.

Thistle my small and very obvious point is that even valid apparitions and messages can be and have been unintentionally distorted even by the Seer. the principle was enunciated by Cardinal Ratzinger himself when speaking of Fatima Seers. It is nothing new - though maybe to you.

But there are criteria by which theologians may reduce the risk of being led astray.
One is repetition of the same message or prophecy in different ways and at different times by the same Seer. Or, uncoordinated repetition of the same message in different ways at the same time by a group of Seers.

In this way “side shows” can be reasonably objectively separated from the “main event.”
And the main event prophecies are well corroborated by the objective criteria I have just mentioned.

So if you actually did research on the alleged prophecy that Joey Lomingano would have his sight restored before he died you would find this propechecy all boils down to a single brief sentence reported by one Seer at only one time in the three years and 1000s of apparitions and messages that occured at Garabandal.

You can call that a failed prophecy and condemn all of Garabandal on the point of that very sharp inverted pyramid if you wish.

But I would call you unreasonable if that is your only reason for condemning Garabandal - something not even the Local Ordinary yet considers reasonable to do .

And again, I won’t be discussing this further with you - you seem to lately be developing an obsession with debating me to the death and always wanting to have the last word regardless of how vague and “Wizard of Oz-ish” the rebuttals get.

 

[thistle]

Thistle my small and very obvious point is that even valid apparitions and messages can be and have been unintentionally distorted even by the Seer. the principle was enunciated by Cardinal Ratzinger himself when speaking of Fatima Seers. It is nothing new - though maybe to you.

But there are criteria by which theologians may reduce the risk of being led astray.
One is repetition of the same message or prophecy in different ways and at different times by the same Seer. Or, uncoordinated repetition of the same message in different ways at the same time by a group of Seers.

In this way “side shows” can be reasonably objectively separated from the “main event.”
And the main event prophecies are well corroborated by the objective criteria I have just mentioned.

So if you actually did research on the alleged prophecy that Joey Lomingano would have his sight restored before he died you would find this propechecy all boils down to a single brief sentence reported by one Seer at only one time in the three years and 1000s of apparitions and messages that occured at Garabandal.

You can call that a failed prophecy and condemn all of Garabandal on the point of that very sharp inverted pyramid if you wish.

But I would call you unreasonable if that is your only reason for condemning Garabandal - something not even the Local Ordinary yet considers reasonable to do .

And again, I won’t be discussing this further with you - you seem to lately be developing an obsession with debating me to the death and always wanting to have the last word regardless of how vague and “Wizard of Oz-ish” the rebuttals get.

Let me understand. Any prophecy/prediction made the Garabandal seers that did not come true are side show prophecies that we should ignore. Why??
I guess you will likely tell me that if any of the “main” prophecies don’t come true we will be wrong to say that and we must be misinterpreting them???

By the way there was also the failed prophecy about Padre Pio!!

 

[Mousey]

Let me understand. Any prophecy/prediction made the Garabandal seers that did not come true are side show prophecies that we should ignore. Why??
I guess you will likely tell me that if any of the “main” prophecies don’t come true we will be wrong to say that and we must be misinterpreting them???

By the way there was also the failed prophecy about Padre Pio!!

And the failed prophecy/prediction that after Pope Paul xi there would only be 3 more until the end of time/ changed to the end of epoch.

When the “seer” dies there will be those who will believe she will return to tell them the day. Yeah right. My quote earlier has gone unanswered

This Sacred Congregation despite requests form various Bishops and faithful has always refused to define the supernatural character of the events of Garabandal. After the definitive **negative judgment **issued by the Curia of Santander this Sacred Congregation, after attentive examination of the proceedings forwarded to this office has often praised the prudence that characterized the method followed in the examination but has still decided to leave direct responsibility for the matter to the local Ordinary.

"The Holy see has always held that the conclusions and dispositions of the Bishop of Santander were sufficiently secure guidelines for the Christian people and indications for the Bishops to order to dissuade people from participating in pilgrimages and other acts of devotion that are based on claims connected with or founded on the presumed apparitions and messages of Garabandal. On March 10, 1996, this Sacred Congregation wrote a letter to this effect to the Bishop of Santander who had also asked for a more explicit declaration of the Holy See to the matter.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Garabandal Letters
BTW promotion of an unapproved apparition is against forum rules.
The status at the moment, one that I don’t think will ever be different is it has not been declared supernatural. There is nothing that is against the faith. There are many others that have the same ruling. The Church just lets them writher and die. No need to do more but I will bet even with last “seers” death there will be those who will believe that she will be coming back from the dead to reveal the date. Just like they said Father Pio saw the miracle before he died ( reticules) That there would only be three popes until the end of time and then changed to epoch (either one didn’t happen) that Joseph Lomangino would regain his sight and when he died. He died on the date of the last message of Mary so lets forget he didn’t receive his eyesight and concentrate on the coincidence of a date and make it mean something “mystical” No, her death will be explained away too!

Didn’t see this.

BTW promotion of an unapproved apparition is against forum rules.

Nobody is promoting.
But enquiring Catholics do have a right to be presented with accurate documentation and analysis of the current status of the Church re Garabandal.
And, in this respect, Garabandal (1962-1965) is currently not different in status from Fatima (1917) in the 13 years before it was declared “worthy of belief” (1930).

The status at the moment, one that I don’t think will ever be different is it has not been declared supernatural.

And it is equally acceptable to say the status at the moment is that Garabandal has also not been declared “not supernatural”.

No need to do more but I will bet even with last “seers” death there will be those who will believe that she will be coming back from the dead to reveal the date. Just like they said Father Pio saw the miracle before he died ( reticules) That there would only be three popes until the end of time and then changed to epoch (either one didn’t happen) that Joseph Lomangino would regain his sight and when he died. He died on the date of the last message of Mary so lets forget he didn’t receive his eyesight and concentrate on the coincidence of a date and make it mean something “mystical” No, her death will be explained away too!

If you want Garabandal promotors to observe your “its against the Forum Rules” ethic then shouldn’t you observe this as well by not de-promoting Garabandal from a position of invulnerability? Most people find sniping from a position of safety to be somewhat cowardly.

Personally (and I have done a lot of research into the Garabandal facts and fictions) I have never seen any statement from any Garabandal witness or authority opining that Conchita, if she died, would have to come back from the dead to announce the day of the Miracle. If you check the primary sources you will discover that there is actually no necessity that Conchita must be alive at the time of the miracle. Though it is clear that the Miracle would have to occur in the possible span of life of a 13yr old in 1962.

I have already provided objective criteria below for discerning the reasonably certain prophecies at an apparition from the less than certain side-show ones. For that reason I have personally never put much credence on the alleged Joey Lomangino “prophecy” and so was not surprised when he passed away.

Re the “Three Popes prophecy” I will simply post a link that goes into the actual primary sources from which this comes (and how it has been regularly “lost in translation” by people such as yourself) … lest I be called a promoter of Garabandal when I am simply countering your “de-promotion” by sloppy scholarship and lazy investigation of the actual evidence available. Here is the link, Link1 and here Link2

Obviously if the three main prophecies do not come to pass at the date predicted then Garabandal fails. If they do come to pass at the date predicted (the Pope has been given the date) then, like Fatima, it is likely the Church will approve.

Unlike lots of other ratbag prophecies which always seem to have an “out clause” Garabandal is different. Its head is on the chopping block because the main Seer provided the Papacy with an explicit date for the Miracle. Just like at Fatima.

 

[Mousey]

Didn’t see this.

The point of what I quoted is that it is considered to be a negative judgment.

Nobody is promoting

.
If you say so.

But enquiring Catholics do have a right to be presented with accurate documentation and analysis of the current status of the Church re Garabandal.

Is that what you think you are doing?

And, in this respect, Garabandal (1962-1965) is currently not different in status from Fatima (1917) in the 13 years before it was declared “worthy of belief” (1930).

And no different than the hundreds of unapproved one either.

And it is equally acceptable to say the status at the moment is that Garabandal has also not been declared “not supernatural”.

Not only acceptable but accurate.

If you want Garabandal promotors to observe your “its against the Forum Rules” ethic then shouldn’t you observe this as well by not de-promoting Garabandal from a position of invulnerability?

Are you now admitting that are indeed promoting? It isn’t my rules it is the forums rules and yes being a good guest here would preclude you from promoting.

Most people find sniping from a position of safety to be somewhat cowardly.

Most people ,would see this as an adhominem attack

Personally (and I have done a lot of research into the Garabandal facts and fictions) I have never seen any statement from any Garabandal witness or authority opining that Conchita, if she died, would have to come back from the dead to announce the day of the Miracle. If you check the primary sources you will discover that there is actually no necessity that Conchita must be alive at the time of the miracle. Though it is clear that the Miracle would have to occur in the possible span of life of a 13yr old in 1962.

My point is that those who wish to believe won’t let facts get in their way.

I have already provided objective criteria below for discerning the reasonably certain prophecies at an apparition from the less than certain side-show ones. For that reason I have personally never put much credence on the alleged Joey Lomangino “prophecy” and so was not surprised when he passed away.

It is part and parcel of the apparitions. Yours is a unique view. You have decided what the apparition is about and dismiss those parts you don’t agree with convenient.

Re the “Three Popes prophecy” I will simply post a link that goes into the actual primary sources from which this comes (and how it has been regularly “lost in translation” by people such as yourself) …

.
Presented one way before the death of the third Pope, than changed afterward to fit.

lest I be called a promoter of Garabandal when I am simply countering your “de-promotion” by sloppy scholarship and lazy investigation of the actual evidence available. Here is the link, Link1 and here Link2

More adhominem there is no such word as depromotion, talk about sloppy scholarship.

Obviously if the three main prophecies do not come to pass at the date predicted then Garabandal fails. If they do come to pass at the date predicted (the Pope has been given the date) then, like Fatima, it is likely the Church will approve

.
Since three prophecies which you try to diminish, have not occurred and cannot occur it is highly unlikely any will occur

Unlike lots of other ratbag prophecies which always seem to have an “out clause” Garabandal is different. Its head is on the chopping block because the main Seer provided the Papacy with an explicit date for the Miracle. Just like at Fatima.

Since the Vatican hasn’t release this, I doubt it exist anyway, I doubt if will ever be release just thrown in the garbage.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The point of what I quoted is that it is considered to be a negative judgment.

.
If you say so.

Is that what you think you are doing?

And no different than the hundreds of unapproved one either.

Not only acceptable but accurate.

Are you now admitting that are indeed promoting? It isn’t my rules it is the forums rules and yes being a good guest here would preclude you from promoting.

Most people ,would see this as an adhominem attack

My point is that those who wish to believe won’t let facts get in their way.

It is part and parcel of the apparitions. Yours is a unique view. You have decided what the apparition is about and dismiss those parts you don’t agree with convenient.
.
Presented one way before the death of the third Pope, than changed afterward to fit.

More adhominem there is no such word as depromotion, talk about sloppy scholarship.

.
Since three prophecies which you try to diminish, have not occurred and cannot occur it is highly unlikely any will occur

Since the Vatican hasn’t release this, I doubt it exist anyway, I doubt if will ever be release just thrown in the garbage.

Mousey I am simply pointing people,who are open to learning more, to the reasonably established historical facts surrounding Garabandal (as opposed to 3rd party distortions due to a variety of causes which you are running interference on).

Your readiness to ignore or not research accurate, historical information suggests a pre-set conviction which is just as “unfalsifiable” as is that of the overcredulous who see prophecy in every sentence a child Seer might utter.

Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[Mousey]

Mousey I am simply pointing people,who are open to learning more, to the reasonably established historical facts surrounding Garabandal (as opposed to 3rd party distortions due to a variety of causes which you are running interference on).

Your readiness to ignore or not research accurate, historical information suggests a pre-set conviction which is just as “unfalsifiable” as is that of the overcredulous who see prophecy in every sentence a child Seer might utter.

Nothing more needs to be said.

So you declare but there is one thing more. It is presumptuous of you to make the statement knowing nothing about me. Your statement assumes you know me and what I have done. You are ignorant on both.

 

[Nelka]

So what is the official status?