Garabandal Status?

[adrift]

As I read these past postings, it is very clear that people do not know what they are talking about concerning Church authority over private revelations. There is so much false information about private apparitions it boggles my mind. People are playing Pope when they tell other people what they can and cannot do. Concerning Church authority over private apparitons, it’s not the local Bishop, but the Pope himself that has the final say. People need to learn more about their Church before posting. Much false information.

The Bishop is usually the one to rule. Rarely if ever does the Pope go against this ruling. Perhaps you should read this

And
Vatican publishes rules for verifying Marian apparitions

**To help bishops determine **the credibility of alleged Marian apparitions, the Vatican has translated and published procedural rules from 1978 that had previously been available only in Latin.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

We are siblings arguing different perspectives of the same agreement.

Whatever degree of Marian devotion you may or may not have, is your thing.

Your life of prayer and your life of the spirit is in the degree and intensity that you have chosen for yourself.

If Garabandal, Medjugorje and Bayside are a distraction or an unfruitful matter, then look to Fatima,LaSLette and Akita.

If the whole end times perspective is a distractionto you, then simply keep a life of prayerand a life of the spirit, nurtured by the Sacraments of Confession and Communion.

And pray the Rosary…daily.

Just do the basic catholic things really, really well.

 

[Edward_Henry]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/599771_373826302671730_1847211150_n.jpg
No words are necessary… I have a lot of difficulty with Spiritual Bullying!

 

[Leon_Bloy]

Garabandal’s status is that it is “unapproved” - that is, it lacks approval. It has not been condemned. Some people confuse “unapproved” with “disapproved.”

Private individuals are allowed by the Church to believe in private revelations if they wish, unless these are condemned by proper Church authority. Nobody is obliged to believe in private revelations or apparitions even if they are approved by the Church (just as in the cases of Lourdes, Fatima, etc. - nobody is obligated to believe in them, but the Church has declared them “worthy of belief.”)

The Vatican says that it defers to the local bishop regarding Garabandal. The local bishops of Santander (the diocese in which Garabandal stands) - from the time of the apparition through to today - have all said they have not found sufficient evidence to give it approval, so it remains open. They have not authorized anybody to publicly honor it within their diocese, however. The Church seems unlikely to take any position on it in the near future, but I know several very devout people for whom I have great respect who believe Garabandal is authentic. Evidently St. Padre Pio believed in it, from what I have read.

 

[BobCatholic]

Why are people making a big deal about Garabandal or other unapproved apparitions? What does Garabandal or other unapproved apparitions say that Fatima, or Lourdes or other approved apparitions don’t say?

Usually there is something that tickles the ears and the person likes that something, and prefers it to the truth.

 

[thistle]

Why are people making a big deal about Garabandal or other unapproved apparitions? What does Garabandal or other unapproved apparitions say that Fatima, or Lourdes or other approved apparitions don’t say?

Usually there is something that tickles the ears and the person likes that something, and prefers it to the truth.

Exactly. Anyone looking for spiritual growth through a private revelation should stick to those approved by the Church as worthy of belief.

 

[Edward_Henry]

Exactly. Anyone looking for spiritual growth through a private revelation should stick to those approved by the Church as worthy of belief.

Talking about Spiritual Bullying in this forum…

God does not lead all His children the same way. Why don’t we each appreciate and folllow our own personal devotion and spirituality, and the same time we respect and stop trying to tell others how they should follow their own spiritual growth. We should leave that to qualified spiritual directors under the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[adrift]

Talking about Spiritual Bullying in this forum…

God does not lead all His children the same way. Why don’t we each appreciate and folllow our own personal devotion and spirituality, and the same time we respect and stop trying to tell others how they should follow their own spiritual growth. We should leave that to qualified spiritual directors under the authority of the Catholic Church.

I believe it is a spiritual act of mercy to help each other. If the Church has not approved it, it is wise to follow the Church’s judgment. For instance Garabandal, what if the predictions do not come true. It might lead someone to despair. There is another supposed Apparition that has brought about bad fruit. Disobedience to the Church was one. Slandering priest was another. If they had heeded the Church, they wouldn’t have fallen into this trap of the devil. We have the Church to guide us in how we should follow devotion and spirituality. There is a wide variance of approved devotion and spirituality but we should not go off on our own.
The Bishop has not approved any devotion to Garabandal rather he and his predecessors have discouraged it.

 

[BobCatholic]

Talking about Spiritual Bullying in this forum…

Can you tell the difference between fraternal loving correction versus spiritual bullying?

and the same time we respect and stop trying to tell others how they should follow their own spiritual growth.

Scratch one of the spiritual works of mercy. Crumple it up. Throw it in the garbage. Two points!

Is this what you are saying?

This is why we have people thinking that every way is the best way. The dictatorship of moral relativism…

 

[Edward_Henry]

Can you tell the difference between fraternal loving correction versus spiritual bullying?

Only when the “loving” attitude is so present that it does not feel like a neverending political discussion.

Scratch one of the spiritual works of mercy. Crumple it up. Throw it in the garbage. Two points!

Is this what you are saying?

This is why we have people thinking that every way is the best way. The dictatorship of moral relativism…

So, is the Holy Roman Catholic Church failing in “spiritual works of mercy” by not condemning this apparition, when we, the experts, already have found it guilty?
I guess I never understood that personally condemning an apparition or a person ahead of a qualified Church commission was a loving work of mercy.

• Now I understand that the Lourdes civil authorities (an non-believers) trying to block the Lourdes grotto and to ridicule the reports of the peasant girl *before it was approved *were merely exercising a work of mercy.
• That those authorities (and non-believing neighbors) ridiculing the rain-soaked Portuguese pilgrims on their way to the Cove of Iria on October 13th, (before it was approved} were only exercising a loving act of mercy.
• And all those, advising pilgrims against going to confession with “the false franciscan stigmatist” in the town of Pietrelchina, (before he was finally redeemed by the Church) who was “causing his own wounds”, were also acting on a spiritual work of mercy.

I believe that getting ahead of the final authority of the Church is always a risk. And many of us should put out our torches, abandon the linching and wait for the authorized trial’s final ruling, before passing judgement.

This is just a thought. I am not speaking for nor against the events of Garabandal, I am not qualified, only against these neverending threads filled with personal accusatory opinions.

What if,… as in the events previously mentioned, we later discover that it was God at work, and we got in His way?

After all, in the case of Bernardette, her own parish priest did not believe her… was he right?
In the case of Lucia of Fatima, her own mother punished her for lying… was she right?
In the case of Padre Pio, many fellow monks in the convent did not believe him… were they eventually proven right?

As we can see, even people closer to the events than us, could be mistaken. Are we really sure that we are not possibly getting in the way of God’s work?
The only way to be sure, is to let the Church pass her final ruling.

 

[BobCatholic]

So, is the Holy Roman Catholic Church failing in “spiritual works of mercy” by not condemning this apparition, when we, the experts, already have found it guilty?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=194270

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.

What was that? Wait. I missed something there.

But the Church, in the personage of two successive bishops of the Diocese of Santander, has said that “nothing supernatural” occurred at Garabandal.

What you say is not true. The Church has ruled. Game over.

 

[Edward_Henry]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=194270
The Church has ruled. Game over.

Wow, “game over”

Peoples’ different devotions and spirituality are not a game and with this type of “on your face” language, your* loving ***fraternal correction is not welcome by your “misguided brothers.”

It actually could be mispercieved as, spiritual bullying and I know that your intention that of those in this thread in not just to*** win ***an argument. That is why I wrote:

Only when the “loving” attitude is so present that it does not feel like a neverending political discussion…

This is just a thought. I am not speaking for nor against the events of Garabandal, I am not qualified, only against these neverending threads filled with personal accusatory opinions

 

[adrift]

After all, in the case of Bernardette, her own parish priest did not believe her… was he right?
In the case of Lucia of Fatima, her own mother punished her for lying… was she right?
In the case of Padre Pio, many fellow monks in the convent did not believe him… were they eventually proven right?

As we can see, even people closer to the events than us, could be mistaken. Are we really sure that we are not possibly getting in the way of God’s work?
The only way to be sure, is to let the Church pass her final ruling.

In each case Bernadette, Lucia, and Padre Pio was humble enough to accept the authority. If they had defied the authority than they would be wrong.
Garabandal so called seers predicted that a priest and Father Pio would see the miracle. They were both alive at the time of prediction. Did that prediction come true. Well the miracle hasn’t occurred but for them before they died in did. It makes no sense that they would see it before they died. Then we have the prediction that Pope John Paul II would be the last pope. Suddenly that isn’t what was said and a new interpretation is accorded the “prediction”. We have one last one a blind man by the name of Joey is to receive his sight. When he dies, the prediction will have been fulfilled by saying as he died he got his sight back.
Why would anyone waste there time on something that the Church has said is not supernatural. Each case you mentioned, as I pointed out the seer was obedient to the the authorities and in each case there never was the same ruling as we see with Garabandal.

To accuse another of bullying is a type of bullying.

 

[Edward_Henry]

Why would anyone waste there time on something that the Church has said is not supernatural. Each case you mentioned, as I pointed out the seer was obedient to the the authorities and in each case there never was the same ruling as we see with Garabandal.

At this point, if your are truly exercising “loving correction” towards other members:
You express your “personal opinion” once, recognizing that you do not have Church authority, and once you have expressed it, you back off, **respecting **the right of others to listen to your opinion or to ingnore it and continue to follow their spirituality.

But what I have observed in our forum is something different. There seems to be a group of forum members who scan the list of threads continuously like a “forum police” and the moment that certain ***redflag topics *** which they object, come up like “Third Secret”, “Garabandal”, “Medjugorge” they rush into that thread to express their “infalible opinions” a rather forceful way.

As you can tell I saw this thread for several days, and I waited for 5 pages of thread and 61 postings, before I finally decided to look. Why? Because I knew what I was going to find… exactly what I found:
http://truthandcharity.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Argue.gif
A lot of verse slinging and quote throwing with additional statements like “two points” and** “game over”, **etc.
You enter the thread and you feel like warning:Watch out… incoming… duck!
If this is charitable loving correction… woe!
Believe me, I have taught Theology for many years and this intellectual bullying style does not reach many hearts.
I really do not mean to offend anybody and this is why I kept myself out of this thread for so long. but for the sake of the more meeker members, I felt I had to speak. Some more simpler members come to fear posting certain topics because they are immediately corrected by this "Forum police" (Like the last new member who dared to post a thread about the Third Secret and make an inquiry. Pretty soon he was apologizing and feeling stupid for asking.)
Who do we come to serve when we come to this forum? And if we truly come to serve Our God, we should imitate Him and leave our egos at home.

May God bless and guide us all.

 

[BobCatholic]

"two points" and** “game over”, **etc.

Obviously this was intended to be a slap at me.

My intention is not to bully. I’m not the forum police. I just showed that the Church has indeed ruled.

If you bothered to read my initial post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10110288&postcount=65

And if you look at my posting history, I don’t go around “policing threads” - that’s the moderators’ job. I think this is the first time I’ve posted in a thread about an unapproved apparition in what, three years? Probably more.

I come in here, post an opinion, back it up with factual citations, and immediately an attempt to bully me into silence is done, by slapping a label of forum bully, forum police, and maybe other labels.

Do you know how many times I’ve seen threads where unapproved apparitions were used to push certain “rebel against the Church” agendas? Too many to count. So who am I trying to serve? The person who sees this unapproved apparition, and is about to fall into the trap set by the liar in the red suit, so trying to help someone stay out of that trap.

I do this ONCE. And I’m judged to be evil. Jumping to conclusions is lousy exercise.

Now since I’m the forum police in your eyes, I’ll go the forum donut shop and stuff my face now

[SIGN]Anyone know where is the forum donut shop?[/SIGN]

 

[adrift]

At this point, if your are truly exercising “loving correction” towards other members:
You express your “personal opinion” once, recognizing that you do not have Church authority, and once you have expressed it, you back off, **respecting **the right of others to listen to your opinion or to ingnore it and continue to follow their spirituality.

:bowdown: So you now are acting as the moderator as to how your are to post in threads.

You can’t dispute what is being said that the status of Garabandal remains as eightandsand posted

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.

What you have done is attacked the person not what they write that is referred to as Ad Hominem fallacy. It might even be an abusive ad Hominem.

 

[Edward_Henry]

So who am I trying to serve? The person who sees this unapproved apparition, and is about to fall into the trap set by the liar in the red suit, so trying to help someone stay out of that trap.

[SIGN]Anyone know where is the forum donut shop?[/SIGN]

Get a cream-filled one for me, because at one time or another **we, all **fall in the trap of forcing our points of view in an overzealous manner.
Thank you for your response Bob. And I pray that as fellow Catholic members we can grow closer rather than appart.

Regarding your quote, I truly understand that you want to protect others from the* “liar in the red suit” and I applaud you for it. My concern is that, if we recognize our limitations,* we are not qualified to really determine for sure where the “guy with the red suit” is:

Poor** Lucia Dos Santos **was scared to death when her parish priest told her that the visions she was having were from the devil. We now know that it was not the devil!

Padre Pio was at one time or another accused that his gifs and physical signs were from the devil. We now know that this was not the case!

Even Our Lord was at one time accused that,* “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.”* (Mark 3: 22) We definitely know that this was not the case.

Mark 3: 22 also points out that sometimes it could be Our Lord who is at work while the world is labeling His work as diabolic.

So, in our zeal to protect others from* the guy with the red suit*, we have to humbly recognize* that we could be wrong…* That Our Lord sometimes reveals Himself to the "little ones" in ways that the*** “learned” ***cannot always understand, and respect their free will when they choose not to heed our warning.

"I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight." (Luke 10 :21)

I pray this makes sense.
I am now going to the kitchen to see if I can find a donut

To Jesus through Mary

 

[Edward_Henry]

:bowdown: So you now are acting as the moderator as to how your are to post in threads.

You can’t dispute what is being said that the status of Garabandal remains as eightandsand posted

What you have done is attacked the person not what they write that is referred to as Ad Hominem fallacy. It might even be an abusive ad Hominem.

I am sorry, this post resembles too much the kind of behavior that keeps me from entering this threads and I am not in the mood for ducking from all the quote slinging or the impressive intimidating Latin phrases. So permit me not to play.

And… I do not wish to act as the moderator to your threads, so you may keep posting as you wish. :bowdown2: I just meant to give you a warning to the fact that these intellectual strategies do not usually reach hearts… they rather turn them off.

Bye.

 

[adrift]

I am sorry, this post resembles too much the kind of behavior that keeps me from entering this threads and I am not in the mood for ducking from all the quote slinging or the impressive intimidating Latin phrases. So permit me not to play.

And… I do not wish to act as the moderator to your threads, so you may keep posting as you wish. :bowdown2: I just meant to give you a warning to the fact that these intellectual strategies do not usually reach hearts… they rather turn them off.

Bye.

I see what you are saying is don’t confuse me with the facts while I beat you up.

 

[Edward_Henry]

I see what you are saying is don’t confuse me with the facts while I beat you up.

Is it that what I’s saying?..

• I know you think you understand what you thought I wrote, but I’m not sure that what you saw is what I actually meant!*

Bye