Garabandal Status?

[Blue_Horizon]

Addenda to the above … forum post timed-out .

However other considerations that others might observe this assumption overlooks are:
(a) 100s if not 1000s of spectators made mental requests which were heard and responded to by the alledged apparition by the medium of the see-ers, many turning their lives around. Not surprisingly “private revelation” literally can mean that - so zero public content here sorry.
(b) As they say “the medium is the message.” Also, messages can be given by actions. Many small lessons seem to hav been given to spectators in the way the alleged apparition treated the see-ers. For example, if a shoe fell off the owner was not to replace it … one of the others had to. Apparantly the apparition was simple and homely enough to play hide and seek. There were 100s more mini lessons apparantly.
(c) The highest faculties of the soul and mind and heart. I believe the majority of the “messages” were more for the heart not the intellect. Meaning/hope/purpose/concern and the “reality” of the spiritual (and of "spiritual persons caring for us) was hugely communicated to the world here if the apparition was what “it” claimed to be.
(d) In fact something new was communicated. God will allegedly work his greatest public miracle (a lasting one) for mankind in the pine grove - and on top of that the exact day of this future alleged event was made known back in 1961? I do not understand why you would not see this as a “new message” - isn’t a miracle (as well as the announcement/prophecy of it) a message? That’s how we treated the prophetic announcement of the Incarnation by Gabriel afterall.

But maybe I have missed the import of your question?

 

[brumano]

I don’t know what you are referring to

?

How so? Private Revelation when not approved is the same as any other prediction. I don’t see why it would be inappropriate or illogical to compare to false revelations.

This actually goes to my assertion that even when they don’t come true there will be some explanation that they actually did. Padre Pio was said to have see the miracle before he died. Such an explanation defies reality. Why would our Blessed Mother point him out as seeing the miracle where he stood when he would die three years at the end of the supposed apparitions before the said miracle took place? She did not know he would be dead? What point would there be to claiming a dead person would see the miracle. Why not say Peter and Paul would see it? Won’t all in heaven know of it? More than likely it was the “seers” who didn’t realize that he would die. It really makes the whole thing ridiculous.

Maybe at this juncture it would be best to take stock of something that we are all certain of, the Scriptures themselves contain prolific revelations of all kinds including discreet private revelations and privately disclosed prophecies that when revealled as they are in this case Scripturally, take on World and even Universal importance. The private revelations of Simeon and the prophetess Anna should still be fresh in mind, and can be read in Luke Ch.2v25-38.

 

[adrift]

Maybe at this juncture it would be best to take stock of something that we are all certain of, the Scriptures themselves contain prolific revelations of all kinds including discreet private revelations and privately disclosed prophecies that when revealled as they are in this case Scripturally, take on World and even Universal importance. The private revelations of Simeon and the prophetess Anna should still be fresh in mind, and can be read in Luke Ch.2v25-38.

Scriptures private revelation???

REVELATIONS, PRIVATE
Supernatural manifestations made to a particular person since apostolic times. They are distinct from visions and apparitions, properly so called, in which objects are seen but not necessarily understood. When what is seen is also understood, it becomes a revelation, although revelations can be received directly in the mind without sensory images of any kind. When the Church approves certain private revelations, as those of St. Margaret Mary (1647-90) or St. Bernadette Soubirous (1844-79), they are to be accepted on the4 Church’s judgment, but the are not part of divine faith.

No they were not private revelations.

 

[adrift]

Maybe at this juncture it would be best to take stock of something that we are all certain of, the Scriptures themselves contain prolific revelations of all kinds including discreet private revelations and privately disclosed prophecies that when revealled as they are in this case Scripturally, take on World and even Universal importance. The private revelations of Simeon and the prophetess Anna should still be fresh in mind, and can be read in Luke Ch.2v25-38.

 

[BobCatholic]

But maybe I have missed the import of your question?

Yup. You did

Sounds like a whole lot of tickling was going on.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Miracle was predicted to be public for all to see and that it would be during the lifetime of Pope John Paul II… It was a fraudulent prediction.

Thistle I respect that you do not consider the Garabandal phenomenon to be of God for two reasons:
(a) Even the “approved” apparitions need not be personally accepted by the faithful.
(b) Effectively the “jury” is still out on this one with no ultimately final decision either way at the moment.

However, if one does raise an objection, surely a truth seeker needs to present facts when they are available rather than one’s own interpretations of the facts (or 2nd hand Chinese whispers) which compromise objectivity?
Are you able to provide your evidence for asserting that Conchita stated that the Miracle would occur during the lifetime of JPII? or is this simply your inference from other facts?

My wide reading of source documents finds no such statement. The closest evidence that I can find re this is in two areas:
(a) “The Pope will see it [the miracle] from wherever he is…” (Conchita’s diary quote in “Our Lady Comes to Garabandal”, p.113)
(b) “Yes. The Virgin told us something related to the Holy Father, and it was that before the Miracle there would be only three more Popes. At the time, Pope John XXIII was living. The Virgin said, “Three more Popes are left; there will be only three more Popes.” She was then speaking about the end of the times.” ((an interview in with Conchita in early 1980s by Monsignor Garmendia) .

Neither explicitly says the miracle will occur in the lifetime of JPII - that is an inference. There are subtle indicators here that one needs to be careful about this inference.

Firstly, Conchita seems to correct her initial statement from “the Miracle” to “the end of the times”. These differ. It appears the latter is the more correct rendition as it matches what Conchita said spontaneously in June 1963 in the presence of her mother when news reached Garabandal that Pope John23rd had died:

“Listen; they are ringing the bells!” (Conchita)
“It’s for the Pope” (her mother)
“Certainly . . . Now only three remain.” (Conchita)
Surprised, Aniceta raised her head “What are you saying?”
“What I heard. That only three popes remain” (Conchita)
“And where did you pick that up?”
“I didn’t pick it up; the Virgin told it to me.” (Conchita)
“Then, you mean that the end of the world is coming?” (mother)
“The Virgin didn’t tell me “the end of the world,” but “the end of the times." (Conchita)
“Aren’t they the same?”
“I don’t know.” (Conchita)
(“She Went in Haste to the Mountain” p.137)

“The end of the times” could simply mean that JPII sees out the end of our present epoch. That means the present Pope (and ourselves) are the ones who now live in the beginnings of a new epoch which beginning will be characterised by the prophecied events in the lifetime of the present Pope. So, by looking at the bald facts,rather than 2nd guessing inferences from these facts, we can see that this prophecy may not yet have conclusively failed.

However, if some of these prophecied events (e.g. “The Warning”) do not come to pass within the lifetime of the present Pope then I agree that it becomes difficult to understand how “only three more Popes then the end of the times” statement by Conchita could be vindicated.

 

[thistle]

Thistle I respect that you do not consider the Garabandal phenomenon to be of God for two reasons:
(a) Even the “approved” apparitions need not be personally accepted by the faithful.
(b) Effectively the “jury” is still out on this one with no ultimately final decision either way at the moment.

However, if one does raise an objection, surely a truth seeker needs to present facts when they are available rather than one’s own interpretations of the facts (or 2nd hand Chinese whispers) which compromise objectivity?
Are you able to provide your evidence for asserting that Conchita stated that the Miracle would occur during the lifetime of JPII? or is this simply your inference from other facts?

My wide reading of source documents finds no such statement. The closest evidence that I can find re this is in two areas:
(a) “The Pope will see it [the miracle] from wherever he is…” (Conchita’s diary quote in “Our Lady Comes to Garabandal”, p.113)
(b) “Yes. The Virgin told us something related to the Holy Father, and it was that before the Miracle there would be only three more Popes. At the time, Pope John XXIII was living. The Virgin said, “Three more Popes are left; there will be only three more Popes.” She was then speaking about the end of the times.” ((an interview in with Conchita in early 1980s by Monsignor Garmendia) .

Neither explicitly says the miracle will occur in the lifetime of JPII - that is an inference. There are subtle indicators here that one needs to be careful about this inference.

Firstly, Conchita seems to correct her initial statement from “the Miracle” to “the end of the times”. These differ. It appears the latter is the more correct rendition as it matches what Conchita said spontaneously in June 1963 in the presence of her mother when news reached Garabandal that Pope John23rd had died:

“Listen; they are ringing the bells!” (Conchita)
“It’s for the Pope” (her mother)
“Certainly . . . Now only three remain.” (Conchita)
Surprised, Aniceta raised her head “What are you saying?”
“What I heard. That only three popes remain” (Conchita)
“And where did you pick that up?”
“I didn’t pick it up; the Virgin told it to me.” (Conchita)
“Then, you mean that the end of the world is coming?” (mother)
“The Virgin didn’t tell me “the end of the world,” but “the end of the times." (Conchita)
“Aren’t they the same?”
“I don’t know.” (Conchita)
(“She Went in Haste to the Mountain” p.137)

“The end of the times” could simply mean that JPII sees out the end of our present epoch. That means the present Pope (and ourselves) are the ones who now live in the beginnings of a new epoch which beginning will be characterised by the prophecied events in the lifetime of the present Pope. So, by looking at the bald facts,rather than 2nd guessing inferences from these facts, we can see that this prophecy may not yet have conclusively failed.

However, if some of these prophecied events (e.g. “The Warning”) do not come to pass within the lifetime of the present Pope then I agree that it becomes difficult to understand how “only three more Popes then the end of the times” statement by Conchita could be vindicated.

The jury is not out. That would mean a decision has not been made but it has.The Church has investigated and made a decision that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings there. The CDF in Rome supports the local Bishops decision and said there is no need for further investigation.
The jury is most definitely in and their decision given.

 

[HansTrappist]

The jury is not out. That would mean a decision has not been made but it has.The Church has investigated and made a decision that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings there. The CDF in Rome supports the local Bishops decision and said there is no need for further investigation.
The jury is most definitely in and their decision given.

According to EWTN’s translation of the Bishop’s letter, the ruling was non constat de supernaturalitate (it is not established supernatural) rather than constat de non supernaturalitate (it is established not supernatural).

There are only three possible explanations for an alleged marian apparition: the natural, the preternatural, or the supernatural. The Bishops did not say that Garabandal was established not supernatural. They said that the supernatural was not established. Big difference. It is the difference between a negative judgement and a neutral judgment.

It would be logical for the Bishops to take a neutral stance, as some of the supernatural events predicted at Garabandal have neither been disproven or come to pass.

In the meantime, why worry about it. If the events happen, so what? I witness a supernatural event everytime I go to Mass. But to condemn Garabandal when the Church has not done so would be a very serious error.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The jury is not out. That would mean a decision has not been made but it has.The Church has investigated and made a decision that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings there. The CDF in Rome supports the local Bishops decision and said there is no need for further investigation.
The jury is most definitely in and their decision given.

Thistle what is your evidence/source for asserting that the phenomena is “established as definitely not supernatural” rather than “the supernatural cannot yet be defintely established” as HansTrappist credibly asserts?

Also, as requested above, are you able to provide your evidence for asserting that Conchita stated that the Miracle would occur during the lifetime of JPII? or is this simply your inference from the more basic facts I have sourced?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’d love to have this answered.
WHAT message at Garabandal that was not a message in approved Marian Apparitions like Lourdes and Fatima? Why the big deal about Garabandal? What is missing in the approved apparitions that one has to believe in Garabandal?..

Bob I am not known to be a thicker than the average plank so if I didn’t get the gist of your question I suggest a lot of other readers are likewise mystified by your contribution….

Then again, maybe it wasn’t a question .

 

[thistle]

Thistle what is your evidence/source for asserting that the phenomena is “established as definitely not supernatural” rather than “the supernatural cannot yet be defintely established” as HansTrappist credibly asserts?

Also, as requested above, are you able to provide your evidence for asserting that Conchita stated that the Miracle would occur during the lifetime of JPII? or is this simply your inference from the more basic facts I have sourced?

Don’t you actually read my posts.
I did NOT say it is “established as definitely not supernatural”. I said the decision is (to quote my actual words) “there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings” there which means “non constat de supernaturalitate”.

There are only three possibilities:

1. Under investigation.
2. No evidence of any supernatural happenings.
3. Established not to be supernatural.

 

[BobCatholic]

Bob I am not known to be a thicker than the average plank so if I didn’t get the gist of your question I suggest a lot of other readers are likewise mystified by your contribution….

Then again, maybe it wasn’t a question .

My question was simple.

What is so special about Garabandal that was NOT covered by approved apparitions?

The answer is very clear. It tickles the ears.

Tickle. Tickle. Tickle. Tickle.

What I see here are rulings that the Church did not say it was supernatural yet supporters are acting like it is supernatural. And look at what I see written!

The Church lied!!! The Church is leading you away from the Truth!!! The Church doesn’t want you to believe in the truth! The Church is WRONG!!! Those bishops are wrong! The next bishop will declare it supernatural, just wait until the current bishop dies!

Sounds like that other guy is talking and not God talking.

“I’m right and the Church is wrong.”

Pride.

THAT is the tickling sensation in the ears.

THAT is why Garabandal is so pushed by their supporters. It tickles their ears!

By their fruits shall you know them. And one of the fruits I DO NOT see from Garabandal is obedience to the Church. I see supporters say “Ignore what the Church says, believe in Garabandal anyway!!!”

Yup. Definitely that other guy is talking.

Those bishops are wrong! The next bishop will declare it supernatural, just wait until the current bishop dies!

A death watch. Imagine wanting someone dead for the hope that someone new can come in and agree with you. And this someone is a bishop.

Yup. Definitely that other guy is talking.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I think the entire letter might be helpful

I wish to point out that there are other variations on the translations that are as valid as this one. Note that he does not allow reference to be made about the “alleged appariton”
But it really doesn’t change that this is unapproved.

I’ve seen some versions of this letter before, but perhaps when discussing subjects like this thread’s topic and presenting these types of quotes , it might be better if we could be given a link to it’s source . . . seems reasonable , doesn’t it ?

" Constat de non Linkeralae" -:tsktsk:

 

[adrift]

I’ve seen some versions of this letter before, but perhaps when discussing subjects like this thread’s topic and presenting these types of quotes , it might be better if we could be given a link to it’s source . . . seems reasonable , doesn’t it ?

" Constat de non Linkeralae" -:tsktsk:

Reasonable but it is also reasonable to read the thread as the link was already provided.

 

[adrift]

Reasonable but it is also reasonable to read the thread as the link was already provided.

My apologies I had thought it had been linked but what was linked was other things here is the link to the letter that EWTN posted with their added comments.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Reasonable but it is also reasonable to read the thread as the link was already provided.

( lol)
Fair enough , point taken ; although , there are times I’ve chosen to stop reading certain threads (including this one) because of some peoples’ (unreasonable) selection of intonation in conveying their opinions .

We could remember that no one is ever obliged to believe even those private revelations which have been approved .

Another factor in my failing to completely read some threads entirely, is that particular posts aren’t always coherent - so it can potentially end up being a wasted effort on occasion.

For example:

To correct what I believe to be a reported inaccuracy earlier in the thread , I’d posted that a particular alleged apparition’s purported “message” had referred to the “end times” and not the “end of time” as reported here.

The reply I received stated that I was correct in pointing out that the purported private revelation refers to the “end of time” and not the “end times” . . . . . .

(Green highlights mine)

NeedImprovement;10164877:

. . .
according to a documentary I reviewed several times the wording was not "the end of time"

, but rather the “end times” - subtle difference in wording ; big difference in concept.

. . .

You are correct that what was said was **end of time ** whatever that means:shrug: but my point was that the prophecies always find a way to **re-interpret **the “prophecy” so that it fits the reality.

So if it is “reasonable to read the thread” , then certainly it goes without saying that it is just as, if not more, reasonable to read a post which someone decides to reply to - particularly when while replying, one has that information in the same post they are making right in front of them ,within quotes.

 

[NeedImprovement]

There is a good article from EWTN on Apparitions and Private Revelations at this link :
Apparitions/Private Revelations

The article refers to several sources including the CCC.

It tells us that approval of a private revelation by the local authority is *not infallible * but also stresses :

. . . No Catholic should ever violate the practical norms laid down by the local bishop with respect to an alleged apparition, even if intellectually they disagree with his conclusion regarding the alleged apparition. Such disobedience would be sinful, and if it characterized the attitude of the followers of the alleged apparition it would be a sign of its inauthenticity, i.e. by producing bad fruit.

.

In other words, one of the fastest ways to have an apparition end up in the *recycle bin *(“condemned” category) is to disobey the directives laid down by the local ordinary in respect to the alleged occurrences.

The article cites two cases of private revelations as being “condemned” : Necedah, Bayside.

Garabandal was referred to in the article not as condemned but as "lacking in supernaturality ".

If someone already posted the same link above and I missed it, please don’t be afraid to point it out.

 

[adrift]

So if it is “reasonable to read the thread” , then certainly it goes without saying that it is just as, if not more, reasonable to read a post which someone decides to reply to - particularly when while replying, one has that information in the same post they are making right in front of them ,within quotes.

I wish I had a chicken pecking at the ground icon for I think you are being picky and I wonder if you saw my apology and still Peck peck peck.:blackeye:

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Don’t you actually read my posts.
I did NOT say it is “established as definitely not supernatural”. I said the decision is (to quote my actual words) “there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings” there which means “non constat de supernaturalitate”.

There are only three possibilities:

1. Under investigation.
2. No evidence of any supernatural happenings.
3. Established not to be supernatural.

Thistle thanks for clarifying.
Yes I do read your posts but because you come to different conclusions with the same evidence I, and possibly others, end up confused.
I accept that the present local judgement regarding Garabandal appears to be “non constat de supernaturalitate” as Adrift’s ETWN link just above clarifies.

However your English translation/understanding here of the three possible positions does not appear to accord with the Latin version of those three possibilities nor with the usual juridic understanding of those judgements.
I understand the three possible judgements to mean the following:
(a) constat de supernaturalitate (it is established supernatural)
i.e. this is a definite approval that the apparition is from God and thus worthy of belief.

(b) constat de non supernaturalitate (it is established not supernatural)
i.e. this is definite disapproval of the apparition as it is judged as not coming from God.

(c) non constat de supernaturalitate (it is not established supernatural)
i.e. **nothing definite **is established as yet (either supernatural or not supernatural)
This equates to your category (1) above “still under investigation.”

My understanding is that Garabandal is in category (c) above (which you appear to agree with re the Latin) - which means “the jury is still out” wrt a definitive judgement.
However you seem to disagree with my (and others) understanding of judgement (c).
If so please provide something concrete in the way of sources for your understanding of these technical legal terms. This seems to be at the root of the confusion.

I am also aware that** strong disciplinary ** decisions have been made re Garabandal over the years by the local Ordinary wrt attendance of priests, spread of the message, provision of mass etc. In recent years they have been almost completely relaxed. Obviously such practical rulings as these, in themselves, say absolutely nothing re the supernatural status of the 1961-1965 events.

I cannot help but notice you appear to studiously avoid answering my more primary question to you: “… are you able to provide your evidence for asserting that Conchita stated that the Miracle would occur during the lifetime of JPII or is this simply your inference from the more basic facts…?”

 

[John_of_Woking]

Off topic…Just sayin’ if you’ve every been to Medugorje you couldn’t refute it. It is a special place of peace and I’m a septic.

I wish to be respectful of CAF rules but I have been twice and my opinion differs from yours