Garabandal Status?

[BluesPicker]

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

  Millions of people go to Medugorje,  in the past if you look up the Church Laws regarding private revelations which include apparitions of  Jesus and Mary,  diocesan Bishops  determine the Church's approval or disapproval. 

  Regarding Garabandal,  there every Bishop has not given approval.   The message theologically was sound and in line with the Church, mostly.    There interviews of the seers and what the Bishop observed he didn't give approval.   All the phenomena could have been from the devil.  None of  what was prophesied has come to past.  The manner of what happened was bad.  The way people reacted was bad.  According to the Bishops they were bad.

   Now that website proclaims that the Bishop softened up.  If you read the history you will see that he was even kidnapped at one point.  Then he asked the Holy Father to give this to someone else and a committee of Bishops took over.  And the Vatican will announce the results of a study on all this.  It is like a war on that Bishop.

   That was a translation of  his Confirmation Mass Service where he compares Medjugorje to  Babylon.    If you read the seer's interviews they are chilling. 

  There were close to  200 apparitions of  Mary in the 200th Century; yet only a handful less than 10 received Church approval.

   And his letter certainly doesn't give approval to Medjugorje but the Medjugorje website approves.   One man summed it up:

“There are the unbelievable and absurd contents of some of the “messages”, lies, false predictions and healings, the rampant disobedience to the Bishops of Mostar and even moral lapses occurring among some of the Franciscan priests, the kidnapping and beating of Bishop Peric by fanatical Medjugorje supporters, and Our Lady declaring 13 times with respect to the case of the Franciscan Fr. Vego who was ordered expelled from his order by the Vatican for seducing a nun and that the Bishop (Pavao Zanic) was “wrong” in the matter.”

   So  Our Lady declares 13  that the nun seducing expelled by Vatican priest is right and the that then Bishop Zanic was  "wrong in the matter."

   And,  lastly  Bishop Peric being kidnapped and beaten  led to him just to back away and the Vatican gave it to a committee of  bishops. 

  Something is really wrong there and bad inspiring open rebellion against the Church. The Chastisement that is written about might include  the splitting of the Roman Catholic Church.

    When Bishops have to capitulate or cede control over a part of their diocese else  face bodily harm,  doesn't sound too Christlike.

    Thats all nothing to worry about.  That is all, the Church appears to be in some internal war. 

     And  I didn't mean to say anything I said it.

BP

 

[thistle]

Millions of people go to Medugorje, in the past if you look up the Church Laws regarding private revelations which include apparitions of Jesus and Mary, diocesan Bishops determine the Church’s approval or disapproval.

  Regarding Garabandal,  there every Bishop has not given approval.   The message theologically was sound and in line with the Church, mostly.    There interviews of the seers and what the Bishop observed he didn't give approval.   All the phenomena could have been from the devil.  None of  what was prophesied has come to past.  The manner of what happened was bad.  The way people reacted was bad.  According to the Bishops they were bad.

   Now that website proclaims that the Bishop softened up.  If you read the history you will see that he was even kidnapped at one point.  Then he asked the Holy Father to give this to someone else and a committee of Bishops took over.  And the Vatican will announce the results of a study on all this.  It is like a war on that Bishop.

   That was a translation of  his Confirmation Mass Service where he compares Medjugorje to  Babylon.    If you read the seer's interviews they are chilling. 

  There were close to  200 apparitions of  Mary in the 200th Century; yet only a handful less than 10 received Church approval.

   And his letter certainly doesn't give approval to Medjugorje but the Medjugorje website approves.   One man summed it up:

“There are the unbelievable and absurd contents of some of the “messages”, lies, false predictions and healings, the rampant disobedience to the Bishops of Mostar and even moral lapses occurring among some of the Franciscan priests, the kidnapping and beating of Bishop Peric by fanatical Medjugorje supporters, and Our Lady declaring 13 times with respect to the case of the Franciscan Fr. Vego who was ordered expelled from his order by the Vatican for seducing a nun and that the Bishop (Pavao Zanic) was “wrong” in the matter.”

   So  Our Lady declares 13  that the nun seducing expelled by Vatican priest is right and the that then Bishop Zanic was  "wrong in the matter."

   And,  lastly  Bishop Peric being kidnapped and beaten  led to him just to back away and the Vatican gave it to a committee of  bishops. 

  Something is really wrong there and bad inspiring open rebellion against the Church. The Chastisement that is written about might include  the splitting of the Roman Catholic Church.

    When Bishops have to capitulate or cede control over a part of their diocese else  face bodily harm,  doesn't sound too Christlike.

    Thats all nothing to worry about.  That is all, the Church appears to be in some internal war. 

     And  I didn't mean to say anything I said it.

BP

Medjugorie is not approved by the Church. In fact there have been three Bishops Commissions which have extensively investigated and declared that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings there. As the local Bishops are the competent Church authority that IS the Church decision. The CDF in Rome only got involved because of the controversy (division among the faithful - the acts that Satan likes to produce) but their first action was to suspend another priest at the centre of the alleged apparitions.
Some people think that no decision has been made yet and it will be done by the CDF. That is wrong. The local Bishops (the competent Church authority) have already made a decision which stands in full force and effect unless the CDF were to overturn it.

 

[eightandsand]

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.

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.

When dealing with apparitions, the bishops do use specific terminology:

Types of Decisions

The decision of the local bishop should be one of the following: 1) constat de supernaturalitate (established as supernatural), 2) constat de non supernaturalitate (established as not supernatural); or 3) non constat de supernaturalitate (not established as supernatural).

1. Constat de supernaturalitate. An apparition judged supernatural (formerly called worthy of belief) has manifested signs or evidence of being an authentic or truly miraculous intervention from heaven. This judgment is possible when there is evidence of supernatural phenomena, sound doctrine, moral probity, mental health and sound piety of the seer(s) and enduring good fruits among the faithful.

The issue of supernaturality is one that deserves to be explored more fully. According to the common teaching of the Church, most extraordinary phenomena in the mystical order (visions, apparitions, locutions, ecstasies, mystical knowledge etc.) are caused by angels acting on God’s behalf. Whether the burning bush which Moses saw, the ecstatic flights of St. Joseph Cupertino, the stigmata of St. Francis or the revelations of St. Catherine, the general rule in the spiritual order is that God does not do immediately and directly what can be done mediately through a lower order nature, in this case the good angels. The presence of such phenomenon is not, therefore, unequivocal evidence of supernaturality. Each of the approved apparitions have had such clear signs, from the instantaneous and inexplicable cures at Lourdes to the natural prodigy of October 13th 1917 in Fátima, but also the other marks of authenticity mentioned above.

1. Constat de non supernaturalitate. The judgment that an alleged apparition has been shown to be not supernatural means it is either clearly not miraculous or lacks sufficient signs of the miraculous. Private revelation, for example, which is doctrinally dangerous or which manifests hostility to lawful authority could not come from God. It could even be demonic, especially if there are extraordinary signs accompanying it. The devil gladly mingles truth and lie to deceive the faithful, dazzling them with signs and wonders to give credence to his message. His purpose is to separate them from the Church, either by getting them to believe things contrary to the deposit of the faith or to act contemptuously of Church authority. An attitude of pride and judgment toward the Church is a clear sign of his presence. An alleged revelation may also only be a pious rambling, consistent with faith and morals, but lacking evidence of being anything more than the product of human effort. No fraud need be intended, only an active imagination. Finally, it may be that the doctrine may be sound and there may be phenomena, but insufficient to demonstrate supernaturality. In this latter case, there would seem to be a possibility of revision.
2. Non constat de supernaturalitate. Finally, it may not be evident whether or not the alleged apparition is authentic. This judgment would seem to be completely open to further evidence or development.

Responsibility of the Faithful. Today there are a myriad of alleged private revelations and apparitions vying for the attention of the faithful. None have been definitively judged by the Holy See, some have been approved by local authority (e.g. Akita, Cuapa, Betania), others have been found lacking in supernaturality (e.g. Medjugorje, Garabandal), some few have been condemned (e.g. Necedah, Bayside) and finally, the vast majority have received no attention from Church authorities whatsoever.

The first responsibility of the faithful is to remain firmly established in the faith, in the sacraments and in communion with the Pope and bishops. Any Catholic who gives their primary attention to alleged private revelation at the expense of Sacred Scripture, the teaching of the Church (especially the Catechism), sacramental practice, prayer and fidelity to Church authority is off course. The running after spiritual phenomena, such as alleged revelations, is condemned by St. John of the Cross as spiritual avarice. This means that pious souls who would be repulsed by crude materialistic greed think nothing of being greedy to know revelations and prophecies. An exclusive, or even a predominant attention to these matters (especially apocalyptic ones), cannot help but produce an unbalanced spirituality. Should the Church condemn some favorite alleged revelation such a person may find themselves believing more in it than in the supernatural authority of the Church. The devil will have succeeded in what he had set out to do.

The second responsibility is to have regard, in the first place, for those private revelations and apparitions approved by the Church. Within a balanced practice of the faith the edifying content of approved private revelations can be a motive for deeper piety and fidelity to the Gospel. God has chosen to give guidance to the Church in particular eras in this way and we would, as I noted above, be imprudent to disregard altogether what are credibly His prophetic interventions in the life of His Church.

Finally, there are many other private revelations that have not received Church approval. The Second Vatican Council urges us to discern the Spirit in the case of such extraordinary graces [Lumen gentium 12], which means being neither gullible or incredulous, but subjecting them to all relevant theological and human tests of credibility. Clearly, in this the judgment of the local bishop is the key element of such a discernment as I noted above. Often enough, unfortunately, the laity are left to make this determination themselves, relying on the testimony of the events, the judgment of holy and orthodox priests and common sense. It must always be kept in mind that however credible and reasonable such revelations seem to be, God would never ask one to separate oneself from the faith and discipline of the Church to follow it.

(ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm)

 

[eightandsand]

Medjugorie is not approved by the Church. In fact there have been three Bishops Commissions which have extensively investigated and declared that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings there. As the local Bishops are the competent Church authority that IS the Church decision. The CDF in Rome only got involved because of the controversy (division among the faithful - the acts that Satan likes to produce) but their first action was to suspend another priest at the centre of the alleged apparitions.
Some people think that no decision has been made yet and it will be done by the CDF. That is wrong. The local Bishops (the competent Church authority) have already made a decision which stands in full force and effect unless the CDF were to overturn it.

I have a feeling that Medjugorje is a Satanic hoax.

Just to set the record straight, there are actually three levels of authority when it comes to apparitions. The local bishop is the representative of the Church who first examines the alleged apparition. It is his right and duty to study the matter and to pass judgment on it. Normally, his judgment, that is, his approval or condemnation, will settle the issue. It was this way at Lourdes and at Fatima. But it is not necessarily this way, as was pointed out by Cardinal Cerejeira of Lisbon at the closing of the Silver Jubilee Year of of Fatima, in October, 1942. Referring to the approval of the Fatima visions by the Bishop of Fatima on October 13, 1930, he said:

“This approbation is not irrefutable and the Holy See can either confirm or annul it.”

The local bishop can be likened to a court of first or original jurisdiction. Above him is another Church authority that resembles a court of appeals, namely, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. This congregation, formerly called the Holy Office, is the organ of papal administration that represents the Pope in matters of faith and morals. However, it does not have the final say. This is reserved to the Pope, the “Supreme Court.”

 

[thistle]

I have a feeling that Medjugorje is a Satanic hoax.

Just to set the record straight, there are actually three levels of authority when it comes to apparitions. The local bishop is the representative of the Church who first examines the alleged apparition. It is his right and duty to study the matter and to pass judgment on it. Normally, his judgment, that is, his approval or condemnation, will settle the issue. It was this way at Lourdes and at Fatima. But it is not necessarily this way, as was pointed out by Cardinal Cerejeira of Lisbon at the closing of the Silver Jubilee Year of of Fatima, in October, 1942. Referring to the approval of the Fatima visions by the Bishop of Fatima on October 13, 1930, he said:

“This approbation is not irrefutable and the Holy See can either confirm or annul it.”

The local bishop can be likened to a court of first or original jurisdiction. Above him is another Church authority that resembles a court of appeals, namely, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. This congregation, formerly called the Holy Office, is the organ of papal administration that represents the Pope in matters of faith and morals. However, it does not have the final say. This is reserved to the Pope, the “Supreme Court.”

I don’t disagree with what you are saying. However, the local Bishops are the competent Church authority and if their decision is negative, e.g. there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings in Medjugorie, a negative decision would normally never go up the chain. That is very rare. It is only due to the controversy over this one that the CDF has stepped in.
In this case I expect the CDF to confirm the decision of the local Bishops. I can’t see the Pope overturning their decision considering, while he was Cardinal Ratzinger, he called Medjugorie a hoax.

On a separate issue I have not seen replies from any supporters of Medjugorie when asked what they will do if the CDF confirms the local Bishops decision. They always avoid answering.

 

[eightandsand]

I don’t disagree with what you are saying. However, the local Bishops are the competent Church authority and if their decision is negative, e.g. there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings in Medjugorie, a negative decision would normally never go up the chain. That is very rare. It is only due to the controversy over this one that the CDF has stepped in.
In this case I expect the CDF to confirm the decision of the local Bishops. I can’t see the Pope overturning their decision considering, while he was Cardinal Ratzinger, he called Medjugorie a hoax.

On a separate issue I have not seen replies from any supporters of Medjugorie when asked what they will do if the CDF confirms the local Bishops decision. They always avoid answering.

I agree. Whatever our personal oppinions are on unapproved apparitions, we must OBEY the decision of the local bishop and any decisions that later go higher up the chain of command. In the case of Medjugorje, the decision of the Bishop of Mostar was negative right from the start. With Garabandal, there appears to be confusion as the decision of the local bishop arising from the use or misuse of the Spanish verb “constar.” The Spanish “constar” is derived from the Latin “constat” and has the same meaning. In Bishop Vilaplana’s letter, he uses the expression “no consta” (“not certain”). I think that this clearly assigns Garabandal to the category of “Non-constat de supernaturalitate” (i.e. it is not certain that the events are of supernatural origin, i.e., the supernatural origin has not been established; here the events in question are still open to eventual recognition as being authentic). This decision would make sense given the fact that certain supernatural events predicted at Garabandal have neither come to pass nor have they been discredited, which could easily be done under certain conditions (like Conchita or Joey Lomangino dying before the predicted events occur). In the history of apparitions, there is always a supernatural miracle given to the local bishop as evidence of the veracity of the events. That hasn’t happened yet at Garabandal given that the predicted supernatural events are still pending. In the meantime, it is better to occupy ourselves with approved private revelations.

 

[adrift]

When dealing with apparitions, the bishops do use specific terminology:

I don’t disagree with any of this BUT the Bishop was answering a letter not giving an authoritative statement at the time. He didn’t render it in Latin. He spoke in his native tongue. The terminology does not correlate with the Latin. Contat in Latin is certain. Cierto is the Spanish for certain which is not the word he used. The Spanish Consta is not the same as the Latin Constat.

 

[eightandsand]

I don’t disagree with any of this BUT the Bishop was answering a letter not giving an authoritative statement at the time. He didn’t render it in Latin. He spoke in his native tongue. The terminology does not correlate with the Latin. Contat in Latin is certain. Cierto is the Spanish for certain which is not the word he used. The Spanish Consta is not the same as the Latin Constat.

The word used in Bishop Vilaplana’s letter is “consta” which is a form of the Spanish verb “constar” which means “to be certain” or " to be evident."

As far as classifying apparitions goes, the key word is “constat,” which (in Latin) has the meaning “to be certain, sure, or evident”.

The Spanish verb “constar” is derived from the Latin “constat” and has the same meaning.

In Bishop Vilaplana’s letter, he uses the expression “no consta” (“not certain”), thus clearly assigning Garabandal to the second category (Non constat de supernaturalitate - it is not certain that the events are of supernatural origin)

Perhaps I am mistaken. Please correct me if that is the case.

 

[Megan7]

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.

Hi,

Thanks for your post!

What part of Wisconsin did she appear & when?
What Parish & or Churches are close to the apparition?

Thanks!

God bless!

 

[eightandsand]

I don’t disagree with any of this BUT the Bishop was answering a letter not giving an authoritative statement.

As to the question of this letter being an authoritative statement, I think the letter was authoritative inasmuch as it was a response to inquiries on the status of the alleged apparitions at Garabandal. It was an authoritative statement issued by the Bishop summarizing (as Vilaplana put it) “the position of the hierarchy of the Church regarding this matter.” I don’t see how you get much more “authoritative” than that.

 

[adrift]

As far as classifying apparitions goes, the key word is “constat,” which (in Latin) has the meaning “to be certain, sure, or evident”.

The Spanish verb “constar” is derived from the Latin “constat” and has the same meaning.

.

My own dictionary does not confirm your translation nor does the web site you cited.
I believe you are wrong in your translation. I believe you are trying to make fit a Spanish phrase to a Latin one. We will just have to agree to disagree. It is quite clear that the Bishops did not believe that anything supernatural was going on. In fact, one of the documents indicate that the children now adults recanted what they said. The Bishop in a document said that it was to bad that there was such an uproar over a children’s prank.

 

[BluesPicker]

Medjugorie is not approved by the Church. In fact there have been three Bishops Commissions which have extensively investigated and declared that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings there. As the local Bishops are the competent Church authority that IS the Church decision. The CDF in Rome only got involved because of the controversy (division among the faithful - the acts that Satan likes to produce) but their first action was to suspend another priest at the centre of the alleged apparitions.
Some people think that no decision has been made yet and it will be done by the CDF. That is wrong. The local Bishops (the competent Church authority) have already made a decision which stands in full force and effect unless the CDF were to overturn it.

That is exactly what  I believe.  Bishop Peric was kidnapped and beaten by Medjugorje fanatics  because he like Bishop Zanic said there was no evidence of supernatural phenomena.

Thanks,
BP

 

[eightandsand]

My own dictionary does not confirm your translation nor does the web site you cited.
I believe you are wrong in your translation. I believe you are trying to make fit a Spanish phrase to a Latin one. We will just have to agree to disagree. It is quite clear that the Bishops did not believe that anything supernatural was going on. In fact, one of the documents indicate that the children now adults recanted what they said. The Bishop in a document said that it was to bad that there was such an uproar over a children’s prank.

What dictionary are you using?

Here is what I found:

Constar (Spanish):

1. to be evident, to be on record

merriam-webster.com/spanish/constar

etymology of Constar: from the Latin, constare. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/constar

Constare (Latin)

present active infinitive of consto

4.** to be certain **en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consto#Latin

Constat (Latin)

Verb

1. third-person singular present active indicative of consto (see above)

Adjective

1. It is clearly evident; it is certain, without a doubt

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/constat#Latin

Starting to see the pattern?

 

[adrift]

What dictionary are you using?

I wasn’t going to answer as I think there willl never be a meeting of the minds. To answer your question Langenscheidts Dictionary.

I really was amused with your answer

Here is what I found:

Constar (Spanish):

1. to be evident, to be on record

merriam-webster.com/spanish/constar

O.K.

etymology of Constar: from the Latin, constare. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/constar

The Latin constare is a verb constat is an adjective. They are not the same word.
However constare and constat do have the same meaning.

**Constare (Latin)[/Present active infinitive of consto

4.** to be certain **en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consto#Latin

This is where I got a kick. I am not making fun of you but it did strike me as humorous.
Did you look at your link?
This is part of what it says

Italian Verb consto

1.first-person singular present indicative of constare

Alleged apparitions at Garabandal

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 ofthe alleged apparitions, and so make my own the unanimous position of my predecessors.

They do not translate it as it is not certain but there is no evidence. The Bishop did not use the Latin which is what he would have done if he were trying to state a decision but he wasn’t. He was clarifying that the decision of his predecessors had not changed.

Even if you have what a word means unless you have the other words surrounding it what is being said cannot be accurately translated.

So what do we have
etymology of Constar is constare however the Latin constat is not the same. Constare is a verb and constat is an adjective.
Hey its been fun

 

[dean24us]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses! No offense guys, but this is getting confusing enough without throwing Medjugorje in to the mix. Can we defer the discussions of Medjugorje for another thread and focus on Garabandal?

I thought I had a good grasp on the status of Garabandal after the initial flurry of responses, but it my understanding has become a bit “muddied” after the past several posts. Here’s what I (currently) think, based upon the Bishop’s letter, CAF posts, and other outside reading I have done on the matter:

1. At present, there is no evidence of the supernatural related to Garabandal. As such, it is not an approved apparition, but neither is it condemned (i.e. since there is no direct evidence of a hoax, nor is the alleged apparition contrary to Church teachings).
2. In the case of Garabandal, “evidence of the supernatural” would take the form of prophecies being fulfilled at some future date (i.e. since the alleged apparition primarily involved prophecies of the future).
3. Since there is no way to validate or refute prophecies unless they actually happen (again, at some point in the future), the Church has not “closed the door” on the issue.

Does that sound right, or am I missing something?

Bonus question: This might sound silly, but I’ll go ahead and ask anyway… If an apparition is indeed real and contains a warning of some imminent future event, doesn’t it kind of defeat the purpose if we only acknowledge its validity AFTER the event occurs? Or, to put it a different way, what good is a prophecy if it isn’t acknowledged until after the event occurs?

Thanks again for all the responses to date. I’m finding this discussion very interesting, and I’m looking forward to more!

God bless,
Dean

 

[eightandsand]

So what do we have
etymology of Constar is constare however the Latin constat is not the same. Constare is a verb and constat is an adjective.
Hey its been fun

It has been fun. But just for the record, Constare is a verb. So is Constat. Just in case you missed it:

Constat(Latin):

Verb

1. third-person singular present active indicative of Consto (to be certain).

 

[adrift]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses! No offense guys, but this is getting confusing enough without throwing Medjugorje in to the mix. Can we defer the discussions of Medjugorje for another thread and focus on Garabandal?

I thought I had a good grasp on the status of Garabandal after the initial flurry of responses, but it my understanding has become a bit “muddied” after the past several posts. Here’s what I (currently) think, based upon the Bishop’s letter, CAF posts, and other outside reading I have done on the matter:

1. At present, there is no evidence of the supernatural related to Garabandal. As such, it is not an approved apparition, but neither is it condemned (i.e. since there is no direct evidence of a hoax, nor is the alleged apparition contrary to Church teachings).
2. In the case of Garabandal, “evidence of the supernatural” would take the form of prophecies being fulfilled at some future date (i.e. since the alleged apparition primarily involved prophecies of the future).
3. Since there is no way to validate or refute prophecies unless they actually happen (again, at some point in the future), the Church has not “closed the door” on the issue.

Does that sound right, or am I missing something?

Bonus question: This might sound silly, but I’ll go ahead and ask anyway… If an apparition is indeed real and contains a warning of some imminent future event, doesn’t it kind of defeat the purpose if we only acknowledge its validity AFTER the event occurs? Or, to put it a different way, what good is a prophecy if it isn’t acknowledged until after the event occurs?

Thanks again for all the responses to date. I’m finding this discussion very interesting, and I’m looking forward to more!

God bless,
Dean

First off neither of these supposed apparitions are allowed to be discussed. What is being discussed is the verdict the Bishops made on Garabadal.
I understand your point. Think of Jonah who preached to the city that they should repent or God’s wrath would come down on them. Are they going to wait to see if it comes true? The point of the warning is to change people. Which is what got poor old Jonah upset. His enemies heeded his warning and turned God’s wrath aside.

 

[EIRCOMNET]

Hello All,

I have been giving talks on Garabandal since the early seventies. The status of the apparitions can best be shown in the following interview of a previous bishop of Santander.
garabandal.org/vigil/interview.shtml

 

[jmjconder]

Hello All,

I have been giving talks on Garabandal since the early seventies. The status of the apparitions can best be shown in the following interview of a previous bishop of Santander.
garabandal.org/vigil/interview.shtml

**This is the extremely confusing part for Catholics that use the internet to research information. For every site that says Garabandal is real - there are more sites that say it is not.

I do not believe this discussion is worth the read. There ARE officially approved Marian apparition places in the world - why spend time discussing on that is not 100% approved?

I recommend everyone to stay with the fully approved sites…Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe…and now Our Lady of Good Help in WI!**

 

[EIRCOMNET]

Quote
{I do not believe this discussion is worth the read. There ARE officially approved Marian apparition places in the world - why spend time discussing on that is not 100% approved?}

Well I reckon that if Garabandal is true it has amazing consequences for the Church and the world and our day to day lives so why not discuss it? It doesn’t really matter to me whether people believe or not but I do know that that is Bishop del Val in the photo, that he has knowingly been interviewed for a Garabandal magazine, these are facts, not opinion or conjecture.
By the way, while I’m at it, another fact not well know is that Doctor Morales who was much resposible for early negative judgements, subsequently delivered a lecture in Santander with the permission of the same bishop in which he stated his belief in the events putting them in his mind on a par with Lourdes & Fatima.