Garabandal Status?

[HansTrappist]

Why would anyone want to follow an unapproved private revelation when the Church has officially declared there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings there.

If anyone want to follow a devotion to grow their spiritual life there are plenty of Church approved private revelations.

Remember, God unites the faithful.
Satan divides the faithful. The fruits of Garabandal are contention and division!!

You are correct when you imply that it is better to follow approved private revelation than fixate on unapproved private revelation.

But I disagree with you that the fruits of Garabandal are contention and division or when you imply that Satan is behind it.

The little I know about the matter suggests that the seers involved with that apparition have remained obedient to Church authority to this day. Since the status of Garabandal is pending, the fact that the seers have been obedient taken together with the fact that the messages have never been condemned, are favorable conditions.

Also, you are correct when you say that the local Bishops have ruled that the events that they observed were not established as supernatural (non constat de supernaturalitate). This is quite different (and much more favorable) than saying that the events studied were established as not supernatural (constat de non supernaturalitate).

The local Bishops have only ruled on the events that have taken place in Garabandal in the 1960’s. But there were also other supernatural events prophesied to occur in the future and there were conditions attached to these future events. The Bishops cannot rule on these future events until they either occur or if certain conditions attached to those events (like the primary seer dying) take place thus exposing them as a hoax or a demonic deception.

So, while it is certainly necessary for Catholics to be educated on these alleged apparitions, it is much better to simply to listen to the messages of approved private revelations. Even approved private revelations add nothing to the Deposit of the Faith. But the reason that we listen to approved apparitions is that it is a good idea to listen to the Mother of God when she visits us with a request, a warning, or a promise.

 

[thistle]

You are correct when you imply that it is better to follow approved private revelation than fixate on unapproved private revelation.

But I disagree with you that the fruits of Garabandal are contention and division or when you imply that Satan is behind it.

The little I know about the matter suggests that the seers involved with that apparition have remained obedient to Church authority to this day. Since the status of Garabandal is pending, the fact that the seers have been obedient taken together with the fact that the messages have never been condemned, are favorable conditions.

Also, you are correct when you say that the local Bishops have ruled that the events that they observed were not established as supernatural (non constat de supernaturalitate). This is quite different (and much more favorable) than saying that the events studied were established as not supernatural (constat de non supernaturalitate).

The local Bishops have only ruled on the events that have taken place in Garabandal in the 1960’s. But there were also other supernatural events prophesied to occur in the future and there were conditions attached to these future events. The Bishops cannot rule on these future events until they either occur or if certain conditions attached to those events (like the primary seer dying) take place thus exposing them as a hoax or a demonic deception.

So, while it is certainly necessary for Catholics to be educated on these alleged apparitions, it is much better to simply to listen to the messages of approved private revelations. Even approved private revelations add nothing to the Deposit of the Faith. But the reason that we listen to approved apparitions is that it is a good idea to listen to the Mother of God when she visits us with a request, a warning, or a promise.

The status of Garabandal is NOT pending. The Church has made its decision clear that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings there and the CDF in Rome supports the local Bishop’s decision and states there is no need for further investigation.
What is unclear about that??

 

[HansTrappist]

The status of Garabandal is NOT pending. The Church has made its decision clear that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings there and the CDF in Rome supports the local Bishop’s decision and states there is no need for further investigation.
What is unclear about that??

It is pending in the sense that certain supernatural events predicted to occur there have not yet occurred. The Bishops have only ruled on the the things that they studied in the 1960’s. It is impossible to rule on an event that has not yet occurred. It is analogous to the situation with many apparitions where the seer announces a future supernatural event of some sort, and then the Bishop must wait for this event to happen so that he can rule on it.

It is also pending in the sense that the Vatican was made aware of the date of the alleged Miracle by the primary seer. Certainly, if this date had passed, the Vatican would have said something.

 

[mangy_dog]

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

In the aforementioned thread, some people seem to indicate Garabandal is “condemned” and should be considered false, while others claim it is worthy of belief but “unconfirmed” due to the fact that the predictions have not yet come to pass. Indeed, I have seen many respectable organizations on both sides of the issue. Here is a quote from an EWTN article on the subject:

On the other side of the coin, there are no shortage of web sites stating the Garabandal is false and (at worst) evil. One such site is unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/Garabandal2.html. Also, I have seen other CAF members vehemently refute Garabandal.

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

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

God bless,
Dean

Don’t worry Dean,

Everything that the “alleged apparitons of Garabandal ” are saying is the same that is being said and has been said at LaSalette; Fátima, Akita, Betania etc. Along with a long string of Saints who echo the very same message through the ages- the least of which is not Padre Pio in 1950.
Look them up, you’ll see for yourself.

The Warning, the Permanent Miracle and the great Chastisement-no one knows when but they are coming.

Merry Christmas.

 

[adrift]

Still, the Catholic Church has not condemned it! Why should forum members act as “Forum Police” over others?
Satan can use a lot of *“well intentioned” *people to “divide the faithful” in this forum

It seems that you want the job of “Forum Police”

 

[EIRCOMNET]

Please don’t take offense but its only the Church’s position which counts and stands valid and that decision was that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings.

No offence taken at all, thistle. As I said I’m not forcing my opinion on anyone. I’m just very interested in it because if it’s true it has massive implications for the world & society.
As for the Church’s attitude, well one has to be patient; Fatima was only approved many years AFTER the miracle of the sun. I would not expect the Church to rush in with a favourable attitude towards an apparition that will be proven or otherwise by the prophecies that are embedded in it.
As a matter of interest I am very involved with Fatima.

I am also concerned with pointing out that Garabandal is not a condemned apparition contrary to a widespread opinion. There would have been no need for Bishop del Val to initiate a further investigation unless he thought it was warranted.

Having said all that, it is no matter to me whether people agree with me or not, it is never for me a personal issue.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

May I ask a couple of questions?

1. When is this supposed to happen?
2. Wouldn’t it have to be soon, as the involved persons are said to live to see it?

 

[anrmenchaca47]

In regards to Medjugorje,…I have read quite a few of the messages that Mirjana recieved from Our Lady…and no where in those messages does there to appear any sign of Satanic influence. All of the messages are for everyone to return back to her son Jesus Christ. To pray for one another, to help those in need…I don’t understand why this would be considered some kind of Satanic hoax, or irrelevant because a Bishop does not approve of it.

First of all, Satan would be defeating the purpose by mimicking Mary and telling everyone to turn to her son…and we ALL know who her son is.

Secondly, in the same manner that we are told to scrutinize these messages, what makes us think that the Bishop is a straight forward or legit? Who knows ?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

In regards to Medjugorje,…I have read quite a few of the messages that Mirjana recieved from Our Lady…and no where in those messages does there to appear any sign of Satanic influence. All of the messages are for everyone to return back to her son Jesus Christ. To pray for one another, to help those in need…I don’t understand why this would be considered some kind of Satanic hoax, or irrelevant because a Bishop does not approve of it.

First of all, Satan would be defeating the purpose by mimicking Mary and telling everyone to turn to her son…and we ALL know who her son is.

Secondly, in the same manner that we are told to scrutinize these messages, what makes us think that the Bishop is a straight forward or legit? Who knows ?

I am going to choose the Bishop’s view.

Doesn’t necessarily have to be satanic to be incorrect. It could be that those involved are just naturally deluded (ie, insane).

 

[CrimsonThorn]

In regards to Medjugorje,…I have read quite a few of the messages that Mirjana recieved from Our Lady…and no where in those messages does there to appear any sign of Satanic influence. All of the messages are for everyone to return back to her son Jesus Christ. To pray for one another, to help those in need…I don’t understand why this would be considered some kind of Satanic hoax, or irrelevant because a Bishop does not approve of it.

First of all, Satan would be defeating the purpose by mimicking Mary and telling everyone to turn to her son…and we ALL know who her son is.

Secondly, in the same manner that we are told to scrutinize these messages, what makes us think that the Bishop is a straight forward or legit? Who knows ?

Satan can appear as an angel of light to confuse us and lead us into heresy (and tell us things like “you can go to mass/confession later, you still have time to do x now”) He can lie to us with the truth. the Bishops know better and its wise to follow their decisions.

 

[brumano]

In regards to Medjugorje,…I have read quite a few of the messages that Mirjana recieved from Our Lady…and no where in those messages does there to appear any sign of Satanic influence. All of the messages are for everyone to return back to her son Jesus Christ. To pray for one another, to help those in need…I don’t understand why this would be considered some kind of Satanic hoax, or irrelevant because a Bishop does not approve of it.

First of all, Satan would be defeating the purpose by mimicking Mary and telling everyone to turn to her son…and we ALL know who her son is.

Secondly, in the same manner that we are told to scrutinize these messages, what makes us think that the Bishop is a straight forward or legit? Who knows ?

I’ve read everything I could get my hands on about Medjugorje and I have to say your first point is weighty because the Bishop is on record early on stating that he was convinced that the…events were of a supernatural source. However, he also started to doubt and change his position soon after, citing some of the activities and statements of the seers and the Franciscans as being suspect. This is just my (name removed by moderator)ut from what I’ve read, but of all the objections and denouncements made by the Bishop, there is only one accusation which if it is true, mind my wording here, I’m saying if it is true and can’t be explained; is very damaging to the cause of approval for Medjugorje. I believe it was in one of Mr. Wrieble’s books, that the Bishop alleges that the visionaries were told at one point to deceive and disobey him about a certain disagreement by Our Lady, The Gospa. I think you’ll agree that if this is so, that would be very damaging.

All in all I think Medjugorje is great, I love it, I don’t think anyone should condemn it that’s for sure. and there is built right into it a day of proof, because the secrets of the visionaries are made known at appointed times in their lives. So, judgement can be reserved until those times without harming anything.

 

[HansTrappist]

I’ve read everything I could get my hands on about Medjugorje and I have to say your first point is weighty because the Bishop is on record early on stating that he was convinced that the…events were of a supernatural source. However, he also started to doubt and change his position soon after, citing some of the activities and statements of the seers and the Franciscans as being suspect. This is just my (name removed by moderator)ut from what I’ve read, but of all the objections and denouncements made by the Bishop, there is only one accusation which if it is true, mind my wording here, I’m saying if it is true and can’t be explained; is very damaging to the cause of approval for Medjugorje. I believe it was in one of Mr. Wrieble’s books, that the Bishop alleges that the visionaries were told at one point to deceive and disobey him about a certain disagreement by Our Lady, The Gospa. I think you’ll agree that if this is so, that would be very damaging.

All in all I think Medjugorje is great, I love it, I don’t think anyone should condemn it that’s for sure. and there is built right into it a day of proof, because the secrets of the visionaries are made known at appointed times in their lives. So, judgement can be reserved until those times without harming anything.

I think we will know very soon what the Vatican rules regarding Medjugorje. I have a feeling that the Vatican will confirm the Bishop’s negative judgement. I have never had a good feeling about Medjugorje.

Regarding Garabandal, the local Bishops have ruled that they can find no evidence (“non constat de supernaturalitate”) of the supernatural. They did not rule that the supernatural was not present (“constat de non supernaturalitate”), just that from what they examined they could not find any evidence of the supernatural. It may sound the same but it is not and the Church uses very specific language (in Latin of course) when rendering judgment on the supernatural validity of an alleged apparition. Garabandal did not receive the kind of negative judgement that Medjugorje has received.

I do believe that in both cases the preternatural is present. I have seen archival footage from both apparitions and I am convinced that the preternatural was present in both cases. The preternatural is not the same as the supernatural. Only God is capable of the supernatural. Angels are capable of the the preternatural (levitations, apparitions, heightened awareness and knowledge, etc.) The only question remains to be answered is whether it was the holy angels or the demons that were present. My mind is already made up on Medjugorje but Garabandal is a much harder case to crack. But I find that it is not really important one way or the other. I find the Eucharistic presence of the Lord much more interesting and satisfying than the supernatural events associated with any apparition.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think we will know very soon what the Vatican rules regarding Medjugorje. I have a feeling that the Vatican will confirm the Bishop’s negative judgement. I have never had a good feeling about Medjugorje.

Regarding Garabandal, the local Bishops have ruled that they can find no evidence (“non constat de supernaturalitate”) of the supernatural. They did not rule that the supernatural was not present (“constat de non supernaturalitate”), just that from what they examined they could not find any evidence of the supernatural. It may sound the same but it is not and the Church uses very specific language (in Latin of course) when rendering judgment on the supernatural validity of an alleged apparition. Garabandal did not receive the kind of negative judgement that Medjugorje has received.

I do believe that in both cases the preternatural is present. I have seen archival footage from both apparitions and I am convinced that the preternatural was present in both cases. The preternatural is not the same as the supernatural. Only God is capable of the supernatural. Angels are capable of the the preternatural (levitations, apparitions, heightened awareness and knowledge, etc.) The only question remains to be answered is whether it was the holy angels or the demons that were present. My mind is already made up on Medjugorje but Garabandal is a much harder case to crack. But I find that it is not really important one way or the other. I find the Eucharistic presence of the Lord much more interesting and satisfying than the supernatural events associated with any apparition.

HT
Well spoken and very balanced.
Just a few comments.

The preternatural phenomenon apply to humans - angels/demons of course are pure spirits so cannot levitate for example. Perhaps what you meant is that they can somehow influence/enable humans to operate these gifts that normally humans cannot effect.

The preternatural phemonenon were clearly present at Garabandal (I do not know the history of Medjugorje to comment there but it seems likely).

Re Medjugorje there is always the possibility of course that what started out as divine/angelic ended up as something else. Humans with free will are involved after all. At Garabandal one or two of the children were caught out (by close family or religious members) sometimes faking an apparition-trance in their eagerness to relive the experience or to hasten its coming. After scolding from family members (and I believe Our Lady herself) they quickly abandoned this immature behaviour which signifies “spiritual greed” - a vice.

 

[anrmenchaca47]

I’ve read everything I could get my hands on about Medjugorje and I have to say your first point is weighty because the Bishop is on record early on stating that he was convinced that the…events were of a supernatural source. However, he also started to doubt and change his position soon after, citing some of the activities and statements of the seers and the Franciscans as being suspect. This is just my (name removed by moderator)ut from what I’ve read, but of all the objections and denouncements made by the Bishop, there is only one accusation which if it is true, mind my wording here, I’m saying if it is true and can’t be explained; is very damaging to the cause of approval for Medjugorje. I believe it was in one of Mr. Wrieble’s books, that the Bishop alleges that the visionaries were told at one point to deceive and disobey him about a certain disagreement by Our Lady, The Gospa. I think you’ll agree that if this is so, that would be very damaging.

All in all I think Medjugorje is great, I love it, I don’t think anyone should condemn it that’s for sure. and there is built right into it a day of proof, because the secrets of the visionaries are made known at appointed times in their lives. So, judgement can be reserved until those times without harming anything.

Was this on the website? Let me know please.

 

[HansTrappist]

HT
Well spoken and very balanced.
Just a few comments.

The preternatural phenomenon apply to humans - angels/demons of course are pure spirits so cannot levitate for example. Perhaps what you meant is that they can somehow influence/enable humans to operate these gifts that normally humans cannot effect.

The preternatural phemonenon were clearly present at Garabandal (I do not know the history of Medjugorje to comment there but it seems likely).

Re Medjugorje there is always the possibility of course that what started out as divine/angelic ended up as something else. Humans with free will are involved after all. At Garabandal one or two of the children were caught out (by close family or religious members) sometimes faking an apparition-trance in their eagerness to relive the experience or to hasten its coming. After scolding from family members (and I believe Our Lady herself) they quickly abandoned this immature behaviour which signifies “spiritual greed” - a vice.

Thanks for the clarification on the preternatural.

 

[brumano]

Was this on the website? Let me know please.

I’m a way more of a book reader than a website searcher, but I take it you mean the medjugorje website, I go there more than any other website except this one, I really love the monthly messages and it’s really great that you can send them to friends and family right from there, but no I did not get the blog you quoted from that website or any other, but i would not doubt that kind of material and a ton more like it exists on some websites. As I said in the quote I think it’s from one of the earlier books about medjugorje, I hope you’ll recall that I tried to word the entire post as carefully and as neutrally as I was able, as someone who basically believes in the authenticity of Medjugorje but also understands the need for caution and reserve on the part of the Church and the faithful.

Merry Christmas.

 

[EIRCOMNET]

Medjugorje is problem-ridden. Michael Davies did a study of it which can be downloaded. I am too busy at the moment to mention the problems. Disobedience is one major problem.

 

[adrift]

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

The OP was not asking for personnal opinions. Many have tried to provide it only to be called “Forum Police” ironically by a forum police.

As already stated, the Bishops have been consistant in their judgement. It has not been condemned but it has been discouraged. The ruling by the Bishops is that

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.

 

[Edward_Henry]

The OP was not asking for personnal opinions. Many have tried to provide it only to be called “Forum Police” ironically by a forum police.

I believe that the OP was not looking for a whole “lawyerlike” approach with quotes and links left and right which seems to convey,* “accept my position or else.” *

If these “many who have tried” knew when to give a helpful answer and when to back off, the whole issue of “Forum Police” would have never come up.

Respectfully,

 

[HansTrappist]

As already stated, the Bishops have been consistant in their judgement. It has not been condemned but it has been discouraged. The ruling by the Bishops is that:

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.

Below are the three possible categories promulgated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

1. constat de supernaturalitate (it is established supernatural)
2. constat de non supernaturalitate (it is established not supernatural)
3. non constat de supernaturalitate (it is not established supernatural)

You have placed Garabandal in the second category.

But I understand Garabandal to be in the third category based on Bishop Vilaplana’s letter which uses the phrase “no constaba”.

Big difference.