Garabandal Status?

[beehumble]

Both Garabandal and Medjugorie are fraudulent.
Church decisions on both have already been made and that is that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings there.
Everyone should have the humility to accept the Church decisions.

Incorrect again (or did the Vatican Commission on Medjugorje rule already and I missed it?)
People seeking info on these apparitions, I suggest you do your own homework and ignore this person’s opinions.

God bless you.

 

[beehumble]

He made one error and that was the prediction which Pope would see it. The fact that Padre Pio is dead and the miracle has not happened is still acurate. If you can’t attack the facts, attack the person giving them.

It is believed Padre Pio did see the miracle.

So did Fr. Andreu: from a website on the topic:

One of the many priests to witness the events of Garabandal was Fr. Luis Maria Andreu, a young theology professor from Ona, Spain. On the night of August 8, 1961, while observing the visionaries in ecstasy, Fr. Luis cried out four times, “Miracle!”

On the drive home with friends later that night and into the next morning he exclaimed, “What a wonderful present the Virgin has given me! How lucky we are to have a mother like that in heaven… Today is the happiest day of my life!” Shortly after pronouncing these words he lowered his head and passed from this life to the next.

In a subsequent vision, the Virgin told the seers that Fr. Luis had seen her and a preview of the great Miracle and that he died of joy.

You might want to get some books on Garabandal (some can be found for free online too.)

God bless you.

 

[adrift]

It is believed Padre Pio did see the miracle.

I have addressed this. It makes Mary seem silly.

You might want to get some books on Garabandal (some can be found for free online too.)

God bless you.

You might want to read what others post before you make comments. I prefer to read about approved apparitions.

 

[adrift]

Fraudulent? That is a strong word to use. I have heard “strong” language regarding Medjugorje from the local bishop there, but to my knowledge I have never heard such language used with regard to Garabandal, at least not by the Church.

There is a huge difference between saying that an alleged apparition is established not supernatural (constat de non supernaturalitate) and saying that it is not established supernatural (non constat de supernaturalitate). Garabandal falls in the latter category. Garabandal was never established as “not supernatural”. The supernatural was “not established.” Again, big difference although a bit of a tongue twister.

Medjugorje, as I understand it, was determined to be not supernatural and was stated as such in a 1987 letter by Bishop Zanic.

Having the “seers” involved sign papers that they would not discuss the supposed “apparitions” says much about the status.

 

[HansTrappist]

Having the “seers” involved sign papers that they would not discuss the supposed “apparitions” says much about the status.

Which alleged apparition are you talking about? The Church uses specific Latin phraseology when rendering judgement on the supernatural validity of an alleged apparition. I base my interpretations solely on the statements of the local Bishops. After the local Bishops comes the Holy Father, who hardly ever rules against the decision of the local Bishop.

 

[adrift]

Which alleged apparition are you talking about?

The thread is Garabandal Status I think the answer is self evident

The Church uses specific Latin phraseology when rendering judgement on the supernatural validity of an alleged apparition. I base my interpretations solely on the statements of the local Bishops. After the local Bishops comes the Holy Father, who hardly ever rules against the decision of the local Bishop.

Yes Latin phraseology is used. In this case most base it on a letter that the Bishop sent in Spanish. EWTN interpreted that to mean

EWTN: It should be noted that this appears to correspond to the 3rd of the categories used by the Church since new norms were promulgated in 1978 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

Appears is the operative word. Others see it differently.
There have been accusations that it was improperly translated. CONVINCING EVIDENCE ON GARABANDAL
Gives another take on it which confirms that nothing supernatural occured. If anyone has something that the Bishops said in Latin I would love to see it.

 

[HansTrappist]

CONVINCING EVIDENCE ON GARABANDAL

Hardly “convincing.”

A site even more critical of Garabandal is UnityPublishing. This site (the tone of which I find rather terse) calls Garabandal “Satanic” (even though the Church has never gone that far). On that site you will find a link (unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/GarabandalDocs.html) to what purports to be an original copy of Bishop Vilaplana’s letter with the following relevant paragraph:

En la misa carta se me sugiere que, si lo estimo oportuno, publique una declaracion en la cual reafirme que no consta la sobrenaturalidad de las referidas apariciones, haciendo propias las unanimes posiciones de mis predecesores.

The phrase that I bolded above corresponds to the Latin classification non constat de supernaturalitate (“it is not established supernatural”). It all depends on where you place the “no”. Big difference between “no consta” and “consta no”. EWTN has correctly translated the Bishop’s letter.

 

[thistle]

Incorrect again (or did the Vatican Commission on Medjugorje rule already and I missed it?)
People seeking info on these apparitions, I suggest you do your own homework and ignore this person’s opinions.

God bless you.

Regarding Medjugorie, the CDF in Rome is investigating to see if the decision already made by the Church (the local Bishops are the competent Church authority) will be upheld or overturned. The existing Church decision remains valid and in force unless the CDF overturns it.

Regarding Garabandal, the CDF in Rome has already documented (referenced in this thread) that it will not overturn the decision made by the local Bishop (who is the competent Church authority).

 

[adrift]

En la misa carta se me sugiere que, si lo estimo oportuno, publique una declaracion en la cual reafirme que no consta la sobrenaturalidad de las referidas apariciones, haciendo propias las unanimes posiciones de mis predecesores.

The phrase that I bolded above corresponds to the Latin classification non constat de supernaturalitate (“it is not established supernatural”). It all depends on where you place the “no”. Big difference between “no consta” and “consta no”. EWTN has correctly translated the Bishop’s letter.

The phrase you quoted above is not Latin but Spanish and incorrectly quoted. It does not correspond to the Latin. The Spanish word is no constaba. My Spanish is limited but I have never heard of putting the no after a verb. That doesn’t sound right to me. No used in front of a verb generally is used to negate a verb. Yo creo. Meaning I believe will mean I do not believe with a no before creo. No is used in many different ways but after constaba Constaba is the imperfect of constar which means to be on record or to be evident. The imperfect is a past tense. So the translation would be it was not supernatural. It is an opinion that it equates with the Latin. It is why I requested a statements by the Bishops in Latin. Then there would not be opinion but fact. It all boils down to one thing. The Bishops have not authenticated it as being supernatural. They had the “girls” sign a paper that they would not talk about it. As Thistle has pointed out, the Bishops consider the matter closed.

 

[HansTrappist]

The phrase you quoted above is not Latin but Spanish and incorrectly quoted. It does not correspond to the Latin. The Spanish word is no constaba. My Spanish is limited but I have never heard of putting the no after a verb. That doesn’t sound right to me. No used in front of a verb generally is used to negate a verb. Yo creo. Meaning I believe will mean I do not believe with a no before creo. No is used in many different ways but after constaba Constaba is the imperfect of constar which means to be on record or to be evident. The imperfect is a past tense. So the translation would be it was not supernatural. It is an opinion that it equates with the Latin. It is why I requested a statements by the Bishops in Latin. Then there would not be opinion but fact. It all boils down to one thing. The Bishops have not authenticated it as being supernatural. They had the “girls” sign a paper that they would not talk about it. As Thistle has pointed out, the Bishops consider the matter closed.

You are correct, the matter is closed.

There just doesn’t seem to be any agreement on what “the matter” is.

I’ll go with EWTN’s translation of the Bishop’s letter, as I find the tone of the “Convincing Evidence on Garabandal” website cited above and that “UnityPublishing” website to be suspect, and I have no reason to believe that EWTN has mistranslated the Bishop’s letter.

Medjugorje was clearly given a negative decision from the beginning.

Garabandal, I am not so sure, as there is a big difference between a constat de non supernaturalitate and a non constat de supernaturalitate.

This doesn’t change the fact that both apparitions are unapproved.

 

[adrift]

You are correct, the matter is closed.

There just doesn’t seem to be any agreement on what “the matter” is.

I’ll go with EWTN’s translation of the Bishop’s letter, as I find the tone of the “Convincing Evidence on Garabandal” website cited above and that “UnityPublishing” website to be suspect, and I have no reason to believe that EWTN has mistranslated the Bishop’s letter.

Big difference between a constat de non supernaturalitate and a non constat de supernaturalitate.

It isn’t their translation but rather their interpretation. They do not say that it does correspond but that it appears to. There really isn’t any “Big” difference to the bottom line which is that it is unapproved that is the matter.

 

[HansTrappist]

It isn’t their translation but rather their interpretation. They do not say that it does correspond but that it appears to. There really isn’t any “Big” difference to the bottom line which is that it is unapproved that is the matter.

Again, I have no good reason to think that EWTN has mistranslated or misinterpreted the Bishop’s letter.

There is a big difference between saying that the events studied were “not supernatural” as opposed to “the supernatural was not established.” Two different matters, especially considering that certain supernatural events were predicted by the seers to occur in the future.

 

[adrift]

Again, I have no good reason to think that EWTN has mistranslated the Bishop’s letter.

As I have stated, they didn’t.

There is a big difference between saying that the events studied were “not supernatural” as opposed to “the supernatural was not established.” Two different matters, especially considering that certain supernatural events were predicted by the seers to occur in the future.

I have seen statements that say the Bishops did not believe a supernatural event occured. They didn’t exactly leave it open if they had the girls sign statements that they would not talk about it. Except for this letter I have never seen the Bishops judgement. The letter that EWTN relies on is not in Latin but Spanish. As you pointed out, the original would have been in Latin. That is the statement I would like to see. Than there would be no doubt about the status.

btw EWTN translates the disputed section this way

1. All the bishops of the diocese from 1961 through 1970 asserted that the supernatural character of the said apparitions, that took place around that time, could not be confirmed

 

[HansTrappist]

There are really only three possible explanations for any alleged apparition: the natural, the preternatural, or the supernatural.

It appears that Bishop Vilaplana could not establish the supernatural as an explanation. Had he ruled “established not supernatural” as opposed to “not established supernatural” then that would have meant that there was either a natural or preternatural explanation. But, to my knowledge, the Bishops never said positively that Garabandal had either a natural or preternatural explanation. Again, there are only three possible explanations for any apparition. If it is not supernatural, then it MUST be either natural or preternatural. I don’t believe the Bishops had enough evidence to come to a positive conclusion. They left it at “the supernatural has not been established.” Perhaps only the preternatural was present.

If I remember correctly, the primary seer was summoned to the Vatican in the 1970’s in order to be questioned and she gave the date of an alleged future supernatural event (“the Miracle”) to the Vatican. I think the Vatican would have said something if this date had passed, thus exposing Garabandal as an obvious hoax.

 

[HansTrappist]

I have seen statements that say the Bishops did not believe a supernatural event occured.

Where?

They didn’t exactly leave it open if they had the girls sign statements that they would not talk about it.

Having the seers sworn to secrecy is not uncommon with apparitions, including apparitions that are eventually approved.

The letter that EWTN relies on is not in Latin but Spanish. As you pointed out, the original would have been in Latin.

No, I never said anything about an original being in Latin. I mentioned that the norms used by the Church to render judgement on the supernatural veracity of an apparition are formulated in Latin. I am not familiar with the protocol for exactly how a Bishop states or references these norms when rendering judgement using the vernacular. Perhaps someone knows how that works?

 

[adrift]

I think the entire letter might be helpful

Some people have been coming directly to the Diocese of Santander (Spain) asking about the “alleged apparitions” of Garabandal, and above all for the position of the hierarchy of the Church concerning these apparitions.

I must communicate that:

1. All the bishops of the diocese from 1961 through 1970 asserted that the supernatural character of the said apparitions, that took place around that time, could not be confirmed.

1. In the month of December of 1977 Msgr. del Val, Bishop of Santander, in union with his predecessors, affirmed that in the six years of being Bishop of Santander there were no new phenomena.

1. Not withstanding, the same Msgr. del Val, the first years having passed in which there was confusion to enthusiasm, initiated an interdisciplinary study in order to examine with greater profundity these phenomenon. The conclusion of this study coincided with the previous findings by the bishops, which is to say, that it does not prove the supernaturality of said apparitions.

1. This study concluded during the days in which I took possession of the diocese in 1991. Taking advantage, in that same year, of a trip to Rome for the motive of making the ad limina visit, I presented said study to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and asked for guidance for pastoral activity concerning the case.

1. On Nov. 28, 1992, the Congregation sent me its response, consisting in, that after having examined attentively the mentioned documentation, it did not consider it opportune to intervene directly, removing the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop of Santander, this subject that belongs to him by right. Previous declarations of the Holy See agree in this finding.

In the same letter it was suggested, if I find it opportune, to publish a declaration in which it is re-affirmed that the supernaturality of the referenced apparitions was not proven, making my own the unanimous position of my predecessors.

1. Given that the declarations of my predecessors, who studied the case, have been clear and unanimous, I do not find it necessary to have a new public declaration that would give notoriety to something which happened so long ago. However, I find it opportune to redact this information as a direct response to the persons who ask for direction concerning this question, which I give finally, accepting the decisions of my predecessors and the direction of the Holy See.

1. In reference to the celebration of the Eucharist in Garabandal, following the dispositions of my predecessors, I only allow that it be celebrated in the parish church without reference to the alleged apparitions and with the permission of the current pastor, who has my confidence.

With the wish that this information is helpful to you, receive my cordial greeting in Christ,

Jose Vilaplana
Bishop of Santander

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.

 

[adrift]

No, I never said anything about an original being in Latin. I mentioned that the norms used by the Church to render judgement on the supernatural veracity of an apparition are formulated in Latin. I am not familiar with the protocol for exactly how a Bishop states or references these norms when rendering judgement using the vernacular. Perhaps someone knows how that works?

What ever it is the Latin I want to see by the Bishop.

 

[BobCatholic]

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?

Something’s got to tickle the ears here.

plays Jeopardy theme song as he waits for an answer from a Garabandal supporter

 

[mangy_dog]

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?

1. It is unknown.
2. 3 of the 4 seers are still alive and yes it would have to be in their lifetime. But, when?..that is still unknown. Not even the approved apparitions give that information.

 

[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?..

BC your question appears to assume that public intellectual content is the main or only purpose of such alleged apparitions. Therefore, of course, if one cannot see something new and interesting it serves no useful public purpose.

So, given your starting assumption, yes your observation is impeccably correct.