Garabandal Status?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dean24us
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thistle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thistle haven’t you also left out a category e.g. which one does Fatima belong to?
 
BobCatholic said:
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.
Click to expand...
You make good points 🙂
 
dean24us said:
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
Click to expand...
The postilion of the Church according to the Bishops is that it should not be promoted and that it is not proven that it is from a supernatural source. In other words it is unapproved no matter which category it falls under.
 
adrift said:
Your statement of what is a private revelation does not coincide with what the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
The private revelations in the scriptures like Luke ch.2,vs25thru38, that you replied confused about are not only taught by the church to be worthy of belief, they are taught as must be believed. I’m sure you can’t be totally confused about this, If the Church were to say tomorrow that Medjugorje or any of the others are “true” no Catholic could keep saying they are false or they are frauds, there is a reality to the extraordinary.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
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…?”
Click to expand...
The terms are very clear and not technical at all. You are right. I should have said there are 4 possibilities but I was actually focusing on the ones which do not constitute an approval. If it was approved we wouldn’t be discussing it here.

“non constat de supernaturalitate” does not mean that it is still under investigation. It means that a decision has been made that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings and the CDF supported the decision and said there is no need for further investigation. Do you dispute this because I can go back in the post and quote you the CDF?
 
continued…

Since you keep bugging me about the miracles this is from a book on Garabandal by F. SANCHEZ-VENTURA Y PASCUAL who certainly is not condemning the revelations.

The Miracle Prophesied
59.—The mystery of Garabandal will be cleared up the day of the miracle, the one which Conchita insistently announces and of which she knows many details.
We know that it will come about at 8:30 p.m. on a Thursday coinciding with an event of great importance for Christendom; we also know that it will fall on the feast-day of a saint who is indirectly connected with the Holy Eucharist; and that the miracle will be seen by everybody who comes to Garabandal or its surroundings on that day. What is more, we know that the Pope and Padre Pio will see it from wherever they happen to be; that the sick who are present will be cured, that sinners will be converted, that the miracle will last some fifteen minutes; that the Bishop will raise his prohibition beforehand, so that priests may be there; and
  • One “duro” is five pesetas. A five-duro or twenty-five peseta coin is about the size of a quarter.
If you disagree with anything above please specify.

Okay so under your thought process Pope John Paul II and Padre Pio saw the miracle but conspired to keep it secret thereby not allowing the Church to confirm the apparitions as geunine.
As it was supposed to be a public miracle how many sick present were cured. How many priests reported seeing it?
 
brumano said:
The private revelations in the scriptures like Luke ch.2,vs25thru38, that you replied confused about are not only taught by the church to be worthy of belief, they are taught as must be believed. I’m sure you can’t be totally confused about this, If the Church were to say tomorrow that Medjugorje or any of the others are “true” no Catholic could keep saying they are false or they are frauds, there is a reality to the extraordinary.
Click to expand...
The revelations in Luke are not Private.
Public Revelation. The Church teaches as de fide (of the Faith) that all that the Father desired to reveal for our salvation has been revealed in His Word, Jesus Christ. The Word communicated this Revelation to His Apostles, who either wrote it down or handed it on (traditio) in their preaching and teaching (1 Cor. 15:1-3, 2 Thes. 2:15). The deposit of the Faith, therefore, is to be found in the twin fountains of Public Revelation, Sacred Scripture and Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition…
Private Revelation. God continues to reveal Himself to individuals “not indeed for the declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of human acts” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II q174 a6 reply 3). Since it occurs after the close of Public Revelation the Church distinguishes the content of such particular revelations to individuals from the deposit of the Faith by calling it private revelation.
Click to expand...
You are at odds with what the Church teaches.
 
thistle said:
The terms are very clear and not technical at all. You are right. I should have said there are 4 possibilities but I was actually focusing on the ones which do not constitute an approval. If it was approved we wouldn’t be discussing it here.

“non constat de supernaturalitate” does not mean that it is still under investigation. It means that a decision has been made that there is no evidence of any supernatural happenings and the CDF supported the decision and said there is no need for further investigation. Do you dispute this because I can go back in the post and quote you the CDF?
Click to expand...
Thistle, forgive me (and perhaps others) if I am less interested in your own private interpretation of such ecclesiastical terms and more interested in the views of more expert/weighty sources/references whom you believe may represent your translation/interpretation of them.

To that end may I repeat my question:
Yes, please provide something concrete in the way of sources for your understanding of these technical juridic phrases. This seems to be at the root of the confusion here.
Thankyou.
 
adrift said:
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:
Click to expand...
. . . No - didn’t see the apology, (you actually had me looking back a little after post # 128 initially to see if you’d posted something along apologetic lines back there. . . :doh2:)

I don’t know how much time it takes or even how exactly the posts at CAF reach my screen, but there is a delay . When I started my reply (which ended up being post # 173) Post # 171 was showing as the last and most recent post in the thread. It happens frequently where my reply appears to be the next one in line while I’m writing it , but after I’ve posted a reply and go back to read the thread later, I can discover on occasion, up to 5 or 6 posts in between my reply and the point I began writing it (ie clicking on quote and typing a reply).

I would agree with you that if post # 172 had been reality to me before my reply then what I wrote in reply to post # 171 would’ve tended towards overkill . But that wasn’t the case, so we should steer clear of making any rash judgments and try to keep it real. As it was, I had to get ready for Mass so I only wasted about 15 minutes looking for the elusive “missing link” ( :)).

I also agree with your point that reading the thread is important. Actually, I read the entire thread which preceded this one and which ended up having to be canned by the moderators, and then I faithfully read every post on this thread before I posted # 127 ( which still constitutes roughly 70% of the thread to date).

Rather than being picky (pecky), I was indicating the precise point where my interest started to wane a little concerning the reading of your posts because the reply which addressed what I was saying was lacking in accuracy.

Additionally, I can only read so much of a thread like this, because people become emotional a lot of the time and we can often end up promoting or un-promoting purported events rather vehemently.

Since Apparitions/Private Revelations states that
. . . In the end the faithful are often left to fend for themselves in a perplexing sea of information. If the message is orthodox, the seer(s) of good reputation, the clergy favorable, the signs supportive, even without an official investigation the faithful can make a prudent judgment that it is credible. Certainly those who were present at the apparitions of Lourdes and Fátima, as well as those who believed in them prior to Church approval, had to have made such a judgment.
Click to expand...
. . . I believe it’s fair to say that most of us also interiorly form some kind of opinion regarding the veracity of particular purported events. That can be a sensitive area, where opinions aren’t so easily changed. Sometimes overly zealous attempts to “correct” someone on matters of private revelation, end up inadvertently attacking the personal virtue of their faith.

Thanks for pointing out the apology - I would’ve missed it for sure.

.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

🙂
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Thistle, forgive me (and perhaps others) if I am less interested in your own private interpretation of such ecclesiastical terms and more interested in the views of more expert/weighty sources/references whom you believe may represent your translation/interpretation of them.

To that end may I repeat my question:
Yes, please provide something concrete in the way of sources for your understanding of these technical juridic phrases. This seems to be at the root of the confusion here.
Thankyou.
Click to expand...
Why do you seem to want complex technical terms spewed out when it is very simple.
  1. Under investigation.
  2. No evidence of any supernatural happenings (in your mind you can add “so far” or “not yet”, albeit that makes no difference).
  3. Definitely not supernatural.
  4. Approved.
Number 2 is very clear to me. It means the apparitions have been thoroughly investigated and there is nothing in the evidence up to the time of the investigation that supports anything supernatural happening. That, however, is not a disapproval. If some NEW evidence comes to light that might overturn that decision then so be it.
How is that hard to understand?
 
thistle said:
Why do you seem to want complex technical terms spewed out when it is very simple.
  1. Under investigation.
  2. No evidence of any supernatural happenings (in your mind you can add “so far” or “not yet”, albeit that makes no difference).
  3. Definitely not supernatural.
  4. Approved.
Number 2 is very clear to me. It means the apparitions have been thoroughly investigated and there is nothing in the evidence up to the time of the investigation that supports anything supernatural happening. That, however, is not a disapproval. If some NEW evidence comes to light that might overturn that decision then so be it.
How is that hard to understand?
Click to expand...
Thistle, may I kindly repeat:
I (and possibly many others) are no longer seeking further explicitation of YOUR own personal interpretation of these technical Latin phrases. You have done that well already.

If you want to further influence objective readers re YOUR interpretation isn’t it time for you to provide respectable links/sources that back up what seems, at the moment, only your personal understanding of those terms? Your interpretations are contrary to the cursory research I (and others contributing here) have done on the matter.

I am willing to be corrected, but your own un-referenced, personal views alone won’t do that for me no matter how many times you repeat them or opine how obvious it is.
Thanks 👍
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Thistle, may I kindly repeat:
I (and possibly many others) are no longer seeking further explicitation of YOUR own personal interpretation of these technical Latin phrases. You have done that well already.

If you want to further influence objective readers re YOUR interpretation isn’t it time for you to provide respectable links/sources that back up what seems, at the moment, only your personal understanding of those terms? Your interpretations are contrary to the cursory research I (and others contributing here) have done on the matter.

I am willing to be corrected, but your own un-referenced, personal views alone won’t do that for me no matter how many times you repeat them or opine how obvious it is.
Thanks 👍
Click to expand...
So if my interpretation differs from your interpretation then mine must be wrong? Wow. I think that sums you up!
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Thistle, may I kindly repeat:
I (and possibly many others) are no longer seeking further explicitation of YOUR own personal interpretation of these technical Latin phrases. You have done that well already.

If you want to further influence objective readers re YOUR interpretation isn’t it time for you to provide respectable links/sources that back up what seems, at the moment, only your personal understanding of those terms? Your interpretations are contrary to the cursory research I (and others contributing here) have done on the matter.

I am willing to be corrected, but your own un-referenced, personal views alone won’t do that for me no matter how many times you repeat them or opine how obvious it is.
Thanks 👍
Click to expand...
Have you looked at the links provided?

Needimprovment for example?

It was from EWTN. I don’t at all see his interpretation contrary to any research contriubted by others here.
  1. Under investigation. This is not a judgement as such just the first step to a judgement. Obvious I would think.
    Now for the types of decisions first what Thistle said followed by what the EWTN site said.
  2. No evidence of any supernatural happenings (in your mind you can add “so far” or “not yet”, albeit that makes no difference).
  1. non constat de supernaturalitate (not established as supernatural).
Click to expand...
  1. Definitely not supernatural.
  1. constat de non supernaturalitate (established as not supernatural);
Click to expand...
  1. Approved.
  1. constat de supernaturalitate (established as supernatural),
Click to expand...
All this :slapfight: does not obliterate that the bishop gave a negative judgement. It doesn’t matter which one that is the bottom line: It is unapproved.
 
What was the status of Fatima before the Miracle of the Sun took place?
 
BobCatholic said:
Amen.

But it sure tickles the Garabandal supporter’s ears. And that’s the only reason they truly defend it. They love the tickling sensation.
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Forum Police:
"Submit all your Garabandal supporters or we’ll…"

🙂
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Forum Police:
"Submit all your Garabandal supporters or we’ll…"

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
"The Catholic Church may not have condemned those apparitions but we have, so back off!" 😉

🙂

To Jesus through Mary 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top