Garabandal Status?

[beehumble]

From studying Fatima, it is probable that without the Miracle of the Sun, it would not be ‘approved’ as of yet. Even with that greatest miracle since the times of the Apostles, it took another 13 years to get such approval!
One of several issues under investigation at the time: on that day of the miracle, Lucia testified that ‘Our Lady said the war would end today’ (meaning October 13, 1917) when in fact it did not end for another year.

And that points out the difficulty facing alleged apparitions such as Garabandal and Medjugorje. Seers sometimes don’t accurately repeat what they hear from a vision, or they unknowingly cloud it with their own (mis)understanding of what was actually said. In transmitting messages, they are not always perfect. So using their words alone as the only proof is very difficult, so absent of any great miracle or any outright theological error, the Church waits. And even with a great miracle, the Church patiently waits. Our Lady of Good Help in Wisconsin was only recently approved; the apparition was in 1859. The Pestigo fire miracle is associated with that apparition.

So until such time as the dates given in the alleged Garabandal and Medjugorje pass, I believe these will remain in the same status, although Medjugorje might be elevated to a Shrine soon. Those who think Medjugorje is real should be sure to put into practice even now its five key lessons: confession, Holy Communion/Mass, prayer, fasting, daily Bible reading. Of course, all Catholics should be doing these things anyway, especially since the Pope has recently emphasized these in this Year of Faith.

God bless you.

 

[BobCatholic]

http://netanimations.net/Moving-animated-police-chase-and-gun-fight.gif
Forum Police:
"Submit all your Garabandal supporters or we’ll…"

Not forum police. It is not against forum rules to defend an unapproved apparition. It is also not against forum rules to disagree with defending an approved apparition.

I also never threatened anyone (which your post suggests)

Unless you believe that if someone dares to have a differing opinion, they must be forum police?

 

[Edward_Henry]

Not forum police. It is not against forum rules to defend an unapproved apparition. It is also not against forum rules to disagree with defending an approved apparition.

Unless you don’t believe that people are allowed have differing opinions without being accused of being forum police?

It is not the* “differing opinions”* in a friendly discussion between Catholics that I object… it is the intensity and forceful zeal which raises up to comments such as,

But it sure tickles the Garabandal supporter’s ears. And that’s the only reason they truly defend it. They love the tickling sensation.

…which no longer seem as friendly opinions. It is as if we were saying: “Accept my ‘friendly’ warning or else.”
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Angry reprimands do not convince anyone. You could not have stopped the rain-soaked pilgrims on the way to the Cova de Iria on October of 1917 either… if armed Portuguese soldiers did not intimidate them, forceful *forum police *members standing on the road to the Cove could not have convince them to “wait for Church approval.”

Remember that many times the learned Pharisees tried to prevent the little uneducated jews from following the controversial Carpenter who was claiming to have been sent by God, and were not successful either.

"I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight." (Luke 10 :21)

I believe we should let Mother Church have the final word.

I pray this helps.

 

[BobCatholic]

it is the intensity and forceful zeal which raises up to comments such as,

I see, so people should not really believe what they say, they should just post without any intensity or zeal.

I should have been posting like Ben Stein from “Ferris Bueller’s day off” then?

Creative Jobs :: Careers for Graphic Designers, Copywriters, Social Media Managers, Proof Readers and More.

“Bueller…Bueller…”

It is as if we were saying: “Accept my ‘friendly’ warning or else.”

Never said it. Never implied it. You are putting words in my mouth. One does not get any meaningful exercise by jumping to conclusions.

Would you let a drug-addicted (addicted to tickles) friend continue pushing that needle (tickle, tickle…) into their arm? Or would you tell him the truth, even if they see it as harsh?

So you do not believe in “tough love” - You must believe that Paul was out of line for Rebuking Peter (I’m sure he wasn’t being nice about it!) and Jesus rebuking the Pharisees and Sadducees meets with your disapproval. “whitewashed tombs!!!”

Tough love is evil in your eyes.

You could not have stopped the rain-soaked pilgrims on the way to the Cova de Iria on October of 1917 either… if armed Portuguese soldiers did not intimidate them, forceful *forum police *members standing on the road to the Cove could not have convince them to “wait for Church approval.”

You are comparing apples to roast beef.

Garabandal is not an apparition in progress, so your comment does not apply here. We are not talking about any apparition in progress.

I believe we should let Mother Church have the final word.

Those who disbelieve in the authenticity of Garabandal already have… Garabandal believers haven’t. They keep thinking that the next bishop will declare it legit, after the bishop hasn’t already. In the meantime they say “don’t listen to the Church! The Church is lying!” “Not condemning is approval!”

Just like the homosexual activists who claim Jesus never condemned homosexual acts in the NT so they must be OK. My reply to that is “Neither did he apparently condemn pedophilia either, but I’m sure they rightly rail against the abuse scandal”

Remember where “not condemning = approval” comes from.

It is definitely the other guy speaking.

 

[Edward_Henry]

I see, so people should not really believe what they say, they should just post without any intensity or zeal.

I should have been posting like Ben Stein from “Ferris Bueller’s day off” then?

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/files/original/Save_Ferris_3.18.jpg

“Bueller…Bueller…”

Never said it. Never implied it. You are putting words in my mouth. One does not get any meaningful exercise by jumping to conclusions.

Would you let a drug-addicted (addicted to tickles) friend continue pushing that needle (tickle, tickle…) into their arm? Or would you tell him the truth, even if they see it as harsh?

So you do not believe in “tough love” - You must believe that Paul was out of line for Rebuking Peter (I’m sure he wasn’t being nice about it!) and Jesus rebuking the Pharisees and Sadducees meets with your disapproval. “whitewashed tombs!!!”

Tough love is evil in your eyes.

You are comparing apples to roast beef.

Garabandal is not an apparition in progress, so your comment does not apply here. We are not talking about any apparition in progress.

Those who disbelieve in the authenticity of Garabandal already have… Garabandal believers haven’t. They keep thinking that the next bishop will declare it legit, after the bishop hasn’t already. In the meantime they say “don’t listen to the Church! The Church is lying!” “Not condemning is approval!”

Just like the homosexual activists who claim Jesus never condemned homosexual acts in the NT so they must be OK. My reply to that is “Neither did he apparently condemn pedophilia either, but I’m sure they rightly rail against the abuse scandal”

Remember where “not condemning = approval” comes from.

It is definitely the other guy speaking.

Wow! Your “tough love” sounds very stern! It feels like love with a baseball bat!

Garabandal is not an apparition in progress, so your comment does not apply here. We are not talking about any apparition in progress.

That is easy talk in hindsight!

If you and the other "tough love" posters in this thread had been standing on the road to the Cova de Iria in 1917, it would have been an apparition in progress! And according to your tough love policy you would have ordered them not to go because it was not approved.
The question is: would you have been correct?.. or would you had been getting in God’s way??

Scary thought!!

Those Fatima pilgrims might have asked you not to *love them *so much.

 

[BobCatholic]

That is easy talk in hindsight!

This is a hindsight thread.

Garabandal’s apparitions are completed, and the church has ruled them as not having signs of being supernatural.

If you and the other "tough love" posters in this thread had been standing on the road to the Cova de Iria in 1917, it would have been an apparition in progress! And according to your tough love policy you would have ordered them not to go because it was not approved.
The question is: would you have been correct?.. or would you had been getting in God’s way??

Again, your comparison is not correct. You go beyond comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing apples to roast beef. Thus your point does not fit.

We are not talking about an apparition in progress. We are not talking about something that stopped a long time ago.

What would I do at Fatima while it was in progress? I’d check it out. I went to Conyers in 1995. I’d have an open mind since it was still ongoing.

But this is not the case with Garabandal. This is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and you don’t see or understand the difference

Go on. Find a thread about an apparition in progress - your comment would fit right in PERFECTLY there and would be an apt point.

But you’re out to lunch here.

This is yet another time you’re disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing, because you won’t read what I’m writing and this pattern is quite disturbing.

 

[adrift]

http://netanimations.net/Big-animated-moving-bear-cop-walking-toward-you.gif
"The Catholic Church may not have condemned those apparitions but we have, so back off!"



To Jesus through Mary

You have raised this red herring before besides Corki who said

For us “regular” Catholics, there isn’t really a difference between unapproved and condemned. Either way, we aren’t supposed to participate and we aren’t supposed to discuss it on CAF.

no one has said that Garabandal is condemned. We have maintained that it is unapproved you can’t address that truth so you make strawmen. Including the

the intensity and forceful zeal

which of course you don’t do at all

What was the status of Fatima before the Miracle of the Sun took place?

Irrelevant. Was it declared non constat de supernaturalitate? Did it take 50 years for the miracle? Are there others that have not had a final decision?

 

[adrift]

One of several issues under investigation at the time: on that day of the miracle, Lucia testified that ‘Our Lady said the war would end today’ (meaning October 13, 1917) when in fact it did not end for another year.

Do you have some evidence that she said “today” ? This site says only that the war would end.

It would also seem to contradict what Mary said on 13 July 1917.

 

[Edward_Henry]

But you’re out to lunch here.

There goes your *tough love language *again… How can anyone in this forum refuse to agree with you when your love just pours out and you say everything in such a “loving” way?

To Jesus through Mary

 

[BobCatholic]

There goes your *tough love language *again… How can anyone in this forum refuse to agree with you when your love just pours out and you say everything in such a “loving” way?

To Jesus through Mary

So saying someone is wrong is unloving. Got it.

 

[Edward_Henry]

So saying someone is wrong is unloving. Got it.

No Bob, I am afraid that you do not “get it” No matter how and in how many ways I have tried to tell you that this so called ***“tough love” ***comes across like “intellectual bullying”, it seems like you continuously circumvent the issue to justify your persistent approach.

I will not continue to write in this thread that seems to be a*** battle of egos *more than a Catholic exchange of spiritual insights. I was gone for two weeks and now that curiosity brought me back to look into this thread, I found… the same repetitive and persistent exchange going on!

As you can verify, I have not once expressed my personal belief in favor or against the apparition discussed in this thread… only the bullying approach by some members, which in order to make a point, I called the Forum Police approach.

But I have had** enough**. If in all these weeks, you (and a couple other members) have refused to “get it” you never will and… this is not the reason I come to this kind of forums. Good luck with your “tough love” approach.

 

[beehumble]

Do you have some evidence that she said “today” ? This site says only that the war would end.

It would also seem to contradict what Mary said on 13 July 1917.

Yes this is a well-known fact among those who study Fatima. It is covered extensively in the definitive work on Fatima:
Documents on Fatima & Memoirs of Sister Lucia by Martins

fatimafamily.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_2&products_id=42

I don’t see any contradiction with what Our Lady said in July 1917, and the subject was what Lucia reported as words of Our Lady on October 13, 1917, not what Our Lady said on another date, so any contradictions if they existed would be irrelevant and would only serve to compound Lucia’s mistake.

An online account not as complete as in the book cited above is here - go to footnote on page 89:

docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:nEsxMlRbivoJ:www.srlucia.com/BookPdf/ch18.pdf+%22Dr.+Manuel+Formigao%22+lucia+interview&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgz2OfH8nisJmToCKVt8w-jTGRtsPqvfjauDQC6lSlomf4jJLkK8BNcBqgiGSCIaCsiHUtyhcJk6ZEmfJsYluXTDEYYMhZQ5kvM0mbVPsAlmtCE7ctLbsfoHVZ_wFkw33xF81Ii&sig=AHIEtbTvaX9cjhA4LLOf71ky5J1L9nx8PA

God bless you.

 

[HansTrappist]

Garabandal’s apparitions are completed, and the church has ruled them as not having signs of being supernatural.

Yes, the apparitions are completed. The Bishops have ruled on them. Just what that ruling is seems to be the confusing part.

The following link (unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/GarabandalDocs.html) purports to contain original documents from the Bishops of Garabandal. One of these documents dated July 8, 1965 from Bishop Eugenio Beitia Aldazabal translates as (emphasis mine):

La Comision, que entiende en la calificacion de los hechos, no ha encontrado razones para modificar el juicio ya emitido, opinando no consta de la sobrenaturalidad de log fenomenos, que ha examinado cuidadosamente.

Here, Bishop Eugenio uses the phrase “no consta de la sobrenaturalidad” which translates as “no evidence of the supernatural” and which corresponds exactly to the Latin phrase " non constat de supernaturalitate".

UnityPublishing also includes a purported original document from Bishop Lachiondo dated October 9, 1968 which states:

“Que los dos primeros Prelados coincidiero,n en que **no consta de la sobrenaturalidad **de los fenomenos que ha examinado cuidadosamentela Comision instituida para su estudio; y el ultimo Prelado, despues de habet tratado todo el asunto con la Santa Serle, afirmo que todos los hechos acaecidos en dicha localidad tienen una explicacion natural”

Here, again, we find the phrase “no consta de la sobrenaturalidad.” We also find that Bishop Lachiondo believes that the apparitions have a natural explanation (“una explicacion natural”).

All of the rulings of the local Bishops were based on the original Commission sanctioned by Bishop Eugenio Beitia Aldazabal. Now, Geoffrey Groesbeck comments on this initial inquiry stating:

"What do we know for certain of this initial query? The commission visited the village briefly and only three times, and never questioned the visionaries, their parents or the parish priest, and carefully avoided anyone who might have given favourable testimony.

No questions regarding the apparitions themselves were put forth; those that were asked were of a general nature, e.g. the way of life in Garabandal, the social activities of its inhabitants, and so on. Not only did the priest on the commission resign, but two decades later its chief medical examiner, Dr Luis Morales Noriega - with the permission of the bishop at the time (the late Juan Antonio del Val Gallo) - publicly reversed his original negative position, after having received and asked for a miraculous sign.

A second and a then third study (1986-91) were commissioned by the same Bishop del Val (ironically who was the priest on the original commission). The findings of the first of these two commissions were neither finalized nor sent to the Vatican.

The results of the second investigation - started by Bishop del Val and transferred, upon his retirement in 1991, to the former bishop - Jose Vilaplana, eventually were sent to Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) at the Vatican, and have not yet been made public.

The investigation continues, with additional materials having been sent to the Vatican within the past few years. However, no official pronouncement has been made, although recent rulings at the local level by various bishops on aspects of Garabandal (e.g. lifting of the ban on saying Mass at the Pines, declarations of theological conformity of the messages of Garabandal with the Church’s teachings) have been uniformly positive."(garabandal.com/special-features/churches-position)

You also have the fact that an eyewitness to the apparitions named Father Ramon Andreu has stated that:

" La fecha del aviso es desconocida, la del milagro la saben Conchita, el Obispado de Santander, y el Papa a través de la congregación del Santo Oficio, Conchita lo declaró en Roma ante este organismo vaticano." (“The date of the warning is unknown, but Conchita, the Bishop, and the Pope know the date of the Miracle, as does the congregation of the Holy Office. Conchita declared it in Rome before this Vatican organization.”)(stjosephpublications.com/book_manuscripts_pages/Fr_Ramons_Diary_Spanish_2.htm)

So, just from the little research I have done on this alleged apparition, it would seem that although it is accurate to state that Garabandal is unapproved, the Church does not seem ready to make a definitive proclamation as long as the prophesied “Miracle” (and “Warning”) are still pending.

 

[BobCatholic]

So, just from the little research I have done on this alleged apparition, it would seem that although it is accurate to state that Garabandal is unapproved,

And that is not enough?

OK.

 

[HansTrappist]

And that is not enough?

OK.

But you are acting like Garabandal is a done deal, while certain predicted supernatural events are pending there. Garabandal will remain open until: A. The predicted supernatural phenomena take place or B. The primary seer who must be alive for this event dies, thus exposing this alleged apparition as a hoax. The Vatican is also said to have been given the date of this alleged “Miracle” when the primary seer was summoned to the Vatican years ago. Surely, if this alleged date had passed, I am sure the Vatican would have said something.

So, I have no problem saying that Garabandal is “unapproved” although to imply that Garabandal is a done deal simply because it is “unapproved” is not consistent with the statements of the local Bishops over the years. A careful reading of the words of the local Bishops clearly indicates that they have reserved judgement on the supernatural validity of the events, stating that the supernatural veracity of the events they studied could not be established (“no consta de la sobrenaturalidad”).

And that brings me to another point. We have to be careful about the language we use to classify these alleged apparitions. I have yet to see an official Church document that uses the classification “unapproved.” So where does this term “unapproved” come from? Is this an official term used by the Church to classify apparitions? And, assuming that this is an official term used by the Church, does the fact that an apparition is classified “unapproved” mean that it is not capable of being approved in the future? I am not a Canon lawyer, so perhaps someone out there could answer this.

As far as I know, there are only three ways of classifying the supernatural validity of an alleged apparition, based on the norms propagated 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)

Until the local Bishops say that Garabandal was “not supernatural” then this case will remain open to eventual approval. This is why in Bishop Vilaplana’s letter (ewtn.com/library/bishops/garaband.htm) he includes these two key paragraphs:

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.
2. 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 [no consta] the supernaturality of said apparitions

Obviously, if Garabandal was closed from the first investigation, then Bishop del Val would not have initiated another “interdisciplinary study in order to examine with greater profundity these phenomenon.” Certainly, the fact that the Bishop is even mentioning that “there were no new phenomena” indicates that they would be interested in studying any “new phenomena.”

 

[adrift]

Yes this is a well-known fact among those who study Fatima. It is covered extensively in the definitive work on Fatima:
Documents on Fatima & Memoirs of Sister Lucia by Martins

fatimafamily.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_2&products_id=42

I don’t see any contradiction with what Our Lady said in July 1917, and the subject was what Lucia reported as words of Our Lady on October 13, 1917, not what Our Lady said on another date, so any contradictions if they existed would be irrelevant and would only serve to compound Lucia’s mistake.

An online account not as complete as in the book cited above is here - go to footnote on page 89:

docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:nEsxMlRbivoJ:www.srlucia.com/BookPdf/ch18.pdf+%22Dr.+Manuel+Formigao%22+lucia+interview&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgz2OfH8nisJmToCKVt8w-jTGRtsPqvfjauDQC6lSlomf4jJLkK8BNcBqgiGSCIaCsiHUtyhcJk6ZEmfJsYluXTDEYYMhZQ5kvM0mbVPsAlmtCE7ctLbsfoHVZ_wFkw33xF81Ii&sig=AHIEtbTvaX9cjhA4LLOf71ky5J1L9nx8PA

God bless you.

I have the book that is why I questioned the accuracy of your statement.

 

[thistle]

But you are acting like Garabandal is a done deal, while certain predicted supernatural events are pending there. Garabandal will remain open until: A. The predicted supernatural phenomena take place or B. The primary seer who must be alive for this event dies, thus exposing this alleged apparition as a hoax. The Vatican is also said to have been given the date of this alleged “Miracle” when the primary seer was summoned to the Vatican years ago. Surely, if this alleged date had passed, I am sure the Vatican would have said something.

So, I have no problem saying that Garabandal is “unapproved” although to imply that Garabandal is a done deal simply because it is “unapproved” is not consistent with the statements of the local Bishops over the years. A careful reading of the words of the local Bishops clearly indicates that they have reserved judgement on the supernatural validity of the events, stating that the supernatural veracity of the events they studied could not be established (“no consta de la sobrenaturalidad”).

And that brings me to another point. We have to be careful about the language we use to classify these alleged apparitions. I have yet to see an official Church document that uses the classification “unapproved.” So where does this term “unapproved” come from? Is this an official term used by the Church to classify apparitions? And, assuming that this is an official term used by the Church, does the fact that an apparition is classified “unapproved” mean that it is not capable of being approved in the future? I am not a Canon lawyer, so perhaps someone out there could answer this.

As far as I know, there are only three ways of classifying the supernatural validity of an alleged apparition, based on the norms propagated 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)

Until the local Bishops say that Garabandal was “not supernatural” then this case will remain open to eventual approval. This is why in Bishop Vilaplana’s letter (ewtn.com/library/bishops/garaband.htm) he includes these two key paragraphs:

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.
2. 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 [no consta] the supernaturality of said apparitions

Obviously, if Garabandal was closed from the first investigation, then Bishop del Val would not have initiated another “interdisciplinary study in order to examine with greater profundity these phenomenon.” Certainly, the fact that the Bishop is even mentioning that “there were no new phenomena” indicates that they would be interested in studying any “new phenomena.”

As I pointed out in an earlier post the predicted Miracle was to be witnessed by Pope John Paul II and Padre Pio. I ask you, are you suggesting that they both witnessed the Miracle but refused to confirm it leaving the Church unable to approve the revelations when that would have been the ideal time for the Church to approve them. Instead they kept quiet allowing the CDF to support the local Bishop’s decision that they found nothing to show anything supernatural happened to stand. You don’t have to be a person of faith to see that makes no sense at all. It would be pretty obvious to a 5-year old that the predicted Miracle did not take place!

 

[EIRCOMNET]

As I pointed out in an earlier post the predicted Miracle was to be witnessed by Pope John Paul II and Padre Pio. I ask you, are you suggesting that they both witnessed the Miracle but refused to confirm it leaving the Church unable to approve the revelations when that would have been the ideal time for the Church to approve them. Instead they kept quiet allowing the CDF to support the local Bishop’s decision that they found nothing to show anything supernatural happened to stand. You don’t have to be a person of faith to see that makes no sense at all. It would be pretty obvious to a 5-year old that the predicted Miracle did not take place!

 

[EIRCOMNET]

QUOTE=thistle;10212544]As I pointed out in an earlier post the predicted Miracle was to be witnessed by Pope John Paul II and Padre Pio. I ask you, are you suggesting that they both witnessed the Miracle but refused to confirm it leaving the Church unable to approve the revelations when that would have been the ideal time for the Church to approve them. Instead they kept quiet allowing the CDF to support the local Bishop’s decision that they found nothing to show anything supernatural happened to stand. You don’t have to be a person of faith to see that makes no sense at all. It would be pretty obvious to a 5-year old that the predicted Miracle did not take place!

I had decided to take myself off from this forum but here goes: firstly nobody ever said that Pope JP2 witnessed the Great Miracle. Many people wrongly interpreted the prophecy and indeed at a Garabandal meeting a year before JP 2’s death I found myself compelled to warn against this interpretation.

Secondly as many people regarded Padre Pio as a prophet (quite rightly so) he would not want to be seen pronouncing on an unapproved apparition ahead of any judgement by the Church. everything he did re Garabandal he did privately.

Another point: both Joey Lomangino & Conchita ( a young woman) continued to believe in Garabandal ( Joey-for the first time) having met with Padre Pio. Padre Pio converted hardened sinners & committed atheists; is it likely that he would not have had an effect on both of those?

And before anyone asks how do I know Conchita visited Padre Pio,let me say that apart from my normal grapevine knowledge, I was at a talk given by Fr Eusebio from Padre Pio’s
monastery & in the course of that talk he admitted that Padre Pio had talked with Conchita. Joey of course was photographed with Padre Pio and had little or no interest in Garabandal prior to his meeting with P. Pio, in fact he didn’t even want to go there but his friend (relative?) insisted and they agrred to ask P Pio first whether they should go there.

a lot of the problems re Garabandal arise from the fact that people make statements without having fully studied the events. I freely admit that the whole situation is complex and may be hard going if you don’t believe in the first place, but it is an important question and I would invite people who have an interest to do a full study and not be put off by misleading interpretations

 

[thistle]

**

QUOTE=thistle;10212544]As I pointed out in an earlier post the predicted Miracle was to be witnessed by Pope John Paul II and Padre Pio. I ask you, are you suggesting that they both witnessed the Miracle but refused to confirm it leaving the Church unable to approve the revelations when that would have been the ideal time for the Church to approve them. Instead they kept quiet allowing the CDF to support the local Bishop’s decision that they found nothing to show anything supernatural happened to stand. You don’t have to be a person of faith to see that makes no sense at all. It would be pretty obvious to a 5-year old that the predicted Miracle did not take place!

I had decided to take myself off from this forum but here goes: firstly nobody ever said that Pope JP2 witnessed the Great Miracle. Many people wrongly interpreted the prophecy and indeed at a Garabandal meeting a year before JP 2’s death I found myself compelled to warn against this interpretation.

Secondly as many people regarded Padre Pio as a prophet (quite rightly so) he would not want to be seen pronouncing on an unapproved apparition ahead of any judgement by the Church. everything he did re Garabandal he did privately.

Another point: both Joey Lomangino & Conchita ( a young woman) continued to believe in Garabandal ( Joey-for the first time) having met with Padre Pio. Padre Pio converted hardened sinners & committed atheists; is it likely that he would not have had an effect on both of those?

And before anyone asks how do I know Conchita visited Padre Pio,let me say that apart from my normal grapevine knowledge, I was at a talk given by Fr Eusebio from Padre Pio’s
monastery & in the course of that talk he admitted that Padre Pio had talked with Conchita. Joey of course was photographed with Padre Pio and had little or no interest in Garabandal prior to his meeting with P. Pio, in fact he didn’t even want to go there but his friend (relative?) insisted and they agrred to ask P Pio first whether they should go there.

a lot of the problems re Garabandal arise from the fact that people make statements without having fully studied the events. I freely admit that the whole situation is complex and may be hard going if you don’t believe in the first place, but it is an important question and I would invite people who have an interest to do a full study and not be put off by misleading interpretations**

Its not hard to interpret what was said. It was stated that both Pope John Paul II and Padre Pio would witness it. Obviously they did not because it did not happen and to suggest that the two who would have been the most credible witnesses in the Church approval process would say nothing is frankly ridiculous.