Garabandal Status?

[BobCatholic]

My question was never answered by any Garabandal supporters.

What message in Garabandal was not covered by any approved apparitions like Fatima, Lourdes, etc. ?

If the entire message was covered by approved apparitions, then it is just a huge waste of time defending Garabandal. Go and defend Fatima, Lourdes, etc. instead.

I suspect that the messages not covered by approved apparitions tickles the ears. It is not the defending of the message, but defending the tickling sensation…

 

[beehumble]

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.

You keep saying it was stated that JPII would witness the miracle; it was never explicitly stated that JPII would witness it as far as I recall from my readings on Garabandal. People have ASSUMED what was said referred to JPII, but that is their own assumption.

If it was stated explicitly by the visionaries, can you please cite a source such as Conchita’s diary perhaps, with a page number?

[As for ‘three more popes’, many don’t know that at times the seers said Our Lady spoke of three more popes, but at other times the seers said Our Lady spoke of four popes after Garabandal.

So one can not assume the third pope would see the miracle, because it might have been a reference to the fourth pope and not the third, in that particular context.]

Thanks and God bless you.

 

[adrift]

Pope Paul VI was pope at the time it was he who people thought it meant that the Pope would see it.

Interestingly, I found a book that seems to support this “vision”

The Miracle of the Illumination of All Consciences
It renders the letter:

1)All the Bishops of the Diocese from 1961 through 1970 agreed there was no supernatural validity for the Appartitions.

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 not
   oriety 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 is now finished, I accept the decision of my predecessor and I appropriate (agree with) the direction of the Holy See.

The Bishops says it happend long ago and that it is now finished.

The primary seer who must be alive for this event dies, thus exposing this alleged apparition as a hoax.

Wait and see when she dies they will say she will come back from the dead as her own apparition.

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.”

What he is pointing out is that the “supposed” apparition has ended.

 

[adrift]

Conchita asks Jesus: "What is the reason for “The Miracle?” And responds “to convert many people, to convert the ENTIRE WORLD and that way everyone will love Our Hearts.” That’s why

it will be the greatest miracle that God will work for the world.

The greatest miracle is the Resurrection of Jesus.

 

[HansTrappist]

The Bishops says it happend long ago and that it is now finished.

Yes, the apparition is finished.

But at least two supernatural events predicted there are still pending and could have easily been discredited by the death of the primary seer or discounted by the Vatican who has the date of this alleged “Miracle”. As long as these events are pending, the case will remain open as the Bishops would consider such a supernatural event “new phenomena.” If Garabandal was a closed case, then Bishop del Val would never have intiated an “interdisciplinary study in order to examine with greater profundity these phenomenon.”

Wait and see when she dies they will say she will come back from the dead as her own apparition.

Meh. That kind of sarcasm is not needed.

What he is pointing out is that the “supposed” apparition has ended.

Correct. But the Bishops are open to any “new phenomena.” And at least two supernatural events are pending and could have easily been discredited by certain conditions (death of primary seer or the blind man) or by the Vatican who has the date of the alleged “Miracle.” If this date had passed I am sure that they would have said something.

 

[adrift]

Meh. That kind of sarcasm is not needed.

Correct. But the Bishops are open to any “new phenomena.” And at least two supernatural events are pending and could have easily been discredited by certain conditions (death of primary seer or the blind man) or by the Vatican who has the date of the alleged “Miracle.” If this date had passed I am sure that they would have said something.

From the letter it is not evident that the Bishop is open to any new phenomena but considers the matter closed.
Sarcasm-: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain-
Satiric the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning. Nope I didn’t mean the opposite I meant that all of these things-(The Pope being the end times, Father Pio seeing it, the miracle and Joey receiving his eyesight, the seer dying- )will be explained away just as Father Pio was explained away.

 

[HansTrappist]

From the letter it is not evident that the Bishop is open to any new phenomena but considers the matter closed.
Sarcasm-: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain-
Satiric the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning. Nope I didn’t mean the opposite I meant that all of these things-(The Pope being the end times, Father Pio seeing it, the miracle and Joey receiving his eyesight, the seer dying- )will be explained away just as Father Pio was explained away.

What matter is closed?

It is evident from the Bishop’s letter (ewtn.com/library/bishops/garaband.htm) that he does consider the apparition finished. So do the seers for that matter.

But, if “the matter is closed” as you assert, then why did Bishop Juan Antonio del Val Gallo find it necessary to “initiate an interdisciplinary study in order to examine with greater profundity these phenomenon?” Now, this “interdisciplinary study” ended up coming to the same conclusion as “the previous findings by the bishops” which is to say that the ruling of “no consta de la sobrenaturalidad”, but why was it even necessary to open a new study again if, as you have asserted, the “matter is closed?” Why did this same Bishop del Val Gallo, in 1983, give Dr. Luis Morales of the original commission, permission to lecture in Santander’s largest conference hall defending the Garabandal events if, as you assert, “the matter is closed?”

Why is Bishop Vilaplana affirming that “in the six years of being Bishop of Santander there were no new phenomena” if, as you assert, the “matter is closed?” If the supernatural events predicted at Garabandal were to happen, then certainly they would be “new phenomena” that the Bishops would have to render judgement on. The Bishops can only render judgement on events that have happened, not future events that are pending. The judgement that they rendered on the past events does not dismiss the possibility that the prophesied future events may be of a supernatural nature. Until those future events are either discredited or happen, then Garabandal remains an open case. Had the Bishops initally ruled that Garabandal was “not supernatural” then you would have a valid argument. But as it stands, the Bishops simply ruled that the supernatural could not be established. Couple this fact to the fact that there are prophesied supernatural events pending, then it is incorrect to say that Garabandal is a done deal.

 

[adrift]

What matter is closed?

It is evident from the Bishop’s letter (ewtn.com/library/bishops/garaband.htm) that he does consider the apparition finished. So do the seers for that matter.

Your interpretation but not what he said

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 is now finished, I accept the decision of my predecessor and I appropriate (agree with) the direction of the Holy See.

He doesn’t want to give it notoriety? He doesn’t want to bring it up again that which has been settled.

But, if “the matter is closed” as you assert, then why did Bishop Juan Antonio del Val Gallo find it necessary to “initiate an interdisciplinary study in order to examine with greater profundity these phenomenon?” Now, this “interdisciplinary study” ended up coming to the same conclusion as “the previous findings by the bishops” which is to say that the ruling of “no consta de la sobrenaturalidad”, but why was it even necessary to open a new study again if, as you have asserted, the “matter is closed?”

You are putting the horse before the cart. He asserted the matter closed after this study. After the study he came to the same conclusions of his predecessor. Accpting their decisions and agreed with the direction of the Holy See that it was his decision.

Why did this same Bishop del Val Gallo, in 1983, give Dr. Luis Morales of the original commission, permission to lecture in Santander’s largest conference hall defending the Garabandal events if, as you assert, “the matter is closed?”

This is another Bishop. He was not the Bishop to declare it finished.

Why is Bishop Vilaplana affirming that “in the six years of being Bishop of Santander there were no new phenomena” if, as you assert, the “matter is closed?”

I have already address this. He was merely as he said doing a redact to a question asked him. What he is saying nothing has occured case closed.

the supernatural events predicted at Garabandal were to happen, then certainly they would be “new phenomena” that the Bishops would have to render judgement on. The Bishops can only render judgement on events that have happened, not future events that are pending. The judgement that they rendered on the past events does not dismiss the possibility that the prophesied future events may be of a supernatural nature. Until those future events are either discredited or happen, then Garabandal remains an open case. Had the Bishops initally ruled that Garabandal was “not supernatural” then you would have a valid argument. But as it stands, the Bishops simply ruled that the supernatural could not be established. Couple this fact to the fact that there are prophesied supernatural events pending, then it is incorrect to say that Garabandal is a done deal.

You keep changing what people say anyway. I have said repeatedly. It doesn’t matter which category. The end result is that it is not approved. If you don’t like that talk to the people on this site as they use it to determine what can and cannot be discussed.

 

[thistle]

You keep saying it was stated that JPII would witness the miracle; it was never explicitly stated that JPII would witness it as far as I recall from my readings on Garabandal. People have ASSUMED what was said referred to JPII, but that is their own assumption.

If it was stated explicitly by the visionaries, can you please cite a source such as Conchita’s diary perhaps, with a page number?

[As for ‘three more popes’, many don’t know that at times the seers said Our Lady spoke of three more popes, but at other times the seers said Our Lady spoke of four popes after Garabandal.

So one can not assume the third pope would see the miracle, because it might have been a reference to the fourth pope and not the third, in that particular context.]

Thanks and God bless you.

hahaha! You are like all who refuse to see that something is false. If predictions do not come true then it means everybody simply had the wrong interpretations. I already gave a link in an earlier post. If you won’t open it and read it then that’s your problem.
Both Garabandal and Medjugorie are a waste of everyone’s time.

The “supporters” of Garabandal in this thread have also so far failed to answer BobCatholic’s question which is what messages are conveyed in Garabandal that are not already in Church APPROVED revelations like Fatima, Lourdes, etc.

 

[HansTrappist]

He doesn’t want to give it notoriety? He doesn’t want to bring it up again that which has been settled.

Your interpretation but not what he said.

You are putting the horse before the cart. He asserted the matter closed after this study. After the study he came to the same conclusions of his predecessor. Accpting their decisions and agreed with the direction of the Holy See that it was his decision.

What “matter” is closed?

This is another Bishop. He was not the Bishop to declare it finished.

He is the local Bishop.

I have already address this. He was merely as he said doing a redact to a question asked him. What he is saying nothing has occured case closed.

You keep changing what people say anyway. I have said repeatedly. It doesn’t matter which category. The end result is that it is not approved. If you don’t like that talk to the people on this site as they use it to determine what can and cannot be discussed.

If the “case is closed” as you assert then why was another investigation ordered? You continue to fail to answer this obvious question. If the matter was closed then there would be no need to even open a second investigation.

And I am not “changing what people say.” Nonsense. I am quoting the Bishops.

Yes, I already agreed that it is unapproved. But you have somehow equated “unapproved” (which is a word I can find no where in official church documents used to classify apparitions) with “case closed.” That is not correct.

 

[adrift]

Your interpretation but not what he said.

I do not find it necessary to have a new public declaration that would give notoriety to something which happened so long ago.

Yeah he said it.

What “matter” is closed?

The judgment on this apparition according to what the Bishop said

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.
However, I find it opportune to redact this information as a direct response to the persons who ask for direction concerning this question, which is now finished, I accept the decision of my predecessor and I appropriate (agree with) the direction of the Holy See.

He is the local Bishop.

Really. I understand he is dead.

If the “case is closed” as you assert then why was another investigation ordered? You continue to fail to answer this obvious question. If the matter was closed then there would be no need to even open a second investigation.

I have answered this twice

You are putting the horse before the cart. He asserted the matter closed after this study. After the study he came to the same conclusions of his predecessor. Accepting their decisions and agreed with the direction of the Holy See that it was his decision.

And I am not “changing what people say.” Nonsense. I am quoting the Bishops.

with your twist but you also change what we write. I have said it is unapproved and nothing beyond that matters.

Yes, I already agreed that it is unapproved. But you have somehow equated “unapproved” (which is a word I can find no where in official church documents used to classify apparitions) with “case closed.” That is not correct.

No that is your interpretation of what is said. I have said it is unapproved. It is the Bishops who have said that they cannot verify that anything happened.

 

[adrift]

I wish to make clear my position. If the future predicted events do occur, then it would change things. But if’s are not what the Bishop has made his decision on, it is that decision that is final, as he states. I don’t believe that if the so called future events do not occur that the Bishops will alter what they have already proclaimed. That is why I believe the Bishop says it is finished.

 

[HansTrappist]

Really. I understand he is dead.

Don’t be silly. He was the local Bishop and the local Bishops get to make the decisions.

with your twist but you also change what we write. I have said it is unapproved and nothing beyond that matters.

What twist?

You say it is unapproved. Where does this term “unapproved” come from? Is it an official term used by the Church to classify the supernatural veracity of an alleged apparition? I asked this question earlier and you are ignoring it.

There are only three classifications given to the supernatural validity of an alleged appparition 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)

Garabandal is in category 3 and I provided citations earlier to document this fact.

The Bishops DID NOT say that Garabandal was “not supernatural” (category 2 above). Until they do, and given that prophesied supernatural events are pending, Garabandal will remain unapproved but subject to future study pending the outcome of the supernatural events that have been prophesied there. The apparition is unapproved but the matter is not closed. The only thing that is settled is the Bishop’s ruling on the supernatural veracity of the events that they studied. But this settled ruling on the past events DOES NOT preclude that the future prophesied events could be deemed supernatural.

 

[Edward_Henry]

Wow… Two thousand years have passed and certain attitudes do not change

http://www.worldoutreachministries.ca/life_graphics/9-jesus_pharisees.gif
"tickling, tickling, tickling…"

 

[beehumble]

hahaha! You are like all who refuse to see that something is false. If predictions do not come true then it means everybody simply had the wrong interpretations. I already gave a link in an earlier post. If you won’t open it and read it then that’s your problem.
Both Garabandal and Medjugorie are a waste of everyone’s time.

The “supporters” of Garabandal in this thread have also so far failed to answer BobCatholic’s question which is what messages are conveyed in Garabandal that are not already in Church APPROVED revelations like Fatima, Lourdes, etc.

Nobody predicted anything explicitly about JPII by name - he was not yet Pope and would not be for over a decade after Garabandal concluded in 1965. (If they did mention JPII back in 1965, that alone would be proof of its authenticity!! )

So no, any who do mention him by name in this regard must be interpreting things as they see fit, that is obvious. So the bottom line is no seer back in the early 1960s said JPII would see the miracle.

God bless you.

 

[adrift]

You say it is unapproved. Where does this term “unapproved” come from? Is it an official term used by the Church to classify the supernatural veracity of an alleged apparition? I asked this question earlier and you are ignoring it.Until they do, and given that prophesied supernatural events are pending, Garabandal will remain unapproved but subject to future study pending the outcome of the supernatural events that have been prophesied there. The apparition is unapproved but the matter is not closed. The only thing that is settled is the Bishop’s ruling on the supernatural veracity of the events that they studied. But this settled ruling on the past events DOES NOT preclude that the future prophesied events could be deemed supernatural.

Make up your mind either unapproved is a valid description or it is not. I don’t feel like playing your word game. You are being disingenuous.

 

[HansTrappist]

Make up your mind either unapproved is a valid description or it is not. I don’t feel like playing your word game. You are being disingenuous.

Make up your mind if by “unapproved” you are implying “can never be approved” and/or “case closed.”

Also, make up your mind if “unapproved” is an official term used by the Catholic Church to classify the supernatural veracity of an alleged apparition.

 

[adrift]

It occured to me that we have been accepting the categories of apparitions without asking an important question where do they come from. According to EWTN they are from SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH norms on Apparitons.

Recently the Congregations released Norms regarding the manner of proceedings in the discernment of presumed apparitions or revelations

This document list only two categories constat de supernaturalitate and non constat de supernaturalitate. If another document is available, I would be interested in it.

 

[HansTrappist]

It occured to me that we have been accepting the categories of apparitions without asking an important question where do they come from. According to EWTN they are from SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH norms on Apparitons.

Recently the Congregations released Norms regarding the manner of proceedings in the discernment of presumed apparitions or revelations

This document list only two categories constat de supernaturalitate and non constat de supernaturalitate. If another document is available, I would be interested in it.

That’s a good point.

This from Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normae_Congregationis), which also has the link to the document you cite (emphasis mine):

Normae Congregationis (NC) is a 1978 document written by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (SCDF) concerning guidelines for Catholic bishops in discerning claims to private revelation such as apparitions.

In November 1974, when the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith met for its annual Plenary Congregation, part of the discussion concerned problems relating to reported apparitions and revelations. New developments in theology and psychology prompted questions on how to evaluate claims of such events.

The eventual fruit of those discussions was a four-page document in Latin bearing the title “Normae S. Congregationis pro doctrina fidei de modo procedendi in diudicandis praesumptis apparitionibus ac revelationibus” (“Norms of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Manner of Proceeding in Judging Presumed Apparitions and Revelations”, hereinafter Normae Congregationis or NC). The document was approved by Pope Paul VI in February 1978 and was signed by Franjo Cardinal Seper and Archbishop Jérôme Hamer, then the prefect and secretary of SCDF.

The Holy See decided that the text was an “in-house” document intended for bishops, and as such did not need to be published. It was given to bishops “sub secreto” and not published in the Holy See’s official journal Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Though Normae Congregationis was originally issued sub secreto, excerpts from the text and translations of it appeared in print and on the internet from 1994 to 2010.

In 2012 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released the text to the public in Latin and five vernacular translations with a new preface by Cardinal William Levada, prefect of CDF.

There has been some discussion concerning NC’s presentation of the possible judgments that may be given by a diocesan bishop on a claim to private revelation.

There are traditionally three such possible judgments in Catholic theology:

Constat de supernaturalitate (“It is confirmed to be of supernatural origin”)
Non constat de supernaturalitate (“It is not confirmed to be of supernatural origin”)
Constat de non supernaturalitate (“It is confirmed to be of non-supernatural origin”)

Because NC mentions only the first two options, there is a question of whether or not CDF decided to forego the third “constat” and collapse its meaning into the second.

 

[HansTrappist]

It occured to me that we have been accepting the categories of apparitions without asking an important question where do they come from. According to EWTN they are from SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH norms on Apparitons.

Recently the Congregations released Norms regarding the manner of proceedings in the discernment of presumed apparitions or revelations

This document list only two categories constat de supernaturalitate and non constat de supernaturalitate. If another document is available, I would be interested in it.

And if I am reading this 2012 release of the 1978 document correctly it almost appears to be saying that the old way of classifying private revelation is changing with the release of this 1978 document (emphasis mine):

During the annual Plenary Session in November 1974, the Fathers of this Sacred Congregation examined the problems relative to presumed apparitions and to the revelations often connected with them and reached the following conclusions:

1. Today, more than in the past, news of these apparitions is diffused rapidly among the faithful thanks to the means of information (mass media). Moreover, the ease of going from one place to another fosters frequent pilgrimages, so that Ecclesiastical Authority should discern quickly about the merits of such matters.
2. On the other hand, modern mentality and the requirements of critical scientific investigation render it more difficult, if not almost impossible, to achieve with the required speed the judgments that in the past concluded the investigation of such matters (constat de supernaturalitate, non constat de supernaturalitate) and that offered to the Ordinaries the possibility of authorizing or prohibiting public cult or other forms of devotion among the faithful.

For these reasons, in order that the devotion stirred among the faithful as a result of facts of this sort might manifest itself in full communion with the Church, and bear fruits by which the Church herself might later discern the true nature of the facts, the Fathers judged that in this matter the following procedure should be promoted.

When Ecclesiastical Authority is informed of a presumed apparition or revelation, it will be its responsibility:

a) first, to judge the fact according to positive and negative criteria (cf. infra, no. I);

b) then, if this examination results in a favorable conclusion, to permit some public manifestation of cult or of devotion, overseeing this with great prudence (equivalent to the formula, “for now, nothing stands in the way”) (pro nunc nihil obstare).

c) finally, in light of time passed and of experience, with special regard to the fecundity of spiritual fruit generated from this new devotion, to express a judgment regarding the authenticity and supernatural character if the case so merits.

In fact, this 1978 document does not list the norms for classifying the “supernatural character” of private revelation. It alludes to them in paragraph 2 above but nowhere states them in this document.

Perhaps these norms for characterizing the supernatural character are given to the Bishops “sub secreto” and are not published in the Holy See’s official journal Acta Apostolicae Sedis?