Garabandal Status?

[thistle]

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.

You are correct in that JP II was not specifically named but it was clear even to supporters of Garabandal that JP II was the Pope meant by Conchita. Why is that you might ask? Well if you read her diaries she states Padre Pio and the Pope would witness the Miracle wherever they are at the time. Prior to that upon the death of Pope John XXIII Conchita stated there would be only three more Popes - the 3 after John XXIII were Paul VI, John Paul I (for 33 days) and John Paul II. As the first 2 did not witness any Miracle that leaves only one Pope - John Paul II.
Now I see this a problem for Garabandal. First our current Pope Benedict XVI is the 4th Pope after the death of John XXIII so that prediction failed. Then none of the Popes witnessed the Miracle so that prediction failed.
I have heard that supporters so desperate to get round the failed prediction are now claiming when Conchita said the Pope and Padre Pio would witness it wherever they were that that includes Heaven. Give us a break. Everyone in Heaven would witness such a miracle so why single out and specify 2 individuals.
These predictions have more holes in them than a colander and have clearly failed.

 

[beehumble]

You are correct in that JP II was not specifically named but it was clear even to supporters of Garabandal that JP II was the Pope meant by Conchita. Why is that you might ask? Well if you read her diaries she states Padre Pio and the Pope would witness the Miracle wherever they are at the time. Prior to that upon the death of Pope John XXIII Conchita stated there would be only three more Popes - the 3 after John XXIII were Paul VI, John Paul I (for 33 days) and John Paul II. As the first 2 did not witness any Miracle that leaves only one Pope - John Paul II.
Now I see this a problem for Garabandal. First our current Pope Benedict XVI is the 4th Pope after the death of John XXIII so that prediction failed. Then none of the Popes witnessed the Miracle so that prediction failed.
I have heard that supporters so desperate to get round the failed prediction are now claiming when Conchita said the Pope and Padre Pio would witness it wherever they were that that includes Heaven. Give us a break. Everyone in Heaven would witness such a miracle so why single out and specify 2 individuals.
These predictions have more holes in them than a colander and have clearly failed.

And this is where an interpretation is being made by those selectively reading certain excerpts from the writings of the seers. For those writings also mention that Our Lady also said there would be four more popes after Garabandal, which would mean Benedict. At one point Conchita spoke something like this: …three more popes, well Our Lady actually said four popes but then when speaking of these often mentioned three because one would have a short reign…

So at least once Conchita said Our Lady reportedly said there would be four more popes, so it is not at all clear JPII is the one who would witness the miracle.

(And since the date for the miracle has not yet arrived and we are on the 4th pope, it can still happen.
Indeed, the miracle sounds much like the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary promised by Our Lady at Fatima, since Conchita claimed Jesus said of the miracle,“Thus, all will love Our Hearts.” In May 2010 Benedict prayed at Fatima for Our Lady’s promised Triumph of her Immaculate Heart to come before the centenary anniversary of Fatima, which is 2017.)

God bless you.

 

[thistle]

And this is where an interpretation is being made by those selectively reading certain excerpts from the writings of the seers. For those writings also mention that Our Lady also said there would be four more popes after Garabandal, which would mean Benedict. At one point Conchita spoke something like this: …three more popes, well Our Lady actually said four popes but then when speaking of these often mentioned three because one would have a short reign…

So at least once Conchita said Our Lady reportedly said there would be four more popes, so it is not at all clear JPII is the one who would witness the miracle.

(And since the date for the miracle has not yet arrived and we are on the 4th pope, it can still happen.
Indeed, the miracle sounds much like the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary promised by Our Lady at Fatima, since Conchita claimed Jesus said of the miracle,“Thus, all will love Our Hearts.” In May 2010 Benedict prayed at Fatima for Our Lady’s promised Triumph of her Immaculate Heart to come before the centenary anniversary of Fatima, which is 2017.)

God bless you.

Before writing my earlier post I re-read Conchita’s diary and I see nothing in it about 4 Popes. When did she say that and why is it not in the diary?

For the sake of discussion are you therefore saying that Pope Benedict will be the one to witness the Miracle, and secondly, he will be the last Pope?

 

[beehumble]

Before writing my earlier post I re-read Conchita’s diary and I see nothing in it about 4 Popes. When did she say that and why is it not in the diary?

For the sake of discussion are you therefore saying that Pope Benedict will be the one to witness the Miracle, and secondly, he will be the last Pope?

How can anyone know? Only God knows the future, and those He chooses to reveal it, and He did not reveal it to me!!!

I find it interesting the Pope in 2010 at Fatima spoke of the long-anticipated Triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart by concluding his remarks with a reference to the hundredth anniversary of Fatima (2017):

“We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete…May the seven years which separate us from the centenary of the apparitions hasten the fulfillment of the prophecy of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to the glory of the Most Holy Trinity.” - Holy Mass, Homily of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI given at the Esplanade of the Shrine of Our Lady of Fátima, Portugal, Thursday, 13 May 2010 before a crowd of 500,000.

God bless you.

 

[adrift]

Before writing my earlier post I re-read Conchita’s diary and I see nothing in it about 4 Popes. When did she say that and why is it not in the diary?

How can anyone know? Only God knows the future, and those He chooses to reveal it, and He did not reveal it to me!!!

You did not answer the question of where it can be found in her writings about a 4th Pope? He didn’t ask you to predict but what was claimed that was revealed.

 

[EIRCOMNET]

Before writing my earlier post I re-read Conchita’s diary and I see nothing in it about 4 Popes. When did she say that and why is it not in the diary?

For the sake of discussion are you therefore saying that Pope Benedict will be the one to witness the Miracle, and secondly, he will be the last Pope?

No definite pope was named . The prophecy was that there would be three more popes after Pope John and then would come the" end of the times" which can be interpreted as the end of an epoch/era. there is a learned article written about it many years ago by a father francois Turner, it should be possible to google it.

There was never a mention of 4 popes by Conchita; there was a reference to this in a German book but I have never seen this anywhere else.

A lot of people who followed Garabandal made their own of the prophecy 7 decided that it must refer to J P 2 as the pope who would see the Miracle.

 

[EIRCOMNET]

The link to Fr Turner is: garabandal.us/prph_lastpope.html

 

[beehumble]

You are correct in that JP II was not specifically named but it was clear even to supporters of Garabandal that JP II was the Pope meant by Conchita. Why is that you might ask? Well if you read her diaries she states Padre Pio and the Pope would witness the Miracle wherever they are at the time. Prior to that upon the death of Pope John XXIII Conchita stated there would be only three more Popes - the 3 after John XXIII were Paul VI, John Paul I (for 33 days) and John Paul II. As the first 2 did not witness any Miracle that leaves only one Pope - John Paul II.
Now I see this a problem for Garabandal. First our current Pope Benedict XVI is the 4th Pope after the death of John XXIII so that prediction failed. Then none of the Popes witnessed the Miracle so that prediction failed.
I have heard that supporters so desperate to get round the failed prediction are now claiming when Conchita said the Pope and Padre Pio would witness it wherever they were that that includes Heaven. Give us a break. Everyone in Heaven would witness such a miracle so why single out and specify 2 individuals.
These predictions have more holes in them than a colander and have clearly failed.

This is not correct - particularly the underlined/ bolded parts.

It is not at all evident to anybody who studies Garabandal that Conchita meant JPII would see the miracle - the ‘three more popes’ statement is erroneously being conflated here with the ‘pope would see the miracle wherever he is’ statement. The two statements are separate, independent as far as I can tell.

The pope would see it wherever he is most likely refers to whoever is pope at the time of the miracle’s occurrence.

As for JPII being the last pope, that again was not said. In fact, the statement said ‘three more popes and it would be the end of the times but not the end of the world’ - so here the end of times is being contrasted, not equated, with the end of the world. And since we know there will always be a pope, if after the end of the times, the world continues, as is clearly stated, then there is also a pope while the world continues - this could refer to JPII or a fourth pope. So just on plain reading of the two statements w/o erroneously conflating them together, a pope after the third pope is entirely possible and seems probable.

God bless you.

 

[brumano]

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.

 

[brumano]

The revelations in Luke are not Private.

No they are not now, but they were then. So too are the revelations from the Gospel reading last Sunday about the Magii, private, made not just public but universally known as holy truth .

You are at odds with what the Church teaches.

I don’t know, to accept this I would have to accept your private revelations about me.

 

[adrift]

I don’t know, to accept this I would have to accept your private revelations about me.

No what you have to accept is Church Teaching.

 

[HansTrappist]

]

 

[thistle]

This is not correct - particularly the underlined/ bolded parts.

It is not at all evident to anybody who studies Garabandal that Conchita meant JPII would see the miracle - the ‘three more popes’ statement is erroneously being conflated here with the ‘pope would see the miracle wherever he is’ statement. The two statements are separate, independent as far as I can tell.

The pope would see it wherever he is most likely refers to whoever is pope at the time of the miracle’s occurrence.

As for JPII being the last pope, that again was not said. In fact, the statement said ‘three more popes and it would be the end of the times but not the end of the world’ - so here the end of times is being contrasted, not equated, with the end of the world. And since we know there will always be a pope, if after the end of the times, the world continues, as is clearly stated, then there is also a pope while the world continues - this could refer to JPII or a fourth pope. So just on plain reading of the two statements w/o erroneously conflating them together, a pope after the third pope is entirely possible and seems probable.

God bless you.

Its a clear unambiguous statement by Conchita that after the death of John XXIII there will only be three more Popes and we are now on the 4th Pope - Benedict XVI. Obviously that is a failed prediction.
As I said those fanatical supporters of Garabandal try to put a new twist to things in order to get round the failed predictions.
Upon the death of John Paul II Conchita stated there would be only 3 more Popes. That turned out to be false.

 

[BobCatholic]

…

 

[beehumble]

Its a clear unambiguous statement by Conchita that after the death of John XXIII there will only be three more Popes and we are now on the 4th Pope - Benedict XVI. Obviously that is a failed prediction.
As I said those fanatical supporters of Garabandal try to put a new twist to things in order to get round the failed predictions.
Upon the death of John Paul II Conchita stated there would be only 3 more Popes. That turned out to be false.

Sounds like you’ve jumped the shark. It is not only not a clear unambiguous statement by Conchita, what you are saying is completely false as to what was said and is in fact uncharitable or shows someone totally oblivious to the facts of the issue. Stick to the truth of what was said.

Any rational person reading ‘three more popes and it will be the end of the times but not the end of the world’ would realize it did not in any way, shape or form mean JPII is the last pope in history - for goodness sakes it does not even say that world history ends after 3 more popes, so how one can draw that conclusion is mind-boggling and reveals one’s being irrational. One ‘cannot get there from here’, so to speak. There will always be a pope, so if the world does not end after 3 more popes, there will be another, and another, until it does end someday. Reportedly even Conchita, when asked what happens after the fourth pope reportedly said ‘I don’t know, nothing was said about that.’

God bless you.

 

[thistle]

Sounds like you’ve jumped the shark. It is not only not a clear unambiguous statement by Conchita, what you are saying is completely false as to what was said and is in fact uncharitable or shows someone totally oblivious to the facts of the issue. Stick to the truth of what was said.

Any rational person reading ‘three more popes and it will be the end of the times but not the end of the world’ would realize it did not in any way, shape or form mean JPII is the last pope in history - for goodness sakes it does not even say that world history ends after 3 more popes, so how one can draw that conclusion is mind-boggling and reveals one’s being irrational. One ‘cannot get there from here’, so to speak. There will always be a pope, so if the world does not end after 3 more popes, there will be another, and another, until it does end someday. Reportedly even Conchita, when asked what happens after the fourth pope reportedly said ‘I don’t know, nothing was said about that.’

God bless you.

The FACTS: Conchita stated after the death of John XXIII there would be only 3 more Popes. End of world, end of time, end of times does not change that prediction or have any bearing on the prediction. Its a statement she made and her prediction failed no matter how much you want to twist things to avoid admitting it failed.

 

[adrift]

You did not answer the question of where it can be found in her writings about a 4th Pope? He didn’t ask you to predict but what was claimed that was revealed.

Eircomet’s link states two. Of course if she dismissed one of the three than it would be two.

The link to Fr Turner is: garabandal.us/prph_lastpope.html

Sounds like you’ve jumped the shark. It is not only not a clear unambiguous statement by Conchita, what you are saying is completely false as to what was said and is in fact uncharitable or shows someone totally oblivious to the facts of the issue. Stick to the truth of what was said.

You have not provided a source. So before you call others uncharitable, provide the facts that you have been asked to provide.

Any rational person reading ‘three more popes and it will be the end of the times but not the end of the world’ would realize it did not in any way, shape or form mean JPII is the last pope in history -

Stating that any"rational" person is dipping into those uncharitable remarks. Many “rational” people thought that John Paul II would be the last Pope that is until he died. Then it was no no that wasn’t the prediction. Maybe it wasn’t and they misunderstood but to state it is unreasonable to have thought so is how did you say"jumping the shark"?

for goodness sakes it does not even say that world history ends after 3 more popes, so how one can draw that conclusion is mind-boggling and reveals **one’s being irrational. **

There’s that uncharitable head being raised again. Why do you attack him with these statements it is called ad hominem attacks.

One ‘cannot get there from here’, so to speak. There will always be a pope, so if the world does not end after 3 more popes, there will be another, and another, until it does end someday. Reportedly even Conchita, when asked what happens after the fourth pope reportedly said ‘I don’t know, nothing was said about that.’

God bless you.

There you go with that fourth pope

Which makes me beleive that you missed the post by EIRCOMNET

No definite pope was named . The prophecy was that there would be three more popes after Pope John and then would come the" end of the times" which can be interpreted as the end of an epoch/era. there is a learned article written about it many years ago by a father francois Turner, it should be possible to google it.

There was never a mention of 4 popes by Conchita; there was a reference to this in a German book but I have never seen this anywhere else.

 

[beehumble]

Irrationality has entered the argument, so taking a tip from the professional Catholic apologists who don’t debate irrational people, there is no point in continuing.

This is irrational: to claim Conchita quoted Our Lady as saying it would not be the end of the world, and then at the same time to say she did say it would be the end of the world - how can one discuss anything with a person who is taking both sides (which is by definition called irrational)?

We’re done here. God bless you and have a good day. Oh, and look up and be ready - 2017 is not that far away!

 

[adrift]

Irrationality has entered the argument, so taking a tip from the professional Catholic apologists who don’t debate irrational people, there is no point in continuing.

**This is irrational: to claim Conchita quoted Our Lady as saying it would not be the end of the world, and then at the same time to say she did say it would be the end of the world - how can one discuss anything with a person who is taking both sides (which is by definition called irrational)? **We’re done here. God bless you and have a good day. Oh, and look up and be ready - 2017 is not that far away!

I see so you use an ad Hominem attack to cover up that you did not have any evidence of your statement. I guess I want some fact again where did anyone say what I bolded. Either you did not read carefully or you are being disingenuous.

 

[BobCatholic]

I see so you use an ad Hominem attack

I notice you didn’t complain when someone else was using ad-hominems to come to your defense.