Garabandal Status?

[thistle]

I, like some others, have actually read Conchita’s diary.

Upon the death of Pope John XXIII she stated there will only be 3 more Popes. She never mentioned anything about a fourth Pope, and nor did she state that the prediction of only 3 more Popes was conditional upon something happening or not happening.
The prediction by Conchita was that after Pope John XXIII there will be only three more Popes.
That prediction has been shown to be false no matter what twist or spin the Garabandal supporters try to put on it.

Also, as none of the 3 Popes saw the “Miracle” that prediction too has failed.

 

[HansTrappist]

I, like some others, have actually read Conchita’s diary.

Upon the death of Pope John XXIII she stated there will only be 3 more Popes. She never mentioned anything about a fourth Pope, and nor did she state that the prediction of only 3 more Popes was conditional upon something happening or not happening.
The prediction by Conchita was that after Pope John XXIII there will be only three more Popes.
That prediction has been shown to be false no matter what twist or spin the Garabandal supporters try to put on it.

Also, as none of the 3 Popes saw the “Miracle” that prediction too has failed.

I have been watching this back and forth on this thread regarding the “three popes.” So, I decided to do some research. I can’t find a primary source for this “three popes” thing on the web. Maybe someone has a link? A good resource for primary source documents on Garabandal is stjosephpublications.com/, but even on this excellent resource site I can’t find a primary source document.

But here is what I have found from a secondary source (garabandal.com/special-features/the-end-of-times) that purports to have access to Conchita’s diary, and says the following on this issue:

Many believers in the apparitions of Garabandal have been worried about the effect the death of Pope John Paul II has in relation to the predictions of Our Blessed Mother. To make the matter as clear as possible, we offer these quotes from Conchita’s own diary. The announcement about the last Pope and “the end of the times”

It was during the early part of June 1963, the bells of Garabandal started to ring. The following conversation then occurred between Conchita and her mother, Aniceta:

Conchita: “The bells are tolling for the dead! It must be for the pope (John XXIII, 1958-1963). Now only three remain.”

Aniceta: “What nonsense are you talking about?”

Conchita: “It is not nonsense. The Virgin told me: After this pope there will only be three more.”

Aniceta: “Then what? Will it be the end of the world?”

Conchita: “The Virgin did not say the end of the world but the end of time.”​

 

[adrift]

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

Please point the post that you are speaking about.

 

[adrift]

I have been watching this back and forth on this thread regarding the “three popes.” So, I decided to do some research. I can’t find a primary source for this “three popes” thing on the web. Maybe someone has a link? A good resource for primary source documents on Garabandal is stjosephpublications.com/, but even on this excellent resource site I can’t find a primary source document.

It does seem to be conflicting. I honestly don’t think it matters much. The Bishops have made their ruling. That is what counts. What the ruling is I am not sure either. As much as the statement is accepted and disputed, according to the rule at this forum it is unapproved.

 

[Edward_Henry]

http://whatisgarabandal.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/conchita_1.jpg

Taken from “She Went in Haste to the Mountain.”:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51X6y3cw53L.SL500_AA300.jpg

During those days Paquina de la Roza Velarde (Dr. Ortiz’ wife) was in the village. One morning a funeral mass for the dead pope was to be said in the parish church, and the bells began to ring early in the morning.

Paquina, Maximina, another woman and Conchita, after having prayed the rosary in the Calleja (How delightful were those rosaries in the silence and freshness of the morning!) made their way to the church. On their way they were speaking of the current news:

—“Perhaps with the pope’s death, the Council will end too, since . . .”

Conchita: “Another pope will come and the Council will continue.”
—“Well, I agree that another pope will come; but as for the Council. . . Perhaps the new pope won’t think like John XXIII.”
—“Another pope will come and the Council will continue.”
—“You seem to be very certain of that; but I don’t see it so certain. It could well happen otherwise.”
—“I’m telling you, and I repeat: another pope will come and the Council will continue. And I also tell you that only three popes remain . . .”

Dr. Ortiz’ wife quickly recovered from her surprise and responded to Conchita:

—“Oh, you are saying that from the prophecy of St. Malachi . . .”
—“St. Malachi? That’s the first time I heard of that. The Virgin told me that after this Pope (John XXIII) there remain only three; and afterwards, the end of the times.”
—“Do you mean the end of the world is coming?”
—“The Virgin told me, ‘the end of the times.’”
—“That isn’t the same?”
—“I don’t know.”…

One time she told it to the eminent professor Father Lucio Rodrigo at the Pontifical University in Comillas. This Father, on the occasion of a visit by Conchita and her mother, asked the young girl if she had really said what had been attributed to her.

Conchita told him, “Yes Father. It’s true. The Virgin told me that after John XXIII only three popes remain, and this one, (Paul VI) is the first of those three.”

In October of 1966, Conchita became a boarder in the college that the teaching sisters of the Immaculate Conception have at Burgos. On November 1st, the Feast of All Saints, she talked confidentially with the director of the center, Mother Nieves García. Among other things, she said this, which the religious sister wrote down very carefully:

“One day I said to the Virgin, ‘Will the end of the world be during the time of these events?’”
“And she told me, ‘No, the end of the times.’”
“After Paul VI, there will be only two more popes; and then the end of the times will come.” (Page 566 - 567)

Maybe we have already entered "the end of times."

 

[HansTrappist]

It does seem to be conflicting. I honestly don’t think it matters much. The Bishops have made their ruling. That is what counts. What the ruling is I am not sure either. As much as the statement is accepted and disputed, according to the rule at this forum it is unapproved.

Yes, it is unapproved. But for some strange reason there is a tendency to equate “unapproved” with “will never be approved” or “cannot be approved in the future.” That would be incorrect.

Also, knowing exactly what the Bishops have ruled, and exactly what they have said over the years is also important. Historical accuracy is important. There is a difference between presenting the historical facts and promoting an unapproved apparition.

 

[Edward_Henry]

http://whatisgarabandal.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/conchita_1.jpg

Taken from “She Went in Haste to the Mountain.”:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51X6y3cw53L.SL500_AA300.jpg

“One day I said to the Virgin, ‘Will the end of the world be during the time of these events?’”
“And she told me, ‘No, the end of the times.’”
“After Paul VI, there will be only two more popes; and then the end of the times will come.”

From what I can objectively read, it does not say that there will only be three more popes before the end of the world, but that after three more popes we would enter the end of times. Maybe we have already entered * * “the end of times.”**

"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 the childlike . Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight." (Luke 10 :21)

 

[BobCatholic]

…

 

[BobCatholic]

Please point the post that you are speaking about.

And that’s why you didn’t complain. You didn’t notice it.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Even “approved” cases of Private Revelation cannot be reduced to the oversimplified scenario of “I’m right and you’re wrong” , “we are right and you’re wrong” and/or “true or false”.

Anybody familiar with *Our Lady of All Nations * and *Ida Peerdeman * is further reminded that bishops can misjudge a particular situation concerning *private revelation *; in this particular instance it led the CDF to follow suit, then the subsequent bishop began leaning the other way and the CDF followed suit again, but this second time around the CDF also added a recommendation of their own. . .

Here’s the link : Our Lady of All Nations, EWTN

It only takes about 4 minutes to read, but have a look guys : it’s all over the place . . . :hypno:

That part which would appear to reconcile the differences by letting the faithful make a judgment according to their conscience -

Haarlem affirmed to EWTN that the public veneration of Our Lady of All Nations by title, image and prayer, is permitted to Catholics by decision of the Bishop of Haarlem, “with the consent of the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome”. Catholics may make “a personal judgment according to their conscience” regarding the messages and apparition.

. . . is kind of what happens to a lot of us initially anyway as individuals , which is why we look to the Church for guidance on these matters.

But we could all (myself included) stand to enhace/edify our understanding of the nature of the guidance which our holy Catholic Church offers us on these matters . . . If we wish to avoid expressing *misguided versions * of the Church’s guidance , it can be helpful to begin by understanding how to differentiate between the assent of Catholic faith, and the assent of human faith.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Reading about those apparitions at Fatima, has always been a sobering and edifying experience for me personally.

But, again, why we aren’t “obliged” to believe in private revelations – (even after they’ve been “approved” ) is because , as helpful as they may be, they do not demand our divine and Catholic faith ; instead they may be given an *assent of human faith *.

This linked article gives good grounding to build a better understanding of the differences concerning belief in public revelation and belief in private revelation:

CATHOLIC ANSWERS, Revelation : Public and Private

*Excerpts from : **CATHOLIC ANSWERS, Revelation : Public and Private ***

. . . Private revelation serves as a help to this divine and Catholic faith but does not itself demand this faith: "In this regard, Cardinal Prospero Lambertini, the future Pope Benedict XIV, says in his classic treatise, which later became normative for beatifications and canonizations: ‘An assent of Catholic faith is not due to revelations approved in this way; it is not even possible. These revelations seek rather an assent of human faith in keeping with the requirements of prudence, which puts them before us as probable and credible to piety.

. . . Because they do not require divine and Catholic faith, private revelations do not impose an obligation of belief of the sort that public revelation does. To disbelieve knowingly and deliberately anything God has revealed in such a way that it requires divine and Catholic faith is to commit mortal sin. However, since God has not issued private revelations with this degree of certainty, the burden is not imposed. Thus, “such a message can be a genuine help in understanding the Gospel and living it better at a particular moment in time; therefore it should not be disregarded. It is a help which is offered, but which one is not obliged to use” (ibid.).

 

[NeedImprovement]

Excerpt from the Prelude to The Crisis of Faith, Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

Every rational human being believes. When we believe we accept the word of another person. Someone knows that something is true, either from experience or reason, and we accept what he tells us because we trust that he knows what he is talking about and is not deceiving us.

On this basis the only unbeliever would be a person who is completely out of his mind. We believe that the persons whom we call our father and mother are our parents. We believe that what we are buying is what the store tells us is worth paying for. We believe that the lessons we learned in childhood are true. Who would even enter marriage unless both partners believed in the spouse with whom they were entering matrimony?

In a word, faith is part of our very nature as rational human beings. However, it is one thing to believe in other people and something else to believe in God. To believe in what people tell us is called human faith. To believe in what God has revealed is called Divine faith. To be still more clear, Divine faith properly so called is the assent of our intellect to what God has revealed, not because we comprehend what God tells us is true, but only because we accept a truth on His authority who can neither deceive, or be deceived.

God cannot deceive because He is all good and therefore cannot tell a lie. He cannot be deceived because He knows all things and therefore can never be wrong.

 

[adrift]

And that’s why you didn’t complain. You didn’t notice it.

I am still wondering what post? I don’t know of anyone who even needed to defend me. Was I under attack

 

[John_of_Woking]

Hmmm . Medjugorje has been mentioned and we should respect CAF rules. Just to reconfirm this is unapproved. i have been twice and regret it …Thanks

 

[beehumble]

OK curiosity is getting the better of me so I can’t help asking: If the first time wasn’t the charm, why did you go a second time?

God bless you.

 

[jmjconder]

From what I can objectively read, it does not say that there will only be three more popes before the end of the world, but that after three more popes we would enter the end of times. Maybe we have already entered * * “the end of times.”**

"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 the childlike . Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight." (Luke 10 :21)

We have been in the end times since 33 AD.

 

[BobCatholic]

I am still wondering what post? I don’t know of anyone who even needed to defend me. Was I under attack

Never mind, it was a troll and it is good you didn’t see this guy’s garbage.

 

[HansTrappist]

We have been in the end times since 33 AD.

That is correct in one sense but there still will be a distinct period of tribulation and cosmic upheaval before the second coming. Catholic eschatology deals with this subject.

The Church teaches that there will be a personal Antichrist during the “end times.” As far as I know, this personal Antichrist has not come, so we are not yet in the “end times.”

In the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 24, Our Lord discusses the global and cosmic signs that will herald the “end times.” As far as I can tell, these have not yet transpired, although there certainly was an abnormal amount of war in the last century.

Our Lord uses the parable of a fig tree to instruct us to remain watchful and awake to the signs of the times.

 

[Clare2412]

Thanks to everyone for the replies! While informative, I was hoping for more insight in to the Church’s position on the matter.

You might look into a book entitled Encountering Mary: From La Salette to Medjugorje by Sandra Zimdars-Swartz. The book looks at a number of apparitions of the Blessed Mother, including Garabandal, first telling their stories and then considering them side by side on a number of issues including the seers themselves. I had never heard of many of these apparitions before and found the book both very interesting and illuminating, while remaining objective. I hope this will be helpful to you.

Via con Dios!
Clare

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So if my interpretation differs from your interpretation then mine must be wrong? Wow. I think that sums you up!

Back online after 6 days away…

Thistle where did I say you were wrong - I do not think I said any such thing did I?
Surely you can do better than resorting to AAH above when you fail to convince someone .
In matters of differing interpretation, open-minded audiences will be pursuaded by arguments from outside authority … hence my request for you to provide references or sources that agree with you.
There is no need to feel that people think you are wrong just because they are not immediately convinced by your personal opinions/interpretations - esp when you cannot back them up with sources when asked.

Yes I can accept “non constat de supernaturalitate” as “unapproved” if by that you also include “not yet approved” and “not yet disproved” … as Adrift appears to accept.
However I do not believe you can… for to do so would suggest “the jury is still out” re a definitive, final judgement - which it appears you are unable to accept at the moment?

Why you cannot see this as a valid understanding of “non constat de supernaturalitate” I do not know. HansTrappist appears to hold this view… and the recurring investigations obviously suggest the previous ones are not definitive.

It appears somewhat crystal that the judgements of the later investigations not only mirror previous investigations but the very repitition of investigation also reveals the common status of all these investigations - namely PROVISIONAL - needing to be finally put to bed one way or another at a later time by means of either of the two remaining judgement categories. Other contributors have made a similar observation.

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that the authorities are in a holding pattern re Garabandal - a definitive judgement cannot be finally made until the predicted miracles come to pass or not. And of course it won’t be Garabandal supporters who will be relied upon to tell us whether they happened or not. I am sure the Vatican can work that out for themselves. I am sure they are immune to re-interpretting things to make the prophecy work if it “fails.”

As a final and definitive judgement has not yet been made either way I believe individual Catholics are free to personally practise a cautious devotion in the privacy of their own hearts and may disseminate information to others regarding the events at Garabandal and their own personal faith view on the matter… of course awaiting and abiding by the final and definitive judgement of the Church… when it eventually comes. Of course any public cultus may not be displayed or fostered at this stage. (Do correct me with sourced references if you think I am on the edge here.)

You may feel completely the opposite re such devotion - you also are perfectly entitled to reject Garabandal and offer your reasons and opinion that it is merely natural, psychological or even of the devil if you wish. You could acceptably say much of that of Fatima too I suppose because it appears no-one is forced to believe in private revelation even if approved by the Church.