Garabandal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Job42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Job42

Guest
I don’t want to talk about the messages of Garabandal because that is a banned topic. I just want to know what is the status of these alleged apparitions? I know they are not approved but are they condemned or are they just not approved? I have been seeing conflicting reports.
 
Job42 said:
I don’t want to talk about the messages of Garabandal because that is a banned topic. I just want to know what is the status of these alleged apparitions? I know they are not approved but are they condemned or are they just not approved? I have been seeing conflicting reports.
Click to expand...
I don’t think they will ever be decided on based on the nature of the “apparitions”. There are some very interesting things going on in relation to these, but if they are false, truth and lies will be mixed…stick with only approved “apparitions” and double check the source’s for those even…there is a lot of damaging misinformation out there.
 
the Marian library at the University of Dayton has the most complete and up to date information on Marian apparitions in general
this is the file of all the letters including the most recent from the Vatican
campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/garabandal_letters.html
there has been none, and will be no, Vatican approval or further investigation, and the decisions of the local bishops against the apparitions are upheld. the matter is closed
 
There are three ways the Church can classify an alleged apparition:
  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 has been classified under #3.
 
Job42 said:
I know they are not approved but are they condemned or are they just not approved?
Click to expand...
They’re just not approved…

Despite popular belief, the Catholic Church has never condemned Garabandal, and the Vatican has never made a statement on whether it’s true or not true.

God bless :byzsoc:

David
 
midori said:
There are three ways the Church can classify an alleged apparition:
  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 has been classified under #3.
Click to expand...
Argh, again I am getting conflicting reports. midori could you explain the difference between 2 and 3? In a nutshell, if possible.
 
Job42 said:
Argh, again I am getting conflicting reports. midori could you explain the difference between 2 and 3? In a nutshell, if possible.
Click to expand...
if you read the letters in the link I posted there is no conflict and no discussion
 
puzzleannie said:
if you read the letters in the link I posted there is no conflict and no discussion
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, I did read it but I just wasn’t sure what to make of it since I have been a Garabandal supporter for a while now. But I value public revelation above all else. I guess I will throw out all my Garabandal materials :o 👍 I still want to know the distinction between “it is established not supernatural” and “it is not established supernatural”.
 
followingtheway said:
They’re just not approved…

Despite popular belief, the Catholic Church has never condemned Garabandal, and the Vatican has never made a statement on whether it’s true or not true.

God bless :byzsoc:

David
Click to expand...
That is not true.
See the link in post #3 and read!! It is disapproved by the local bishop and his decision is supported by the CDF in Rome.
 
Job42 said:
I don’t want to talk about the messages of Garabandal because that is a banned topic. I just want to know what is the status of these alleged apparitions? I know they are not approved but are they condemned or are they just not approved? I have been seeing conflicting reports.
Click to expand...
My understanding is it’s not condemned, nor is it approved. It’s like a “wait-and-see” situation.
 
Job42 said:
I still want to know the distinction between “it is established not supernatural” and “it is not established supernatural”.
Click to expand...
  1. it is established …(as) NOT SUPERNATURAL
    It is proven/known/judged to NOT be supernatural. (case is closed)
  2. it is NOT ESTALBLISHED …(as) supernatural
    It is NOT proven/known/judged to be supernatural. (case may be pending)
 
puzzleannie said:
the Marian library at the University of Dayton has the most complete and up to date information on Marian apparitions in general
this is the file of all the letters including the most recent from the Vatican
campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/garabandal_letters.html
there has been none, and will be no, Vatican approval or further investigation, and the decisions of the local bishops against the apparitions are upheld. the matter is closed
Click to expand...
I went to the link you attached that indicates Garabandal is in the 3rd category. However, this web site indicates it is in the 2nd category. ourlady.ca/info/churchPositionUpdate.html

Why the discrepancies?
 
followingtheway said:
They’re just not approved…

Despite popular belief, the Catholic Church has never condemned Garabandal, and the Vatican has never made a statement on whether it’s true or not true.

God bless :byzsoc:

David
Click to expand...
thistle said:
That is not true.
See the link in post #3 and read!! It is disapproved by the local bishop and his decision is supported by the CDF in Rome.
Click to expand...
:nope: look
|
|
V
RosaryFan said:
I went to the link you attached that indicates Garabandal is in the 3rd category. However, this web site indicates it is in the 2nd category. ourlady.ca/info/churchPositionUpdate.html

Why the discrepancies?
Click to expand...
Mhmmmm…:cool:
 
Job42 said:
Argh, again I am getting conflicting reports. midori could you explain the difference between 2 and 3? In a nutshell, if possible.
Click to expand...
Ah, don’t throw your stuff out just because it’s not formally approved-- that’s not what it means. If you find some spiritual profit in it, that’s great; it just means the Church hasn’t given its stamp of approval like, say, Lourdes or Akita.

“It is established supernatural” means, “Oh, wow! We’re confident this is credible!” You can imagine why the Church is a little stingy with this classification-- people have been burned in the past. 🙂

“It is established not supernatural” means, “Uh, there’s absolutely no reason to put your faith in this. Just move along.”

“It is not established supernatural” means, “Y’know, we’re not really sure. There’s a good argument going on… but we’re not going to risk endorsing it because we’re not totally convinced it’s authentic. You people can take it or leave it at your own discretion.” Remember that apparitions have to be judged at the diocesan level before the Holy See gets involved, so if the local Bishop isn’t thrilled with the goings-on, it won’t make it past his level. On the other hand, the vast majority of apparitions and private revelation never even makes it to the diocesan level at the first place.
 
the differenence between findings of the church can be understand when we know that the defination of supernatural by the catholic church is that it means from God.
PRETERNATURAL is generally what we would describe as supernatural in todays world.
  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)
so loosely
1 means it is from God
2 means it is not from God either demonic or imagination
3 means not estabilished wether from God or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top