R
RosaryFan
Guest
I understand that part. What I don’t understand is why one web site classifies Garabandal as #2, while another web site classifies it as #3. Why the discrepancy? See my post above with the link.
- Status
A
adrift
Guest
There is no discrepancy. Look at each website and you will find they list them in different orders.
One list them as
- Constat de supernaturalitate — It is certain that the events are of supernatural origin.
- Non-constat de supernaturalitate — It is not certain that the events are of supernatural origin, i.e., the supernatural origin has not been established. Here the events in question are still open to eventual recognition as being authentic.
- Constat de non supernaturalitate — It is certain that the events are not of supernatural origin.
- constat de supernaturalitate (it is established supernatural)
- constat de non supernaturalitate (it is established not supernatural)
- non constat de supernaturalitate (it is not established supernatural)
What both list say is that if falls under non constat de supernaturalitate (it is not established supernatural)
In one list that is 2 and the other 3
R
RosaryFan
Guest
Thank you, Adrift. I didn’t realize they were in different order.
So, am I understanding correctly, that Garabandal is NOT condemned. They just don’t know. Correct? This is what I originally thought until I read Puzzleannie and Thistle’s posts (#3 and #11, respectively).
A
adrift
Guest
Very few are condemned. I believe you are correct I would recommend that you read the excellent link that puzzleannie gave.
M
MarcusAndreas
Guest
It doesn’t matter what “the Vatican” says, especially considering it’s a city state and not some nebulous magisterial device that pronounces judgement on everything. It’s up to the local ordinary to approve and condemn apparitions in virtually all cases. Officials at Vatican City don’t need to interfere.
C
Casey5913
Guest
Hello. I am new to this site so pardon me if am not following protocol.
I wondered if anyone could tell me how to find like-minded individuals that also believe in these apparitions. There was recently a new website made regarding the alleged miracle date that I wanted to talk with others about. It looks like listing the site here or talking about that would be against the forum rules, which I definitely do not want to break the rules. I just want to find a way to either contact like-minded people or to have them contact me. Thank you for any guidance that anyone can give me! God bless!
casey5913@gmail.com
I wondered if anyone could tell me how to find like-minded individuals that also believe in these apparitions. There was recently a new website made regarding the alleged miracle date that I wanted to talk with others about. It looks like listing the site here or talking about that would be against the forum rules, which I definitely do not want to break the rules. I just want to find a way to either contact like-minded people or to have them contact me. Thank you for any guidance that anyone can give me! God bless!
casey5913@gmail.com
T
thistle
Guest
You are correct because the local Bishops ARE the competent Church authorities.
F
FreeSpirit1
Guest
This is a good thread, I need to understand the Garabandal issue, my mother-in-law is a fan… Sorry I can’t provide information for now.
F
followingtheway
Guest
Well the person asked what “the Church’s” opinion on the matter is so in this case it does.
D
DJJG
Guest
"it is established not supernatural" means that it IS NOT supernatural done, finished, there is enough evidence to show that it is not supernatural…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
I still want to know the distinction between “it is established not supernatural” and “it is not established supernatural”.
*** “it is not established supernatural”. means that its is still open, but as of yet no evidence has been show that it is supernatural, but we haven’t ruled it out as certain.***
H
hoop0826
Guest
Go Church!, or Go Mary! ? 
F
FreeSpirit1
Guest
Mary is counting on the Church, local bishops, to protect her reputation. If she did not appear somewhere, we need to know, we can’t be mislead! (actually it is easier to stick to where she did appear).Go Church!, or Go Mary! ?
It is not a Church VS Mary issue.
If the bishops are wrong, saying that she did not appear somewhere, and in fact She did appear in that same where, then don’t worry, She has enough power to convince the bishop, Herself, as you will find out below:
This is what happened in Guadeloupe. She appear to a guy, a peasant (sorry can’t remember exact name, will give if I find). She asked him to tell the bishop she wanted a Church built to honor her. The peasant delivered the message, but the bishop was NOT convinced this was surnatural. Then the Virgin re-appeared to the peasant asking him what had become of her demand. He answered that he had done his part, but was denied the bishop’s trust. So to convince the bishop that the peasant was saying the truth, Mary told the peasant to ask yet again. The peasant agreed, but before leaving, he asked Mary for a sign. Mary replied she would take care of convincing the bishop.
All the while the peasant and Our Lady were exchanging, the peasant was holding up his his folded apron containing potatoes. It was cold. They parted.
So the peasant goes back to the bishop to tell him Our Lady would send a sign. Lo and behold, he drops his apron, and what fell down? Roses, beautifull roses that are not in season, impossible to find in the surrounding area. Also on this apron, underneath the roses not fallen on the floor, the imprint of the image of the Lady of Guadeloupe appeared. This is the original apron. This is Our Lady of Guadaloupe. :bowdown2:
Sorry can’t give you references, I read that on internet years ago.
C
Casey5913
Guest
Dear FreeSpirit1,
What you speak of is Juan Diego and the tilma that has the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on it (which is actually your avatar). That took place on 12/12/1531, 13 generations ago. It is appropriate to be talking of that here because that tilma has a link to the great miracle of Garabandal.
Do you know why Our Lady is standing on a darkened moon? It has multiple meanings. One of which points to a date in the future. It also has a link to Revelation 12:1.
I would love to share more information with you here but I have to read through the rules to see what I can or can not post here about it.
Take care and God bless!
Casey5913
What you speak of is Juan Diego and the tilma that has the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on it (which is actually your avatar). That took place on 12/12/1531, 13 generations ago. It is appropriate to be talking of that here because that tilma has a link to the great miracle of Garabandal.
Do you know why Our Lady is standing on a darkened moon? It has multiple meanings. One of which points to a date in the future. It also has a link to Revelation 12:1.
I would love to share more information with you here but I have to read through the rules to see what I can or can not post here about it.
Take care and God bless!
Casey5913
H
hawkeye
Guest
I’ts in limbo 
Mari Loli one of the seers has passed away, whilst I gave it the benefit of the doubt, I’m now forced to doubt it…like a few other unmentionable so-called shrines.
Go-to the Holy Tabernacle, they’re Church approved…
Mari Loli one of the seers has passed away, whilst I gave it the benefit of the doubt, I’m now forced to doubt it…like a few other unmentionable so-called shrines.Go-to the Holy Tabernacle, they’re Church approved…
F
FreeSpirit1
Guest
Thank you for the information concerning Guadeloupe apparitions!. I believe Guadaloupe is accepted by the Church. I believe we may talk about accepted revelations on this forum, but must check the rules.
The most important thing about revelations is that your faith is strengthened, and encourages your to more charity and hope.
The danger with private revelations is to get so caught up with them that they lead you away from the revelation of the bible, and the Church’s teaching (Catholic Cathechism).
Pray and stay with the Lord in obtaining your salvation and help Him save souls.
B
beehumble
Guest
The conflict exists precisely because of posts like this by those who - the only way to say it is - do not know what they are talking about regards these things, and then offer ill-formed opinions on the matter to others, who then repeat it on down the line. Then some fact-checker checks the facts and finds out this opinion is ill-informed and then says it is actually category 3, lo and behold but people who originally incorrectly thought is was condemned refuse to listen and continue to repeat fals information.
What is baffling to me is the VERY LINK CITED here DOES NOT SUPPORT THEIR CONCLUSION!
The link says it is category 3, which means NO DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER MEANING IT IS AWAITING FURTHER INFORMATION. It means it is not condemned.For those who provide unsupported opinions about Garabandal that are contrary to the Church on the matter, category 1 (it is established supernatural) it is worthy of belief, category 2 (it is established not supernatural) means it is condemned, and category 3 ((it is not established supernatural) means it is in a neutral state - not condemned and not approved - and open to more information that could push it from neutral into one or the other category.
Just the facts please, just the facts, and please keep unresearched opinions out of it since they only confuse people. If the Church hasn’t condemned it, and somebody says they have, they might just be doing a grave injustice to Our Lady and the seers - if it turns out to be approved later, obviously Our Lady had something important to say and those people have silenced her.
This should stop. If I was a teacher and a student handed me a research paper that said about Garabandal what this poster said they would get an F for poor research and for misrepresentation of the Church’s position.
Quoting an EWTN expert on the matter:
“It seems, therefore, that notwithstanding the decisions of two commissions accepted by the bishops of Santander, that there are reasonable grounds for individual Catholics to find Garabandal credible.”
ewtn.com/expert/answers/garabandal.htm
Thank You and God bless you.
B
beehumble
Guest
I sincerely wish and hope all those offering opinions on these matters understand what it means to give an opinion - one must be QUALIFIED to give an opinion before one does.I’ts in limbo
Go-to the Holy Tabernacle, they’re Church approved…
That means doing some research, asking questions along the way etc, BEFORE reaching conclusions and expressing opinions.
In this case, Our Lady alluded to or actually told Conchita that only she of the four seers would be there - at that time of the unfolding which Conchita described in the 1960s as “so far off” - when the Garabandal events unfold, implying that the others seers would have passed away already. So the death of one seer actually means a date for its unfolding is closer, not that the apparition is bogus. This information is freely available on sites about Garabandal.
God bless you.
F
FreeSpirit1
Guest
In his letter of 1996, Bishop Msgr. Jose Vilaplaua of Santander wrote:
Then as believers, why risk being mislead with yet-to-be-approved-and-possibly-false revelations when we have the bible, the magisterium of the Church, approved private revelations (Banneux, Lourdes, Beaurain, Akita, Fatima, etc…), Saints biographies, soooooooooooo many sources for contemplation and examples of charity?
source: campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/garabandal_letters.html
IMHO, if this documentation is up to date, then, between now in 2011 and 1960’s, the apparitions are not recognized (yet) as supernatural origin.
Then as believers, why risk being mislead with yet-to-be-approved-and-possibly-false revelations when we have the bible, the magisterium of the Church, approved private revelations (Banneux, Lourdes, Beaurain, Akita, Fatima, etc…), Saints biographies, soooooooooooo many sources for contemplation and examples of charity?
source: campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/garabandal_letters.html
B
beehumble
Guest
Which only means they are not approved and not condemned and awaiting more information.
Quoting an EWTN expert on the matter:
“It seems, therefore, that notwithstanding the decisions of two commissions accepted by the bishops of Santander, that there are reasonable grounds for individual Catholics to find Garabandal credible.”
ewtn.com/expert/answers/garabandal.htm
Average Joe-Blow lay Catholics in the pews should listen to experts on these matters, and an expert says there are reasonable grounds for individual Catholics to find Garabandal credible. That means no harm will come from looking into it, and some good fruit might come to an individual who does investigate it.
God bless you.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
If anyone is interested, there is a complete list of approved apparitions through history here, starting in 40A.D. up to 1983, I believe. They are classified as “Traditional approval” “Bishop approval” and “Vatican approval.” It’s pretty interesting reading, use the “more information” links in the entries.
miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/index.html
miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/index.html
- Status