Garabandal

[FreeSpirit1]

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.

Dear Beehumble,

IMHO, the wait-and-see status of the apparitions is the source of confusion.

The EWTN expert and I don’t agree. I’ll stick to the revelations in the bible.

For this forum, I believe we are not to discuss unstated apparitions such as Garabandal, only approved ones.

Truth and love,

J

 

[FreeSpirit1]

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

Thanks, that is an interesting and useful website.

 

[Mijoy2]

In my opinion, based on fundememtal logic, If these later apparitions, Garabandal and Medugorje are false, other apparitions come into serious doubt…(i.e Fatima Lourdes).

I base this statement on the idea that there is continuity between these former apparitions and the more moderen apparitions. Further more, there are credible saints, of whom we feel deep admiration and respect who lend credance to these phemonoma.

If the more modern apparitions are false, I see no reason to believe the former apparitions either. Of which I am not obligated to believe.

It’s all or nothing to me. The devil is clever, but not that clever. He is either behind them all, or none of them. God, would not have us this confused.

MHO

 

[beehumble]

For this forum, I believe we are not to discuss unstated apparitions such as Garabandal, only approved ones.

Truth and love,

J

I did not start this thread; I am only here to try to correct misinformation that might get out to drive-by lurkers - I am just trying ot make sure they know it is not condemned. .

I for one wish threads like this were deleted in their entirety (I have seen some threads shutdown with a few of its posts deleted but misinformation still there - and nobody can correct it - so it is best to just delete those entire threads, imho. )

God bless you.

 

[saveusfromhell]

 

[thistle]

In my opinion, based on fundememtal logic, If these later apparitions, Garabandal and Medugorje are false, other apparitions come into serious doubt…(i.e Fatima Lourdes).

I base this statement on the idea that there is continuity between these former apparitions and the more moderen apparitions. Further more, there are credible saints, of whom we feel deep admiration and respect who lend credance to these phemonoma.

If the more modern apparitions are false, I see no reason to believe the former apparitions either. Of which I am not obligated to believe.

It’s all or nothing to me. The devil is clever, but not that clever. He is either behind them all, or none of them. God, would not have us this confused.

MHO

That’s ridiculous. You are implying or even saying that the Church is wrong by approving some apparitions and not others. My trust goes to the Church.

 

[Mijoy2]

That’s ridiculous. You are implying or even saying that the Church is wrong by approving some apparitions and not others. My trust goes to the Church.

You did not read my post.

Unless I mistaken the Church does not profess to say any apparition beyond the shadow of a doubt, occured. The Church, approves, by stating the apparition is “worthy of belief”. Else, wouldn’t it be dogma much the same as The Assumption of Our Lady?

Now I must qualify so that this doesn’t fall under the heading of “ridiculous”…this is my understanding.

My post suggested that since the Church does not require us to believe in approved apparitions, that I am free to entertain the thoughts I expressed in my “ridiculous” post.

 

[thistle]

You did not read my post.

Unless I mistaken the Church does not profess to say any apparition beyond the shadow of a doubt, occured. The Church, approves, by stating the apparition is “worthy of belief”. Else, wouldn’t it be dogma much the same as The Assumption of Our Lady?

Now I must qualify so that this doesn’t fall under the heading of “ridiculous”…this is my understanding.

My post suggested that since the Church does not require us to believe in approved apparitions, that I am free to entertain the thoughts I expressed in my “ridiculous” post.

Correct me if I misundestood you but I thought you were saying that even though the “approval” is an approval of being worthy of belief (not a required belief by Catholics) the Church should either deem all apparitions worthy of belief or none at all. That is what I was calling ridiculous because you are not privy to the extensive investigations the Church undertakes. My apologies if that is not what you were saying.

 

[Mijoy2]

Correct me if I misundestood you but I thought you were saying that even though the “approval” is an approval of being worthy of belief (not a required belief by Catholics) the Church should either deem all apparitions worthy of belief or none at all. That is what I was calling ridiculous because you are not privy to the extensive investigations the Church undertakes. My apologies if that is not what you were saying.

I appreciate your response. It is not what I was suggesting. I am/was not attempting to make any kind of suggestion on what the church might and might not do. I was more simply expressing my own inner feelings of discomfort.

The Church has “approved”, among many others, Fatima, Guadalupe, The Divine Mercy diary of Saint Faustina (I believe) and others. What troubles me are the parallels regarding the (overriding) messages of the approved apparitions and the (overriding) messages of some apparitions (particularily two) that are yet to be dogmatically and finally decided on.

Assuming (and I will not name any apparitions) that one or more of the more popular apparitions that are yet to be decided upon, is ultimately deemed “not worthy of belief” (or unapproved), the doubt that it casts, beyond the umbrella of it’s immediate scope is vast. For example there are Saints who largely encouraged these apparitions. Padre Pio comes to mind. There are parallels, as if it were a continuation of the same story (again the same overriding theme of what our Blessed Mother is conveying to us). In other words, what Fatima started, these attempt to maintain or carry on, some would suggest in a profound manner.

This leaves two scenarios in my mind.

1. Evil forces picked up on the theme of the approved apparitions and, disguised as Truth, carries on the message (why I have no idea, perhaps to confuse and divide).
2. Evil forces were behind even the “approved” apparitions and did such a spectacular job at deceit, even succeeded in decieving the Church authorities that decided these things.

I suppose there are more potential explainations too but for the sake of clarifying my point I will stop at these two.

Of the two potential explainations, I regretfully (very regretfully) am drawn by reason alone to the 2nd scenario. If evil entities (devil, whatever) can pull somethign off so profound, these same entities could have plotted this plan of attack against the Church right from the very beginning.

I don’t feel I articulated by thought process on this well.

 

[thistle]

I appreciate your response. It is not what I was suggesting. I am/was not attempting to make any kind of suggestion on what the church might and might not do. I was more simply expressing my own inner feelings of discomfort.

The Church has “approved”, among many others, Fatima, Guadalupe, The Divine Mercy diary of Saint Faustina (I believe) and others. What troubles me are the parallels regarding the (overriding) messages of the approved apparitions and the (overriding) messages of some apparitions (particularily two) that are yet to be dogmatically and finally decided on.

Assuming (and I will not name any apparitions) that one or more of the more popular apparitions that are yet to be decided upon, is ultimately deemed “not worthy of belief” (or unapproved), the doubt that it casts, beyond the umbrella of it’s immediate scope is vast. For example there are Saints who largely encouraged these apparitions. Padre Pio comes to mind. There are parallels, as if it were a continuation of the same story (again the same overriding theme of what our Blessed Mother is conveying to us). In other words, what Fatima started, these attempt to maintain or carry on, some would suggest in a profound manner.

This leaves two scenarios in my mind.

1. Evil forces picked up on the theme of the approved apparitions and, disguised as Truth, carries on the message (why I have no idea, perhaps to confuse and divide).
2. Evil forces were behind even the “approved” apparitions and did such a spectacular job at deceit, even succeeded in decieving the Church authorities that decided these things.

I suppose there are more potential explainations too but for the sake of clarifying my point I will stop at these two.

Of the two potential explainations, I regretfully (very regretfully) am drawn by reason alone to the 2nd scenario. If evil entities (devil, whatever) can pull somethign off so profound, these same entities could have plotted this plan of attack against the Church right from the very beginning.

I don’t feel I articulated by thought process on this well.

Thanks for explaining. I was off the mark about your thoughts on this.
May I make a few comments.

Of course I don’t know how the investigation process works and nor do I need to know.
However, at my layman level I would say the Church probably considers the following:

1. Are the messages/revelations/apparitions of supernatural origin?
2. Are they against Church doctrine?
3. Are they against the Pope, or Bishops, or Priests?
4. Do they cause division among the faithful?

In my opinion if the answer to 1 is YES and is NO to 2,3,4 then they would likely be deemed worthy of belief as they are from God.
If the answer is YES to 1 and YES to one or more of 2,3,4 then they are likely to be the work of Satan.

In the case of Medjugorie the answer to 1 is not yes or no but no evidence of any supernatural happenings, but the answers to 3 and 4 are yes so for me it is false.