La Salette - true or false?

[Lief_Erikson]

The character of the “visionaries”, before and after the apparition, is given as a criterion of discernment of authenticity by the Church, for good reason, I think.

Providence will not allow such a miracle to a soul of less than exemplary holiness. Look at Bernadette, Sr. Lucy, Sr. Agnes of Akita.

On the other hand, remember Balaam, who saw an angel, and Caiaphas, who prophesied that Jesus would die for the people of Israel and the children of God that lived abroad.

 

[Metaron]

On the other hand, remember Balaam, who saw an angel, and Caiaphas, who prophesied that Jesus would die for the people of Israel and the children of God that lived abroad.

Remember Judas, also. He was among Christ’s disciples, he saw the miracles, he heard the teachings, he knew he was the Son of God; But he hung himself, and his guts burst forth. Grim, but I think it just goes to show that a visionary could also end up in a not-so-good state.

 

[TOP]

Originally Posted by** Paul Folbrecht **
There is no doubt that Garabandal is false - that one has been condemned. Or at least not approved.

**The apparitions of Our Lady of Garabandal, Spain, have NEVER been proved false, nor have they EVER been condemned. It remains open until the fulfillment of all prophecied events. In fact, in a recent letter from Carlos Osoro Sierra, who is Archbishop of Oviedo and who served as interim Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Santander, he stated:

"What I have done now is authorize priests to go to Garabandal and celebrate Mass there at whatever hour they desire and to administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation to as many people who desire it there.

"I am sure that the next bishop will advance the studies of the Garabandal events so they may be examined more deeply with the results being sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome.

“I respect the apparitions and have known of authentic conversions. In light of these events, how can we not always feel the need to open our hearts to our mother Mary to tell her that we need her protection, help, spirit, desire, faith, hope, and love!”

This was signed on May 7, 2007.

Hardly false! And hardly condemned!**

I watch the Garabandal events intently for personal reasons and revelation. I think this is something to watch. But if the seers are truthful, then it will be shown. There is no grey area in this. Tim

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/Garabandal2.html

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Hate to take the thread off-topic, but, for any that don’t care to peruse the link above, YES, the apparitions at Garabandal have most certainly been condemned by the Church - many times over (the local bishop IS THE CHURCH). Furthermore, anybody who has any sense, frankly, and a mature faith, and is not an apparition-chaser, AFTER KNOWING THE FACTS (most don’t), will have to conclude that the Garabandal apparitions were “not supernatural” (not from God), just as the Church has concluded.

Most of what’s in the article above can be verified by other sources. Any one of the 20 or 30 major strikes against G would be enough to eliminate the possibility of its authenticity.

End of story. Hope nobody is offended.

 

[peary]

Hate to take the thread off-topic, but, for any that don’t care to peruse the link above, YES, the apparitions at Garabandal have most certainly been condemned by the Church - many times over (the local bishop IS THE CHURCH). Furthermore, anybody who has any sense, frankly, and a mature faith, and is not an apparition-chaser, AFTER KNOWING THE FACTS (most don’t), will have to conclude that the Garabandal apparitions were “not supernatural” (not from God), just as the Church has concluded.

Most of what’s in the article above can be verified by other sources. Any one of the 20 or 30 major strikes against G would be enough to eliminate the possibility of its authenticity.

End of story. Hope nobody is offended.

**Paul -
You are absolutely wrong to say that the Garabandal apparitions have been concemned by the Church, and I just typed out a good part of a letter by the recent bishop, the Most Reverend Archbishop Carlos Osoro Sierra, Archbishop of Oviedo, Spain, and acting Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Santander of which San Sebastian de Garabandal is a part. The letter is dated May 7, 2007 - only seven months ago.

And I would hope that in the future, before you type out false information, that you do your homework. By the very fact of the letter’s existence shows emphatically that the event is still open and cannot be considered ‘closed’ or ‘condemned.’

I do not consider myself an “apparition-chaser” and I think that your demeaning attitude towards those of us who listen carefully to what the Church says in these matters reveals that you only want to hear what you want to hear, and that you are not interested in focusing on the truth at all in this case. And you would have to direct me to the article in question since you are the one who mentions it. Your response indicates that you yourself have no knowledge of the facts. **

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

If the letter you posted is authentic, what it proves is that the local ordinary now allows the sacraments at the shrine - nothing more. It most certainly does not undo the past judgments (6?) of “nothing supernatural occurring” by the Church.

I gave the link to the article. With respect, you would do well to read it, and verify the facts it contains.

Garabandal is, at this point in time, one of the easiest false apparitions to see through, based on the many clearly false (unfulfilled) prophecies and other documented facts of the nature of the “apparitions”, their messages, the statements of the seers, and the judgments of the Church.

I will say no more on this matter, here or elsewhere. Facts are facts and I have no desire to debate this.

 

[peary]

If the letter you posted is authentic, what it proves is that the local ordinary now allows the sacraments at the shrine - nothing more. It most certainly does not undo the past judgments (6?) of “nothing supernatural occurring” by the Church.

I gave the link to the article. With respect, you would do well to read it, and verify the facts it contains.

Garabandal is, at this point in time, one of the easiest false apparitions to see through, based on the many clearly false (unfulfilled) prophecies and other documented facts of the nature of the “apparitions”, their messages, the statements of the seers, and the judgments of the Church.

I will say no more on this matter, here or elsewhere. Facts are facts and I have no desire to debate this.

**I have read the article you posted. It is so full of nonsense and errors that it would take up a ridiculous amount of time to refute everything that is contained.

Again, the apparitions of Garabandal HAVE NEVER BEEN CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH. That is a false statement.

EVERYTHING IS DOCUMENTED. In fact, it is one of the most documented apparitions of the 20th century.**

The local Spanish Bishops have been predictably skeptical. This temperance is commendable as it would be rash to lend apostolic approval to an incomplete apparition. Although Our Lady has not appeared in the village since 1965, the apparition requires the occurrence of the Warning, Miracle, and the Sign left at the Pines to ratify the prophecies and conclude the events. Regarding the theological content of the Messages, in His “Official Note” of July 8, 1965 Bishop Eugenio Beitia of Santander wrote:

“We point out, however, that we have not found anything deserving of ecclesiastical censorship or condemnation either in the doctrine or in the spiritual recommendations that have been publicized as having been addressed to the faithful for these contain an exhortation to prayer and sacrifice, to Eucharistic devotion, to veneration of Our Lady in traditional praiseworthy ways, and to holy fear of God offended by our sins. They simply repeat the common doctrine of the Church in these matters.”

I print the above because I want those reading this to know that what you are typing is absolutely false information with regard to the Garabandal event, and that it shows emphatically, by the bishop’s own words, though initial investigation may have concluded that, as you say, “no supernatural events” occurred there, it is far from being a condemned apparition.

Forum readers deserve to know the truth in this regard.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

I know this thread is a few months old, and I see that it departed from it’s original topic…but I wanted to mention this.

The OP linked to a 1879 publication by one of the La Salette visionaries, Melanie, who made several disturbing (and false) prophecies that she claimed the Blessed Virgin revealed to her when she was 14. As explained at churchinhistory.org/pages/leaflets/melanie.htm, this publication, though originally approved by the bishop, was later condemned and actually added to the Index of Forbidden Books.

The original vision of La Salette is approved by the Church, and many popes, including Pope John Paul II, have had a devotion to Our Lady of La Salette.

Some of the other posters remarked that a vision, to be authentic, must produce holiness in the visionary. While that might be sufficient for your own devotion, that is not the criteria the Church uses. For at least two reasons: 1) it would be necessary to wait until the visionary died to approve the apparition, 2) the vision does not take away the free will of the visionary. If a visionary curses God the day before he dies, that does not invalidate the vision itself.

This of course is in relation to the question of Melanie, one of the two children who are said to have had the vision. In short, as years went by, she expected praise from people for having had a vision of Mary. When she didn’t receive this, her writings became anti-clerical and she wrote all sorts of absurd things, hence the publication the OP linked to.

 

[peary]

I know this thread is a few months old, and I see that it departed from it’s original topic…but I wanted to mention this.

The OP linked to a 1879 publication by one of the La Salette visionaries, Melanie, who made several disturbing (and false) prophecies that she claimed the Blessed Virgin revealed to her when she was 14. As explained at churchinhistory.org/pages/leaflets/melanie.htm, this publication, though originally approved by the bishop, was later condemned and actually added to the Index of Forbidden Books.

The original vision of La Salette is approved by the Church, and many popes, including Pope John Paul II, have had a devotion to Our Lady of La Salette.

Some of the other posters remarked that a vision, to be authentic, must produce holiness in the visionary. While that might be sufficient for your own devotion, that is not the criteria the Church uses. For at least two reasons: 1) it would be necessary to wait until the visionary died to approve the apparition, 2) the vision does not take away the free will of the visionary. If a visionary curses God the day before he dies, that does not invalidate the vision itself.

This of course is in relation to the question of Melanie, one of the two children who are said to have had the vision. In short, as years went by, she expected praise from people for having had a vision of Mary. When she didn’t receive this, her writings became anti-clerical and she wrote all sorts of absurd things, hence the publication the OP linked to.

**There is a lot of misinformation in your posting. It is true that the appearances of Mary at LaSalette were controversial and there was quite a bit of opposition to the event, particularly after the bishop of the diocese approved it and then retired. There is nothing in the messages themselves that go against the Faith, however, and this must be kept in mind while studying them. Also, at the time of the apparition, France had suffered a revolution in the political order followed by a revolt against God and the Church. Even in the rural areas of France few people bothered to go to Mass on Sundays. One has only to read the life of St. John Mary Vianney, Curé of Ars, to realize the spiritual plight of the people.

The LaSalette messages encompassed the following:

1. the unfaithfulness of many priests who are ruining many souls.
2. the erosion of society and the punishments this will cause.
3. a warning about Napoleon III and the need for the pope to remain steadfast and strong.
4. civil wars in Europe, particularly Italy, and persecution of the Church.
5. the loss of priestly vocations, abandonment of religious life, and a great persecution of religious orders.

The reported ‘secrets’ given by the Virgin to the children are controversial. All we have is the secret of Melanie Mathieu (Calvat), aged 14 years in 1846. The ‘secret’ that was sent to Pius IX does not appear to be the same one which the seer published on her own later in her life, which was seemingly filled with all sorts of wild imaginings. It is noted too that as Melanie got older she became more depressed and emotionally unstable, and now it is assumed that she suffered from bi-polar disorder. But in spite of this, it did not deter her from her mission of founding a religious order. We still, to this day, do not know the ‘secret’ of the other visionary, Maximin Giraud, aged 11 in 1846, because it has never been published.

Both individuals led an unsettled lifestyle. Maximin returned to his native village and died a peaceful and holy death in 1875. He was later raised to Blessed status in sainthood. Melanie lived and later died in Altamura, Italy in 1904 where she established the religious Order of the Mother of God. She too was later raised to Blessed status.

A website on her life is found here: magnificat.ca/cal/engl/12-14.htm

A website on Maximin’s life is found here:
magnificat.ca/cal/engl/09-20.htm**