The Apparitions at Garabandal

  • Thread starter Thread starter MiKeEd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
George G.:
This web site does a fairly thorough job to decry the Garabandal apparitions:

unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/Garabandal2.html
Click to expand...
George,
While this site you posted does a good job at showing what is wrong with Garabandal, it has errors itself…

It attempts to use “prophesy” of St. Malachi about the popes… This has “prophesy” has been shown to be of a later date than St. Malachi and has been disproven…
40.png
MiKeEd:
If Saint Pio didn’t believe that the apparitions were true than why would he give one of his gloves to Conchita before he died??? And I did hear this information. I haven’t been blessed to have had the opportunity to speak with St. Pio myself. I heard this factual information from my mom, who heard it from Conchita’s good friend.
Click to expand...
This is the definition of hearsay… You heard it from someone who heard it from someone…

As for a gift give, this does not prove that the gift giver believed.

And even if he did, he is not infallible… He could be wrong.
 
For some reason, online message boards seem to attract folks who naysay apparitions. I’ve always wondered why that is. I’d love to find a discussion board devoted to alleged apparitions. Anyone know of one? 😃

I’m with Mike on this one. The Church has NOT condemned Garabandal. (This is in sharp contrast to Bayside, which was most decisively condemned.) To date, the Church has ruled that it sees no evidence of supernatural phenomena at Garabandal. But it has not ruled, finally and definitively, that the supernatural has NOT occurred. (There are two different Latin formulae commonly used in these matters, IIRC. The Church has used the more flexible one, not the stricter one denoting outright condemnation and a definitive negative verdict.)

Until the Church definitively rules against Garabandal, Catholics are free to believe in it. The local ordinary has even eased his predecessors’ prohibitions on visiting priests celebrating Mass there. This is not the action of someone bent on absolutely forbidding Garabandal.

The Garabandal visionaries have always stressed–and practiced–complete obedience and submission to the Church. And far from being deemed heretical, the Garabandal messages have been deemed consistent with Church Teaching, IIRC. (Read the content of the messages re prayer, penance, contemplating the Passion,and obeying the Church: Is there anything there contrary to Faith and Morals?)

Anyway, as Mike points out, the Garabdanal seers are not the only ones predicting a worldwide illumination of conscience. Many saints and beati have foretold the same thing. If it happens, it happens–and Garabandal will be vindicated. If it doesn’t happen, well, it doesn’t. Our faith doesn’t hinge on private revelations–not even on approved ones.

But I’m placing my bets on the upcoming occurrence of the Warning. 😃

In complete submission to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church,

ZT
 
Sir Knight:
In this particular case, lawful church authority rests with the Holy See and the local bishop who have forbidden pilgrimages. Yet, they are running pilgrimages. This alone points to the apparitions as not being from God.
Click to expand...
I’m confused. Who is running pilgrimages?

Informal, unofficial pilgrimages are usually considered OK (unless the site has been condemned outright a la Bayside). After all, the Church doesn’t usually dicate where Catholics can and cannot travel.

It’s only formal, official pilgrimages that are forbidden at not-yet-approved sites.

Has anyone been leading formal, official pilgrimages to Garabandal? If so, that’s news to me!

ZT
 
40.png
ZoeTheodora:
For some reason, online message boards seem to attract folks who naysay apparitions. I’ve always wondered why that is. I’d love to find a discussion board devoted to alleged apparitions. Anyone know of one? 😃

I’m with Mike on this one. The Church has NOT condemned Garabandal. (This is in sharp contrast to Bayside, which was most decisively condemned.) To date, the Church has ruled that it sees no evidence of supernatural phenomena at Garabandal. But it has not ruled, finally and definitively, that the supernatural has NOT occurred. (There are two different Latin formulae commonly used in these matters, IIRC. The Church has used the more flexible one, not the stricter one denoting outright condemnation and a definitive negative verdict.)
Click to expand...
So you say that the Church has said that nothing supernatural has occured at Garabandal but then you say that you believe in the appartion…

So which is it, do you follow the Church or yourself?

If nothing supernatural occured then there was no appartion… No need for the Church to make any other comments…

I do not naysay appartions, I follow that the Church says…

The Church says that there was no appartion at Garabandal.
 
Lets also look at what the Church teaches about appartions…

By reading the Catechism…
III. CHRIST JESUS – "MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION"
Click to expand...
God has said everything in his Word
Click to expand...
65 “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on *Hebrews *1:1-2:
Click to expand...
In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.
Click to expand...
There will be no further Revelation
Click to expand...
66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
Click to expand...
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.
Click to expand...
We can see that the Church teaches that no new public revelation will occur until Christs second comming.

Also, no private revelation is part of the Deposit of Faith, so no Catholic is bound to believe in apparitions that the Church has approved.

So one could be a good and faithful Catholic while not believeing in Fatima.
 
40.png
ZoeTheodora:
The Church has NOT condemned Garabandal… To date, the Church has ruled that it sees no evidence of supernatural phenomena at Garabandal. But it has not ruled, finally and definitively, that the supernatural has NOT occurred. (There are two different Latin formulae commonly used in these matters, IIRC. The Church has used the more flexible one, not the stricter one denoting outright condemnation and a definitive negative verdict.)
Click to expand...
I am well aware of the distinction between Non constat de supernaturalitate (“It cannot be affirmed that supernatural apparitions and revelations are occurring” ) and Constat de non supernaturalitate (“It is confirmed that there is nothing supernatural” ).

Now, I cannot find any documents from the local Bishop that explicitly use either phase. You are asserting that the Church used " the more flexible one, not the stricter one ". If you have a source, quote it.

Meanwhile, the letter from Jose Vilaplana, Bishop of Santander, that I quoted above used this language:
All the bishops of the diocese since 1961 through 1970 agreed that there was no supernatural validity for the apparitions.
Click to expand...
Seems pretty blunt to me. He does not say that they “cannot affirm the supernatural” nature, he says that there is “no supernatural validity”. Not exactly a wishy washy phrase! Pretty definite negative verdict. You say, “But it has not ruled, finally and definitively, that the supernatural has NOT occurred.” What do you call the phrase:
All the bishops of the diocese since 1961 through 1970 agreed that there was no supernatural validity for the apparitions.
Click to expand...
40.png
ZoeTheodora:
I’m confused. Who is running pilgrimages?

Informal, unofficial pilgrimages are usually considered OK (unless the site has been condemned outright a la Bayside). After all, the Church doesn’t usually dicate where Catholics can and cannot travel.
Click to expand...
You are correct that the Church does not forbid people to travel. However, she can forbid Catholics to call such travel a pilgrimage, or to refer to supposed apparitions as the purpose of such travel, or to say that the travel is to a “Marian Shrine”.

Well, the garabandal.org website has no problem with promoting pilgrimages. From their website: Garabandal Pilgrimage Information

Don’t get me wrong, I am not against apparitions in general. Actually, just the opposite. Because I feel such devotion to the Blessed Mother and her approved apparitions, I am especially against false ones. I’d love the chance to go on a pilgrimage to Lourdes, Fatima, or other approved sites.
 
I just wanna pop in here to say I appreciate the original poster for at least raising the subject.

I read the earlier thread about Medjugorje too, and was really very affected by the various responses there about that ‘authenticity’.

But as in this thread, the bottom line does seem to hold true, that if there are official writings/rulings from the Church discrediting the authenticity then it doesn’t seem prudent to continue ‘believing until the Church comes around to authenticating’ the apparitions.

This new insight these threads provide made me a bit sad, though, because I know of many people who have truly experienced miracles based on their pilgrimages. However, it stands to reason that the miracles were granted because of the sincerity of the plea. By that, I mean, these people I know who received their ‘signs’ properly prepared themselves by fasting, praying, seeking spiritual guidance and most of all, believing that God would respond some way - they didn’t ask for ‘specific’ wishes, just that God’s will be done and that it be revealed to them what that was for them.

So for me, I can still believe in the miracles because I believe they would have occurred even if the families had remained home and not traveled across the country, for it is faith above all, which opens the door to feel God’s presence in our lives.

Personally, without the blessing of the Church, I dare not trust in these other ‘sightings’ because I do have a healthy respect for the power of Satan to deceive.

Thanks to all of you participating in this thread and similar ones for opening my eyes and protecting me. I had not been aware of the writings against these apparitions because anytime I research Medjugorje I went to the ‘official’ site and there, everything is written with conviction reassuring us that the Church has not forbidden us to believe, thereby alluding to it being ok to believe until an official ruling is made. After reading some of the links you have provided I am truly disheartened, but grateful.
 
So did you have any belief that Fatima was an authentic apparition site before the Church said it was?

There is nothing wrong with believing in something before the Church makes a final decision on it. Garabandal is still an ongoing investigation. That is why I am able to believe Mary appeared to those four young, devout, Catholic children and Fr. Luis Marie Andreu at this time.

If you look at all the facts you will also see that Our Mother is working to bring people closer to Her son Jesus through the apparitions at Garabandal. Just look at the good that has come out of the Garabandal apparitions.
 
I don’t know. . . the whole thing about them being thrown down on their knees, running backwards downhill & some of the other strange physical things sound more like The Exorcist than our Blessed Mother. Its difficult for me to see her “using” those girls, she never abused other visionaries.
 
40.png
MiKeEd:
So did you have any belief that Fatima was an authentic apparition site before the Church said it was?
Click to expand...
Given that Fatima happened decades before either of us were born, it is a silly question.
40.png
MiKeEd:
There is nothing wrong with believing in something before the Church makes a final decision on it. Garabandal is still an ongoing investigation.
Click to expand...
Jeez, six Bishops and the Holy See have ruled against it. You are being ridiculous.

I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
 
40.png
MiKeEd:
So did you have any belief that Fatima was an authentic apparition site before the Church said it was?

There is nothing wrong with believing in something before the Church makes a final decision on it. Garabandal is still an ongoing investigation. That is why I am able to believe Mary appeared to those four young, devout, Catholic children and Fr. Luis Marie Andreu at this time.

If you look at all the facts you will also see that Our Mother is working to bring people closer to Her son Jesus through the apparitions at Garabandal. Just look at the good that has come out of the Garabandal apparitions.
Click to expand...
Well, fortunately I suppose, for me, I’m a child of the 60s so by the time I became aware of Fatima, Lourdes and Guadalupe, the Church had already spoken. All other apparitions since then I’ve always had reservations about…and as I noted, I had been heavily leaning toward believing in Medjugorje based on the real miracles that have occurred for people I know personally based on their belief in her there.

I know now that the miracles they received were the result of their personal faith in God and Mary - that His will be done - and because of the sincerity with which they sought Mary’s intercession on their behalf. Mary still exists and responds to our calls - even from our living rooms. But some people, apparently, need to be pulled to doing something grand and well out of the ordinary in order to get that final ‘boost’ of confidence. It could have just been a true conversion and Mary working within their hearts and nothing to do with the ‘apparitions’.

Think about it…from the U.S. at least…a person really has to be overwhelmed with faith to tackle such a pilgrimage - any pilgrimage, really. But there are many miracles occuring for people who never left their home towns. With that abundance of faith in your heart anything is possible.
 
Folks, it’s time to close this thread. The argument against Garabandal has been stated clearly, and those who believe in it nevertheless have put forth their position. That’s sufficient.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top