The Warning, Or Illumination Of Conscience

The lives of alleged seers, particularly AFTER they have had an alleged supernatural encounter, is one of the deciding factors in determinig authenticity:

Types of Decisions.

The decision of the local bishop should be one of the following: 1) constat de supernaturalitate (established as supernatural), 2) constat de non supernaturalitate(established as not supernatural); or 3) non constat de supernaturalitate (not established as supernatural).

1. Constat de supernaturalitate. An apparition judged supernatural (formerly called worthy of belief) has manifested signs or evidence of being an authentic or truly miraculous intervention from heaven. This judgment is possible when there is evidence of supernatural phenomena, sound doctrine, moral probity, mental health and sound piety of the seer(s) and enduring good fruits among the faithful... https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm


Clearly, if the primary seer were to have "married" a divorced man, this would seriously call into question the veracity of the apparition.

 

Sounds like St. Edmund was referencing the Last Judgement. The giveaway is when he says that the terrible Judge will "try every man."

 

To have strong reservations about Garabandal may start WWIII. At least on the forum.
But have no fear. Garabandal tells us there will be no WWIII.

 

HAHAHA ! What the heck is a "primary source , IF not a book ? He is in several books by different authors ! Secondary sources ???? He chose to leave her his most precious items upon his death , what in the world do you call that ?

 

LOL, Mac, a discussion means 2 opposing views offer their opinions,based on what they believe, but when one side REFUSES ANY FORM OF PROOF, it ceases being a discussion, hence it becomes what one side wanted in the first place...a fight.

 

You could possibly be right Richard.

However I think there are 2 giveaways that indicate St Edmund was speaking of a different event to the Last judgement.

St Edmund said..........."I pronounced a great day, not wherein any temporal potentate should muster, but wherein the terrible Judge should reveal all men's consciences, and try every man of each kind of religion. This is the day of change, this is the Great Day which I threatened, comfortable to the well being and terrible to all heretics. Any other day than this, God he knows, I meant not."

When St Edmund says........ 'and try every man of each kind of religion', why would he have to add of each kind of religion? Because if he is refering to the final judgement, this is a given, surely!

Also St Edmund says.......... 'this is a day of change'. Why would St Edmund say this? The final judgement comes after the consumation of all. So a day of change in my book, must happen prior to this.

 

If Conchita married a man who was previously married, and had children, there are ways that her marriage would be valid in the Church. Maybe there was an annulment process, maybe he was not married in the Church before, maybe after the annulment there was a dispensation from the Bishop. You do NOT know.
I speak from experience.

 

Did not God know every event in Conchita's future ? So if he does( and we know he does) it means nothing what happened to her later on in life because he still chose her to be the main visionary,and personally speaking, she is the finest person I have ever met. A woman who seeks NOTHING from this world, but to leave it, and be in Heaven. Those hateful people here who try to defame her,should be ashamed ! When was the last time YOUR friends included Saints and Popes ? Watch who you judge, lest you be judged just as harshly one day . Dread the Warning.

 

Found this:

Conchita: Patrick’s first marriage, I want to be very clear, was not a marriage in the Church. He was married in a civil union just to give his last name to his children, and that was all.

FG: Está claro, nunca se casó por la Iglesia.

FG: It is clear; he was never married in the Church.

Conchita: Y nunca vivieron juntos. Ellos nunca vivieron en una casa juntos.

Conchita: And they never lived together. They never lived in the same house."
So first marriage was not in a Church meaning no annulment necessary.

 

You got Eucharistic ministers here that administer Communion, besides priests....just a thought...

 

So your attacks on her marriage and credibility are UNFOUNDED ! You were so ready to condemn somebody you don't even know ! God makes the "wise " look foolish.

 

I didn't "attack" anyones marriage. I had a question and then found the answer. Pretty simple, really. You're looking for a fight and I won't give you one.

 

Now, her "credibility" is a different matter.

 

Just to be clear, time for approval is not a good measure for argument to declare something legit or not because it is all over the place. Here is why:

All Approved by Vatican Marian Apparitions:

Guadalupe: Began in 1531, Approved 1555, Reinvestigated in 1666, 1723 - 24 years to approval
Lezajsk: Began in 1578, Approved 1752, Investigated in 1631 - 174 years to approval
Siluva: Began in 1608, Approved 1775, Investigated in 1612 - 167 years to approval
Laus: Began in 1664, Approved in 2008, Investigated in 1665, 2007 - 344 years to approval
Rue du Bac: Began in 1830, Approved in 1836, Investigated in 1836 - 6 years to approval
Zion: Began in 1842 Approved in 1842 - same year
La Salette: Began in 1846, Approved in 1851, Investigated in 1846 - 5 years to approve
Lourdes: Began in 1858 Approved in 1862 - 4 years
Help of Christians: Began 1866, Approved in 1885 - 19 years
Our Lady of Hope: Began 1871, Approved 1872 - 1 year
Our Lady of Girtrzwald: Began 1877, Approved 1977 - 100 years
Knock: Began 1879, Approved 1936, Investigated 1879, 1936 - 57 years
Fatima: Began 1917, Approved 1930 - 13 years
Virgin of Golden Heart: Began 1932, Approved 1949 - 17 years
Virgin of Poor: Began 1933, Approved 1942 - 9 years
Rwanda: Began 1981, Approved 2001, Investigated 1982 - 20 years

Some of Approvals by Local Bishop only:

Good Success: Began 1594, Approved 1611 - 17 years
Good Help: Began 1859, Approved 2010 - 151 years
All Nations: Began 1945, Approved 2002, Investigated 1956, 2002 - 57 years
Akita: Began 1973, Approved 1984 - 11 years
San Nicolas: Began 1983, Approved 2016 - 33 years
Itapiranga: Began 1994, Approved 2009 - 15 years

Some Others:

Divine Mercy: Began 1924, Condemned 1959, Approved 1978 - 54 years

Sacred Heart Devotion: Began 1673 St. Margaret Mary Alacoque though earliest devotion goes back to St. Bernard 1153, Consecration of World to Sacred Heart Pope Leo XIII 1899, Feast Declared 1956 - 283 years from St. Alacoque vision to feast day or 803 years from earliest devotion to sacred heart to feast day.

Two Hearts Devotion: Began St. John Eudes 1648, Pope Pius XII encouraged joint devotion in 1956 and St. John Paul put devotion to practice in 1979 - 331 years

 

Conchita admits to taking hosts (unconsecrated) from the sacristy on prior occasions.

 

Keep those attacks coming "Little me". Who's looking for a fight now ?

 

You view questioning Garabandal as an "attack". You're entitled to that. It's how you slam anyone with valid questions. I won't read anymore of your comments.

 

"I have heard talk, I am referring to the Miracle of the Communion, that the four of you gathered in the Church and made tests with the hosts. To make this clear, that in the sacristy, you were the best at the trick and that the Miracle of the Communion was something that you girls prepared."

Siento preguntarte esto pero si tú puedes decirnos algo va a servir para aclarar muchas cosas.

"I regret having to ask you this, but if you able to tell us something that will clarify many things."

Conchita: Nosotras nos pasábamos muchísimo tiempo en la Iglesia, entonces el párroco nos daba a comer las hostias sin consagrar, así en la sacristía, y vino. Entonces volvimos allá, no sé si una o dos veces, y cogimos las formas y las comimos con vino porque nos gustaba.

Conchita: We used to spend a lot of time in the Church, and then the pastor would give us unconsecrated hosts to eat in the sacristy, and wine as well. Then we returned there once or twice and took the hosts and ate them with wine because we liked them.

 

Little me, what does that prove? If you are suggesting that since she admitted to taking host then it must be invalid, that does not disprove anything. The children at Fatima would take fruit from their neighbors trees and came to realize this was stealing (after their experiences began mind you) so they stopped. Also, as stated by others, angels have distributed communion in approved apparitions and have said that they took them from the tabernacle so were already consecrated. This occurred at Fatima as well. I am neither defending or discrediting Garabandal but you can't come to a conclusion against it based on these things your are bringing up. If you don't believe, fine but you should bring about better explanations or arguments if you want to present to others the why's of your disbelief having credibility.

 

Did anyone bother to explain to you, the town was also preparing the girls of age to learn how to recieve their First Communion ? Your piece was also taking out of context what the purpose of the unconsecrated hosts were being used for ! Again lets include ALL the FACTS >