Garabandal Objections

Objection No. 4
The alleged 'Padre Pio' connection.
Now I know for a fact that this has been 'played up'. I was present at a talk given by Joey in 1977. Joey told us the story of his trip to Pietrelcina and his meetings with Padre Pio. He said (and his account is repeated in the book 'Star on the Mountain') that when he asked Padre Pio whether or not he should travel to Garabandal, he was told, 'Go but be discreet'. St. Pio gave no positive opinion and certainly did not guarantee the authenticity of the apparitions. I am also not convinced that Joey took PP's advice about being discreet since he very rapidly became an open and prominent supporter of the apparitions.
I also have a neighbour who used to provide accommodation to Padre Agostino when he used to visit the UK to give talks about Padre Pio. He used to like to sit up into the early hours (with a drink and good supply of cigarettes!) and tell stories about their time together. She tells me that Padre Agostino never once mentioned Garabandal nor any claimed vision by Padre Pio of the miracle at his death. I now read claims that several of his confreres were aware of him seeing the miracle but I have never seen any statement from any one of them to confirm this.
The undated, unsigned letter in Italian to the visionaries is held up as proof of his support. I believe that he would have signed any such letter of support otherwise what value would it hold?
Even if there were proof of Padre Pio's belief in the apparitions, it would not constitute proof of their authenticity since e.g. Saint John Vianney changed his original view of the apparitions at La Salette.

 

I have provided a mountain of evidence of Padre Pio's assurance and approval to Joey about the validity of the apparitions. You are the sadly unbending one who fails to acknowledge the truth when it is put before you. The phrase you used is the ONLY TIME it appears in any of a dozen books. HERE's another example of Padre Pio's GUARANTEE OF THE APPARITIONS, Joey's updated web site . JOEYS OWN WORDS , NOT AN AUTHOR'S : http://www.garabandal.us/joey-lomangino-padre-pio/

 

The most exalted Saint would not be in a position to guarantee the authenticity of any apparition, that is reserved to the Church.
However, IF Padre Pio said that he was going to be present at Joey's conferences and bless the people then I would certainly take that as a positive indicator about his attitude but I am surprised that no mention of this was made at the event I attended, I would certainly have been stirred to hear it. This points up another worry that I have and that is that accounts of certain events appear to be different depending on the source and also appear to have become different over time.
Padre Agostino's total failure to mention Garabandal at any of his talks, or to his UK hosts in private, still leaves me doubting that this was a subject that was important to Padre Pio otherwise I cannot understand why it would not have been mentioned.
I have read your link - thanks.
(You have now accused me of being 'desperate' twice. Your opinion is duly noted, no need to do so for a third time. Let's not get personal.)

 

I have read objections that I believe are inconsequential but (sorry) this one (the bare head of Our Lady) did trouble me a bit as it was outside of my knowledge of other apparitions. However, on reflection and with the benefit of your input, I withdraw this objection and stand satisfied that this is not a matter that detracts from the credibility of the apparitions. Thank you.

 

To not believe in an alleged apparition is not desperation. Not everyone needs them for their faith. They are not the faith itself but an enhancement of our faith. They point us back to our faith in the same way that the prophets of old did.

However, to hang on to something (I am not making a judgement on Garabandal here) when it has flaws or has been disproved can actually be seen as a desperation.

 

SteveD, first I did delete that word ( desperation ) right after I wrote it, I don't know how you reposted so fast but I did NOT want to use that word, or thought, as you can see post #62 it was corrected, so I do apologize. I really don't understand why cant a "most exalted SAINT" guarantee an apparition ? Maybe that's what the Blessed Mother wanted, someone of impeccable reputation to assure Joey he was doing the right thing by going and he would NOT lose the graces he received from Padre Pio. You have to consider that his approval was part of Mary's plan for Joey, what other explanation is there ?

 

Mary's child, you missed my point, I did not say it was desperation ,not to believe in the apparition, I said , that someone would take issue with what The BLessed Mother was wearing on her head ,seems like nit-picking (or desperate ). That's why its good to research something before you make a claim. She has appeared several times without a vail.

 

I think the whole point of this particular thread was to allow Steve to air his misgivings in the hope that someone could answer him without judgement or ridicule.

We have your Garabandal thread also.

It is good to share, debate and discern. This is what we are asked to do. Test the spirits.

We should also hold fast to what Church teaches.

Glen, do you know why local bishops have declared this not a supernatural event?

It hasn't been taken out of the bishops hands for Vatican to directly intervene has it? In which case we are to be obedient to the local bishop.

I do however believe that Mass is allowed to be said there once again. Nevertheless, the apparitions themselves still do not have the bishops approval. I am right in thinking this yes?

Do you know why?

This is a valid question. I hope you don't think I am nitpicking..

I am middle of the road on this one to be completely honest with you. Neither wholeheartedly for or wholeheartedly against.

 

I think SteveD is looking to have his objections answered more than the status of the bishop's approval. Garabandal has a non constat de supernaturalitate, which I believe Medjugorje has.

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.
The issue of supernaturality is one that deserves to be explored more fully. According to the common teaching of the Church, most extraordinary phenomena in the mystical order (visions, apparitions, locutions, ecstasies, mystical knowledge etc.) are caused by angels acting on God's behalf. Whether the burning bush which Moses saw, the ecstatic flights of St. Joseph Cupertino, the stigmata of St. Francis or the revelations of St. Catherine, the general rule in the spiritual order is that God does not do immediately and directly what can be done mediately through a lower order nature, in this case the good angels. The presence of such phenomenon is not, therefore, unequivocal evidence of supernaturality. Each of the approved apparitions have had such clear signs, from the instantaneous and inexplicable cures at Lourdes to the natural prodigy of October 13th 1917 in Fátima, but also the other marks of authenticity mentioned above.
2. Constat de non supernaturalitate. The judgment that an alleged apparition has been shown to be not supernatural means it is either clearly not miraculous or lacks sufficient signs of the miraculous. Private revelation, for example, which is doctrinally dangerous or which manifests hostility to lawful authority could not come from God. It could even be demonic, especially if there are extraordinary signs accompanying it. The devil gladly mingles truth and lie to deceive the faithful, dazzling them with signs and wonders to give credence to his message. His purpose is to separate them from the Church, either by getting them to believe things contrary to the deposit of the faith or to act contemptuously of Church authority. An attitude of pride and judgment toward the Church is a clear sign of his presence. An alleged revelation may also only be a pious rambling, consistent with faith and morals, but lacking evidence of being anything more than the product of human effort. No fraud need be intended, only an active imagination. Finally, it may be that the doctrine may be sound and there may be phenomena, but insufficient to demonstrate supernaturality. In this latter case, there would seem to be a possibility of revision.
3. Non constat de supernaturalitate. Finally, it may not be evident whether or not the alleged apparition is authentic. This judgment would seem to be completely open to further evidence or development.

 

The Alleged Apparitions at Garabandal, Spain
Msgr. Jose Vilaplana, Bishop of Santander, Spain
In answer to questions about the alleged Marian apparitions at Garabandal, Spain, Bishop Jose Vilaplana sends the following response to inquirers.
Diocese of Santander
Santander, [date]
Some people have been coming directly to the Diocese of Santander (Spain) asking about the "alleged apparitions" of Garabandal, and above all for the position of the hierarchy of the Church concerning these apparitions.
I must communicate that:
1. All the bishops of the diocese from 1961 through 1970 asserted that the supernatural character of the said apparitions, that took place around that time, could not be confirmed. [no constaba].*
2. In the month of December of 1977 Msgr. del Val, Bishop of Santander, in union with his predecessors, affirmed that in the six years of being Bishop of Santander there were no new phenomena.
3. Not withstanding, the same Msgr. del Val, the first years having passed in which there was confusion to enthusiasm, initiated an interdisciplinary study in order to examine with greater profundity these phenomenon. The conclusion of this study coincided with the previous findings by the bishops, which is to say, that it does not prove [no consta] the supernaturality of said apparitions.
4. This study concluded during the days in which I took possession of the diocese in 1991. Taking advantage, in that same year, of a trip to Rome for the motive of making the ad limina visit, I presented said study to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and asked for guidance for pastoral activity concerning the case.
5. On Nov. 28, 1992, the Congregation sent me its response, consisting in, that after having examined attentively the mentioned documentation, it did not consider it opportune to intervene directly, removing the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop of Santander, this subject that belongs to him by right. Previous declarations of the Holy See agree in this finding.
In the same letter it was suggested, if I find it opportune, to publish a declaration in which it is re-affirmed that the supernaturality of the referenced apparitions was not proven, making my own the unanimous position of my predecessors.
6. Given that the declarations of my predecessors, who studied the case, have been clear and unanimous, I do not find it necessary to have a new public declaration that would give notoriety to something which happened so long ago. However, I find it opportune to redact this information as a direct response to the persons who ask for direction concerning this question, which I give finally, accepting the decisions of my predecessors and the direction of the Holy See.
7. In reference to the celebration of the Eucharist in Garabandal, following the dispositions of my predecessors, I only allow that it be celebrated in the parish church without reference to the alleged apparitions and with the permission of the current pastor, who has my confidence.
With the wish that this information is helpful to you, receive my cordial greeting in Christ,
Jose Vilaplana
Bishop of Santander
* EWTN: It should be noted that this appears to correspond to the 3rd of the categories used by the Church since new norms were promulgated in 1978 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

1) constat de supernaturalitate (it is established supernatural)
2) constat de non supernaturalitate (it is established not supernatural)
3) non constat de supernaturalitate (it is not established supernatural)​

 

I thought Medjugorje hadn't had any declarations as of yet, except by the local bishops and because there is a long history between them and the Franciscans, Rome has intervened.

I thought if Rome didn't intervene then we were to listen to the local bishops. How many have there been?

This side of it really is all new to me to be honest. I didn't even think about these things until I joined this Forum and of course when I started noticing quacks like the two patricks etc..

 

Thank you for this Hope.. So it hasn't been frowned upon as such, just not enough proof yet?

 

I think in ongoing apparitions such as Garabandal and Medjugorje{heavens, I know God tests you, but I never thought it would be spelling tests as with these two town's names} that the church never approves until the apparitions are over which in this case they aren't as we have to wait for the final predictions{secrets} to unfold. It took years for the Church to come to a decision after Lourdes and Fatima, so even when and if the secrets, miracles, signs happen it could still be years after that.

 

You are welcome, SteveD.
Thanks for letting us know.

 

Rofl @ spelling tests!

ROFL for those of you who don't know means Rolling on the floor laughing!

 

As I remember, the local bishops decision on Medjugorje was while it was still Yugoslavia - and this is important. Medjugorje is in Bosnia, but it is a Croatian town and people are Catholics. Yugoslavia was like a mini-soviet union - that also was an empire driven by the forces of the Great Serbia, and Serbs are mostly Orthodox( those are the roots of the Balkan war - when everybody wanted to leave the "union" in the 90s, it were Milosevic and other Serbs dreaming about Great Serbia who started the war - "nobody can go!". Yugoslavian authorities might not have been as suppressive as soviet ones towards religion, but I highly suspect that the bishops decision at that time was influenced by the state.

This might be the reason there is still no decision from Vatican on Medjugorje.

 

Yes it was Insearch. One bishop said he felt that Our Lady was appearing there, then after his arrest he retracted his statement. It was at the same time that Fr Yozo then when on to be imprisoned.

There is however a long standing feud or something between the secular priest and the Franciscans etc..

Unfortunately, this seems to be standing in the way of things in this instance and I think that is why it was taken out of the local bishop's hands. Vatican has intervened directly in this case.

 

Steve you yourself have just provided a good personal example confirming the relevance of my reponse to your "contortion" objection above. Namely, your "contortion" objection seems to derive more from a subjective and inconsistant matter of personal "taste" rather than any substantial, logical or objective reflection on the minor phenomenon itself.

Let me explain...

At Fatima (which you seem to wholeheartedly accept) you know of the "insect noise" phenomenon but your "memory" is postively selective. You subconsciously recalled only a self-sanitised account ("like a bee in a bottle") consistant with your overall positive belief. Yet the objective documentation seems to go against this memory. Unless there are some sources I am not aware of the only expression close to your one actually translates as "I heard a sound, a din, such as a great fly makes inside an empty water pot." Others spoke of a fly inside an empty barrel. Noone mentioned a bee in a container.

At Garabandal (which you do not seem to whole-heartedly accept at present) you know of the physical ecstatic effects but your words are negatively selective to describe them. No eye-witnesses I have read has ever called these phenomenon "contortions." They have all been amazed at their beauty, and gracious power, called them divine "sculptures" or "entanglements" when they fell rigidly alone or together. All note the modesty of dress maintained even when their clothing should have ended up otherwise.

What I am suggesting is that your heart is (subconsciously) affecting what you (selectively) "see" in this case - though you do not yet realise it. It may be very worthwhile for you to reflect/pray deeper on whether this might be true and what the heart "reasons" may be...

I do not deny that most published Fatima accounts mention a buzzing of bees (but not in a container). Yet when one tracks down the source they all seem to source and converge on but one minor witness - Fatima's great publicist and minor witness (Carreira). She is always very careful to speak of "bees". However lesser published reports of the eye-witness villagers and family members, without any concern for public reaction, do not hesitate to speak of "flys" (often in a container) as their primary and closest analogy to explain the sound.

These unique noises do not seem to have ever been reported at any other Apparition before Fatima.
Using your criterion, why not interpret this phenomenon as possibly "diabolical" - just as you hint at re the unusual "contortions" at Garbandal?

So your objection, on the grounds of the "bizarre" and "disturbing", seems emotional and subjective rather than logical and objective. There has to be a first time for everything.

And just because something offends our very personal, subjective theological sensibilities or aesthetic tastes ... does not make it outside the grasp of heaven. It may in fact be purposely done by heaven to challenge our misaligned earthly "sensibilities."
You may recall that Our Lady chided most of the Garabandal Villagers for despising the "village idiot" in their hearts - but he seemed to please her greatly.

So there seems to be really nothing objective to get snagged on re your "objection1."
May as well get snagged on Fatima too. But you don't!

 

Steve I think you need to do better than this if you want your right to raise objections on a pro Garabandal site to be respected.

I, and others, take your objections seriously enough to accord you a thoughtful and sometimes researched response.
If you don't agree with the response then why not tell us why - rather than just repeat the objection again!
Its not just about satisfying you .

 

Blue Horizon, I echo your sentiments. I have answered a countless number of questions ,and yet none seem to satisfy Steve. One starts to ask oneself, is he here to genuinely obtain answers to learn, or to refute all explanations for the purpose debunking Garabandal ?