Garabandal Objections

MC I am not Glenn, but the answers to your questions are well known and clear if one reseacrhes them even if just on the Internet.
No you are not being nit-picky, they are fair questions.

"Glen, do you know why local bishops have declared this not a supernatural event? "
This cannot be directly answered because the question is wrong so any direct response will itself be misleading.

The correct question would perhaps be "...why have the local bishops declared this a not-yet-proven-supernatural event?"
This question actually answewrs your above question! The jury is still out. The local bishops and the Vatican are clearly waiting to see if the Warning and Miracle happen in Conchita's lifetime. And for obvious reasons.

"In which case we are to be obedient to the local bishop. "
Yes we must be obedient. A public cultus is not allowed.
However we may legitimately have a private devotion (it has not been condemned as defintely-not-supernatural) and spread the historical facts and even provide our own personal beliefs on the matter to others.

"I do however believe that Mass is allowed to be said there once again"
This is not a matter of belief. It is a plain fact.
I attended daily mass at Garabandal as recently as December 2012.
From my diary on Sunday 16th Dec 2012 I wrote: "About 35 persons in the body of the church and a choir of 10 persons. Mostly women and elderly but a good number of children and adolescents (8?) and their young parents. These do not live in the village...There was no procession of gifts...no sign of peace, no common communion chalice...communion was received on a kneeler directly on the tongue complete with communion plate...some younger parishioners, with difficulty because of the prominent kneeler, made a point of standing."

If I recall correctly attendance numbers at weekday mass was around a dozen - mostly old women.

 

Thank You Blue Horizon

I am reluctant to look for things on the internet as so much can be changed etc. I did look for various things to do with Fatima etc.. and low and behold it was from the break away Church that actually believe their true pope is in exile..

So I am very wary. I love a good book from a reliable source, but if I haven't got that, then I will rely on the knowledge of those around me.

 

JUST TO ADD TO YOUR INFORMATIVE POST :
THE BISHOP'S OFFICIAL LETTER: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.”

1987, Bishop del Val officially lifted restrictions on priests going up to Garabandal and gave the pastor of Garabandal at the time, Father Juan Gonzalez Gomez, authority to allow visiting priests to celebrate Mass in the village church.

The history of all approved apparitions shows that the Church requires unequivocal evidence of supernaturality. This can be cures, as at Lourdes or a supernatural prodigy, as at Fátima.
At Garabandal this would include the ecstasies, the ecstatic walks, the returning of rosaries and medals to the proper owners and so on. None of these things, much less the miraculous photos, rosaries turning gold etc. , proves anything to the Church about the divine origin of a phenomena. I still can't believe they don't think its from God.

 

I had someone tell me they didn't believe in Medjugorje because Marys feet were always covered,..the thought was it could be Satan diguised as the Blessed Virgin and didn't want his hooves to show.
End of conversation! I think it is the same with Garabandal. So many minor details.

 

Ok, I have this.. Can anyone explain this?



Statement by Bishop Msgr. Jose Vilaplaua of Santander on alleged apparitions
at Garabandal - issued on 11 October 1996
"Some people have been coming directly to the Diocese of Santander (Spain) asking about the
alleged apparitions of Garabandal and especially for the answer about the position of the hierarchy
of the Church concerning these apparitions.
I need to communicate that:
1. All the bishops of the diocese since 1961 through 1970 agreed that there was no supernatural
validity for the apparitions.
2. In the month of December of 1977 Bishop Dal Val of Santander, in union with his predecessors,
stated that in the six years of being bishop of Santander there were no new phenomena.
3. The same bishop, Dal Val, let a few years go by to allow the confusion or fanaticism to settle
down, and then he initiated a commission to examine the apparitions in more depth. The conclusion
of the commission agreed with the findings of the previous bishops. That there was no supernatural
validity to such apparitions.
4. At the time of the conclusions of the study, in 1991, I was installed bishop in the diocese. So
during my visit to Rome, the ad limina visit which happened in the same year, I presented to the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the study and I asked for pastoral direction concerning
this case.
5. On Nov. 28, 1992, the Congregation sent me an answer saying that after examining the
documentation, there was no need for direct intervention (by the Vatican) to take away the
jurisdiction of the ordinary bishop of Santander in this case. Such a right belongs to the ordinary.
Previous declarations of the Holy See agree in this finding. In the same letter they suggested that if
I find it necessary to publish a declaration, that I reconfirm that there was no supernatural validity
in the alleged apparitions, and this will make a unanimous position with my predecessors.
6. Given that the declarations of my predecessors who studied the case have been clear and
unanimous, I don’t find it necessary to have a new public declaration that would raise notoriety
about something which happened so long ago. However, I find it necessary to rewrite this report as
a direct answer to the people who ask for direction concerning this question, which is now final: I
agree with [and] I accept the decision of my predecessors and the direction of the Holy See.
7. In reference to the Eucharistic celebration in Garabandal, following the decision of my
predecessors, I ruled that Masses can be celebrated only in the parish church and there will be no
references to the alleged apparitions and visiting priests who want to say Mass must have approval
from the pastor, who has my authorization. It’s my wish that this information is helpful to you.”
My regards in Christ,
+Jose Vilaplana
Bishop of Santand

 

This is the link for those of you that want to see it for yourselves.

http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/unapprov/garaband/bishop.pdf

 

It sounds as if that site took this letter which I took from the EWTN site and reworded it, having little or no understanding of no constaba which is: 3} non constat de supernaturalitate{it is not not established supernatural} there is a big difference in the meaning from #2

 

This is what I don't like about the Internet Hope. It is a minefield. I prefer good solid books from a reliable source.

Funny, it wasn't the messages in Garabandal that scared me. It was the way the children were. I have remained middle of the road to be honest. These apparitions didn't particularly appeal to me, but they didn't affect me to the point that I expressed my doubts..

I haven't studied the messages enough to go either way either to be honest.

 

I have seen the original copy of this letter. Now here is the history behind why it was written. When the previous Bishop (Dal Val ), was replaced by this Bishop Vilaplana, the hopeful Garabandal people wanted a new ruling on the apparitions (hoping for an approval). This coupled with the fact, that the story had leaked out about Bishop Dal Val (personally ) had a change of heart on his opinion ,and now believed. ( I 'll post why in a minute). The people hounded this Bishop for a new ruling ,and he was so tired of hearing about it, and didn't want to deal with it all ( a political hot potato) he basically said (listen, Im not making any new ruling, everything my predecessors said,I agree with , you can still have mass there, but don't mention the apparitions, have a nice day) He also figured the Warning & miracle would give the apparitions validity if they happened ,so lets just wait.
Now here's why the people pushed hard for a new ruling, the conversion of Bishop Dal Val. In 1982 ,the Bishop was very ill, and during his stay in the hospital, Mary Loli came to visit him. The details of what happened are very secretive (because he was at the time still Bishop, and Garabandal was still not approved, and he didn't want to reveal in writing what happened so he could not be reprimanded ). When Loli went to see him, he said that her visit with him was a great comfort. It brought back many beautiful memories about the times that he himself witnessed her ecstasies as well as the other three girls but it was only after she gave him a KISSED Crucifix by Our Blessed Mother that she had with her that he made a complete recovery. After having completed the operation on the Bishop in 1982, Dr. Tunon went to see him in his hospital room during the recovery period. "I was sitting on the edge of the bed when he said to me, 'I, Juan Antonio del Val Gallo, believe in Garabandal. But as bishop I can't say that.'"

 

I think this is a contradiction. A bishop has to rule in base of evidences whether an apparition seems for him to be valid or not. It is a contradiction to personally believe, due to some evidence, that the apparition is true and rule against it as bishop.

 

Jose, of course its a contradiction, that's why the supporters were so happy he had a conversion of heart, but also greatly disappointed he did not have the courage to overturn his ruling. We don't know what caused the conversion, but he seemed to be a man of "facts" not feelings. His awaking to the truth , may not have been a "provable fact", but a revelation from the Blessed Mother, which he felt he could not prove. Here's a perfect example. The Blessed Mother (when she was just young Mary,) tells her husband to be Joseph, " Um ,I don't know how to explain this ,but I'm going to get pregnant from the Holy Spirit, and bear the Son of God. I can't prove it, but it was revealed through an angel" See what I mean, not everything is this world is "provable" (until after it happens). But you believe her story now, don't you.

 

Can someone explain what I am missing re confusion for some here?
The bishop did not "rule against it" as far as I understand.

To say that the supernatural "cannot be established" is NOT the same as saying "it is definietely established as not supernatural."
To say there is not enough factual evidence either way to make a definite conclusion simply means "the jury is still out."

The very fact that investigations keep getting repeated, by itself alone, means previous judgements were not final.
The same holds, as far as I know, for the present standing judgement.
Those three possible Latin judgements above are very clear in meaning.

Some readers on this forum find it difficult to distinguish between "judging whether an event is supernatural or not" ... and judging beforehand whether one actually has "sufficient grounds" (ie enough valid historical evidence) to make that final judgement.
Why on earth would the Church risk making a judgement before the major prophecies have proven true. That would be madness. It does not mean the authorities are without faith - it means they are both faithful AND wise. The leadership of the Church is essentially conservative and slow, it has to be.

Likewise people with public office have to make a distinction between their own personal views and those of their office all the time.
If they are faithful stewards they will never mislead their people by pretending that their own views and tastes are those of the organisation they represent. I consider this virtuous, loyal conduct. Priests do it all the time. We have seen Conchita is very careful about this too. (She accidentally misrepresented Our Lady's message in the past with her own views on the inevitability of the Chastisement when she was 22 - and retracted after she realised this).

 

Amen+Amen+Amen, I wish I could like this post a million times

 

It's not about me and it's not about gaining your respect. Let's not be personal, if I could do this anonymously, I would. I have already explained that showing all objections on one thread makes sense for 'non-combatants'. I have also explained that if I start 'ping -ponging' on one point this will never end. I am allowing the 'defence' the last word UNLESS I AGREE WITH YOU - why would you complain about that? It doesn't come much fairer than that. Why are you people so contrary? Peace is a great indicator of truth.

 

Objection:
About the Vatican II Council

"For several days already, Conchita had been heard exchanging statements with her Vision about the Council. This Council was to open two weeks later.
On the morning of this 26th of September, don Lavaca, a Basque priest who happened to be there, recorded the exceptional words of Conchita during her ecstasy, among them: “The Council is the greatest of all! . . . It will be a success! . . . How good this is! . . . Thus you (the Virgin Mary) will be better known, and you will be very happy . . .” Shortly after, and later on several occasions, Conchita was to affirm, very firmly, that Our Lady had assured her of “the extraordinary success of the Council.” And, in fact, not only for its doctrinal content and as a very great historical and ecclesiastical event, but also for the countless and very important later authoritative applications of all its exceptionally enlightened and profound Teachings."

So, this sounds very positive. As one of the messages says that many of the clergy are hell bound and taking many of the laity with them, I am very confused. Are the 'good guys' those who cling to the 'spirit of the Council' OR those who see it as problematical?

 

Yes, this is a painful one, that is for sure. It is 50 years later and it does not look as positive as it was expected then.
At least by what I read as analysis of Vatican II

 

I am not in the business of 'debunking'. Refuting explanations is a VERY SUBJECTIVE statement. ' Some 'explanations' to date appear to me and others as merely potential explanations which you may consider sufficient but (forgive me) I do not. One man's explanation is another man's excuse and if you don't yet understand this it might be better if you left the explaining to others (hint).

 

When you fail to see any truth in any of my explanations, (btw, not excuses) then I have every right to question your intention. Most know of your belief in Medjugorje ,but that doesn't give you the right to constantly try to tear down Garabandal. Considering you even doubt the words of Padre Pio , it is not I who has a problem "understanding ", I think you are in the minority here, for I do not know any Catholic that would have the audacity to question the validity of a proven saint's words. I am not leaving the "explaning " to others, if you don't like my answers, that's your problem, get used to it because I'm not going anywhere.

 

Steve,

We have yet only a limited perspective of the first 50 years after VCII. Our Blessed Mother has the full perspective of the impact of VCII as seen from eternity. You are trying to match both and that's not only extremely arrogant but simply impossible.

The VCII will be studied and treasured 1000 years from now. It opened the windows and the doors of the Church, which was necessary for growth. When this happened, the devil was already working in destroying the Church -as has always been. Many fell for his traps. Well yes. But many didn't. And the Church is still trying to find it's way and to understand the gift of Grace that VCII is, and to incarnate it in real life.

The fact that there have been many abuses after the Council doesn't invalidate it at all. We have to be aware of the power that the Council still holds hidden: Abuses were made in the name of the Council. But not only abuses: Pope Benedict has strongly re-steered the wheel of the Church in the name of the Council. Pope Francis is going to astonish us with his own doings, also in the name of the Council -and of the Gospel, of course.

You are dealing with a very complex issue and want to solve it in a simplistic way: "good guys versus bad guys". God doesn't deal with us in this way. God sees us individually. You, and me. You and I will have to give count to God as to the ultimate motivation for your/our actions and thoughts, including our embrace or rejection of apparitions that we've come to know. God looks at our motivations. This is what makes the Warning so necessary that God will intervene so powerfully in human history, so that we will stop judging life, people, history, everything through our limited and selfish human perspectives, and start seeing things as God sees them.

I know that this is not going to convince you of anything but it really saddens me that you fall for the trap of this pseudo objection, which to me is sheer satanic deception. Going against the Council is going against the Church -just listen to every Pope since it took place. And yet here you pretend to have an evidence greater than the Magisterium of all the last Popes in the fact that the messages of Garabandal hold a very severe warning about individuals in the hierarchy of the Church.

I would ask you a question, Steve, does discernment involve for you specific prayer to God for guidance and enlightenment? Or is it simply a mater of intellectual gymnastics? We find many more confirmations praying on our knees than searching only with our intellect objections to phenomena so complex that the Church itself does not feel ready to make a final decision yet.

 

Steve, what you repeat here just confirms me in my previous post.
What you are suggesting comes across as a little too self-absorbed ... inevitably treating respondants as little more than impersonal robots or juridic entities to further your shielded self-understanding. Why should anyone bother with you?

You seem unable to understand the simple reciprocal courtesy of respecting others (i.e. the effort they go to in taking you seriously and coming back with a reflected/researched answer) just as they have respected you. That is done by at least responding even when you disagree. Its called "dialogue" and yes it does require a desire for a two way relationship.

Come on, you can do better than this.