I don't believe any public testimony from the time has heaven implying Conchita will be alive, though she is allowed to announce it. Aren't there plenty of other means of falsifying... the miracle at Garabandal within her perceived lifetime, the curing of the sick, the remaining mysterious sign, the Aviso. These things look readily objectively verifiable?
As you know BH in reality and by human thinking alone absolute certainty is not possible. But faith is a different thing. I believe those who are privy to the information that I am not. I am not privileged to be a contact let alone friend of the seers. I believe those who are. I am a simple soul.
All good! I thought you may have come across something I had missed in the primary public sources. For myself the private testimony of secondary/tertiary sources (like Aviso) and Villagers (eg Garabandal personages other than the Seers) is certainly important as it can supplement the primary sources. It seems to me that more discernment is needed the further we get from the primary public testimonies recorded at the time. The same if a primary source is not corroborated by other primary sources or is contradicted by other primary sources. I was surprised when so many people questioned the truth of Garabandal just because Joey sadly passed away without his vision restored. That promise was made by Joey's own personal Marian Apparition to himself (and it was based on certain conditions). The only connection of this with alleged "promises" made by Our Lady at Garabandal, from my own research into the primary sources, comes from just a single phrase, in a single source uncorroborated by other primary sources...which refers to a short, almost incidental, comment made to Joey by only one Seer (Conchita) after talking with Our Lady on many other matters. That's a lot of miraculous expectation to have had hanging on such meagre pickings as it were. So lets be careful not make the same mistake with Conchita "having to make the announcement" for it to be true. If it happens as Aviso says, great. Then again, Glenn who knows Conchita personally, may be able to offer something more straight from the "horse's mouth" as it were. But I wouldn't count on it, for the usual valid reasons!
From a February 7, 1974 interview of Conchita: Q. How will you announce the Miracle? A. I don't know exactly. Most definitely at midnight (eight days before the Miracle) I will call Joey (Lomangino), radio, television, and anyone else in the world that I feel can help to spread the word rapidly. I am not worried. I know that if the Blessed Mother wants you there, you will be there.
Hi Richard. I am not sure if I have correctly understood you. Are you saying we cannot totally rely on Conchita's word? Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you but if not have you ever said you will do something and then not done it through no fault of your own? As a result did everyone stop believing you and trusting you or did most good folk continue to give you the benefit of the doubt and look at the bigger picture? Did most people continue to love and respect you and just think there must be a good explanation? I say Conchita still deserves our best regard. Poor Conchita must have been more upset than anyone at the loss of her great friend.
No, I'm simply saying that the facts do matter and the spirits must be tested. For instance, if one entertains the notion that Conchita could die and yet still "announce" the Miracle, then I think we have just ventured onto a very slippery slope. Where would it end? Would the 8 day notice really be eight literal days? Would the Miracle really be an objective public miracle or just some subjective experience up to each one of us to interpret? See where this is going? I stand by my earlier statement that if Conchita were to die (God forbid) without announcing the miracle, then I think Garabandal would be case closed in my book.
Thanks for responding but for me its a non-sequitor. We have been assured by the best that she will be alive and present to us. For me there is no point in considering a possibility that she could die before. Anyway no matter what little old me says there will still be some who will insist on their right to postulate pointlessly.
I don't quite understand your point here either Rich. I am not aware of any primary sources of the time that Conchita ever stated that Our Lady requested her to announce the miracle 8 days in advance? I personally don't see how the above would qualify as such a request, if that is your meaning, for a two reasons: (a) Yes the above question clearly implies the miracle will happen in Conchita's life-time. But answering this "leading" question does not clearly confirm that Conchita factually agrees with the assumed condition that she will actually be alive at the time. In other words there is no good reason to rule out that Conchita (only 22? years old with her whole life ahead of her and no realistic thoughts of mortality like us old buggers) was in fact answering "if you are alive, how will you announce the miracle?" (b) Conchita up to around that age confused people by sometimes uncritically substituting her own opinions when speaking of Our Lady's messages. A good example was the Chastisement. For a while many people thought it was certain because Conchita said it was. In fact that was only her impression/belief as in fact Our Lady always said it was conditional. Conchita herself cleared up this confusion as she matured and realised the difficulties she was causing by expressing her own opinions. For that reason it seems she began reading from written material when quoting important things Our Lady told her. But maybe I misunderstand your point here? On your other point I agree, Conchita obviously cannot announce anything 8 days ahead if she isn't here (unless she has left a recording with a trusted colleague who has instruction to open a sealed letter with the date that she does know) ... that sort of "non-falsifiable" revisionism is the give-away "tell" of frauds. But enough of this negativity re Conchita, may she live long and prosper!
Hi Blue Horizon, a beautiful Avatar and online name, between us I enjoy reading your optimism, any way may I have some questions as follow : What do you mean by the Primary public sources ? thank you. Aviso
How many Synods (ordinary and extraordinary) since the end of the Apparitions of Garabandal and who was the Pope of the first Synod ? this is not a primary public source (Books in common language), just a small detail from me, to keep the Garabandal flame always on, so stay strong. Aviso
Friend, if Conchita's own words recorded in an interview are not a primary source, then I am afraid that there is no such thing as a primary source. I don't think it is "negativity" to insist that an unapproved private revelation that remains an open case be examined in light of the facts that were presented to us by the seers. By the way, I didn't initiate this notion of Conchita's passing before the Miracle. I certainly hope this does not happen and I remain a believer in Garabandal. But I also will not ignore the facts as presented by the seers themselves.
Good question! I suppose I meant the texts available to us public here, that are closest in time to the period 1962-1966 at Garabandal that (with minimum degrees of reporting separation) report what the Virgin did and communicated to the Seers. That would seem to include the Garabandal "bibles" as "She Went in Haste", " " and the one by Ceare (I prob spelt that wrongly) and those other works by highly respected interviewers such as Pelletier and others. Strictly speaking I suppose these are partly secondary sources because these books quote or interpret more primary sources such as private letters, private interview notes at the time, private witness diaries etc. However these primary sources are not available to most of us here -which is why I loosely called the above books "primary public". Live witnesses of course are also important but if their testimony is not written down at the time .... or if they only speak many years after the events reported... then perceived objective reliability is going to be lessened all thing being equal. (Sr Lucia and the Medjugorje visionaries are prob prime examples of this issue). That would apply even to the Seers themselves. Why do you ask Aviso?
