Our Lady Of Garabandal

[Selah]

Has anyone heard of this apparition? Like the Medjugorje apparition, it is not approved either.

[url="http://www.theworkofgod.org/aparitns/Garabndl/Garabndl.htm"]http://www.theworkofgod.org/aparitns/Garabndl/Garabndl.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.medjugorjeusa.org/garabandal.htm"]http://www.medjugorjeusa.org/garabandal.htm[/url]

What do you guys think of this?

Thanks!

[dominicansoul]

i'm not one to judge apparitions, but most apparitions where it seems the Church is very slow in making a judgement on its authenticity makes me feel like it's not something to put too much faith in.

When our Lady appeared in Fatima and in Lourdes, it took relatively a quick time for the Church to back up the apparitions, as well as the messages. I don't see that happening with these other questionable ones...so, it makes me think they are not authentic.

[Ziggamafu]

I hope Garabandal is true. It has some very merciful promises concerning the last days.

[Guest]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1866177' date='May 13 2009, 12:50 PM']I hope Garabandal is true. It has some very merciful promises concerning the last days.[/quote]

Such as ?

[Maggyie]

The "official" word on Garabandal can be found in a letter from the relevant authority [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/garaband.htm"]here[/url]. The most relevant part, emphases mine:

[quote]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 [b]it is re-affirmed that the supernaturality of the referenced apparitions was not proven, making my own the unanimous position of my predecessors.[/b]
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 [b]without reference to the alleged apparitions[/b] and with the permission of the current pastor, who has my confidence.[/quote]

[StColette]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1866191' date='May 13 2009, 01:07 PM']The "official" word on Garabandal can be found in a letter from the relevant authority [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/garaband.htm"]here[/url]. The most relevant part, emphases mine:[/quote]

I believe point one is the most important

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].*

Meaning Garabandal lands in the area of Non constat de supernaturalitate. This means that the the apparition authenticity could not be determined one way or the other.

point three reaffirms this as well

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.

Msgr. Jose Vilaplana goes on to say that his findings were the same as his predecessors

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.

For the benefit of readers who may not know. There are three definitions when it comes to Apparitions

1) constat de supernaturalitate (established as supernatural)
For example, Fatima and Lourdes
2) constat de non supernaturalitate (established as not supernatural)
For example, Bayside
3) non constat de supernaturalitate (not established as supernatural).
For example, Garabandal and Medjugorje (though a ruling of constat de supernaturalitate cannot be given to Medj. while alleged apparitions are still taking place, though a constat de non supernaturalitate could be given even if the apparitions have ceased to stop)

[jwingert72]

I think that if they have not been able to prove supernatural one way or the other after the apparations have stopped then we must understand that they are probably not valid. In regards to Medjugorje. The apparitions are still happening so the Church may weight until they are finished, before they are able to state if they are supernatural or not. Time must wait on those, because they are still happening.