!? The APPARITIONS OF GARBANDAL (1961-1965)
CURRENT OFFICIAL STATUS as of 2022 STILL STANDS – NOT ESTABLISHED AS SUPERNATURAL - "NO SIGNS OF SUPERNATURALITY"
:::::::::::::::::
UPDATE (Sept. 24, 2024) - RECENT COMMENTS on the ruling of Garabandal have been made by Cardinal Víctor Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith according to the German edition of the "Catholic News Agency", September 21, 2024
Note, this is NOT an official ruling from the Vatican. The Cardinal simply made passing comments during a news conference regarding the still not-approved visions of Medjugorje.
According to the German edition of the "Catholic News Agency" online post, the Cardinal noted that under the new norms of pronouncing on apparitions as of Pentecost 2024, Garbandal could receive a PROHIBITION, or, the 'Curatur':
(Quote) "The non constat, (i.e. not enough proof to declare supernatural or not), which was decided in other times, could now correspond to various provisions described in the new norms. It could be a total prohibition or it could be, for example, what is called curatur - which means that public worship is not allowed,"
He did note private devotion is still permitted there.
The cardinal also noted: "in these cases the bishops have the opportunity to verify and clarify the situation in each locality. This is happening in several cases in some countries. ...We will see if the bishop wants to clarify anything. So far I don't think he is interested," concluded Fernández."
In all, this mean the past OFFICIAL ruling has not be changed or updated - these are only passing personal COMMENTS from the Cardinal Víctor Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and, as you see, his words indicate that if the new norms were applied and Garabandal does not receive the 'curator', it COULD EVEN BE PROHIBITED.
And, the 'curator' could actually be a more negative step than the current standing. The decision of 'curaur' is reserved for visions that display, "Various or significant critical (i.e. spiritually dangerous / negatively recognised) elements, but the phenomenon is already spread widely, and verifiable spiritual fruits are connected to it. Therefore, a ban that could upset the faithful is not recommended, but the local bishop is advised not to encourage the phenomenon;
So, there is still quite a negative stance regarding the apparitions of Garabandal.
Below is information that was already posted on this page - the ruling of 2022 still stands.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The most current OFFICIAL statement from the local bishop, dates from 2022: Manuel Sánchez Monge, has stated regarding the events of Garabandal that “my position, like that of my predecessors, is that Rome’s assessment remains valid: ‘There are no signs of supernaturality.’ So, he also concurs there is NO PROOF OF the SUPERNATURAL. (I.e. that means NO PROOF it is from Heaven.) (Click here for this announcement.)
The previous statement regarding Garabandal from Bishop Msgr. Jose Vilaplana of Santander dates from 1993. (Not 1996, the 1996 'letter' going around is a manipulated version of the 1993 letter.)
In 1993 the bishop of Santander confirmed he has RETAINED the former rulings of NON-CONSTAT – meaning, while Garabandal is not condemned yet, there is NOT ENOUGH CONVINCING EVIDENCE that led him to conclude that the occurrences that happened there were supernatural, I.e. that they were from Heaven. Not enough proof.
But, note the change in the latest message from 2022 - Bishop Monge has stated that there are NO SIGNS of SUPERNATURALITY, and that Rome had already made this assessment as well.
So - we are looking at a further learning to NO SUPERNATURALITY. NO SIGNS IT IS FROM HEAVEN.
So, before anyone comes 'at' me for putting Garabandal in the 'Suspect' list – 1) NO ONE has to believe even APPROVED PRIVATE REVELATIONS to be saved. 2) GARABANDAL IS NOT APPROVED –and has now as of 2022 been confirmed by the local bishop to have NO SIGNS OF THE SUPERNATURAL - NO SIGNS IT IS FROM HEAVEN, an assessment that is also in agreement with Rome's assessment of the case. (Why then they just don't come out a rule it was all from a human or preternatural source is beyond me), but, I can write about things I find disturbing in this case and put it in the “suspect list” without pain of sin or disobedience to the Church until the Church amends its ruling to a formal approval, should it ever.
Here is a translation of the bishop's statement from 1993 (unlined and bold sections added for emphasis):
::::::::::::::::
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 constaba] 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
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To recap: the initial
investigation could find no proof of supernatural occurrence. A more
in depth study was then carried about by the former bishops, and was
concluded – and the bishop in 1993 found no need to add to their
findings – also, the Vatican did not feel the need it had to weigh
in and supersede the local authority of the bishop(s) in their
verdict of 'non-constat' – (meaning there is an agreement of the
Congregation of the Faith with their decision) - it is still NON
CONSTAT. It could not be proved the apparitions were supernatural.
*** I cannot help but
see a huge red flag in this statement alone – so much of the
'unearthly' happened at Garabandal for about five years, and to still
have a 'non-constat' ruling? The bishop must have noted this for in 2022 he actually stated 'NO PROOF' of the supernatural. This is, as said, is a closer step to an outright negative ruling.
They have not found evidence of being supernatural from Heaven, but to me it sure looks like it came from 'somewhere else' if after all the 'miraculous' events that they could not find it originating from heaven, or had enough 'proof'.
I am also putting this in the 'SUSPECT' category for a number of other reasons – I will be surprised if this set of apparitions is ever approved.
Here are my own observations regarding this set of apparitions:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
* CONTRADICTION regarding SCRIPTURES and CHURCH TEACHING on the End of the World
One of the bishops
investigating the apparitions said he found no actual teaching
contrary to Church doctrine in the messages, but this surprises me as indeed one of
the apparitions of Our Lady contradicts the Scriptures and Church
teaching regarding the end of the world. Perhaps the bishops missed this?
NOTE: since the Garabandal occurrences have not yet been confirmed to be be true - this just means the bishop was giving a 'Nhil Obstat' to the messages - but, Nihil Obstats are NOT written in stone, it is rare, but errors have been missed before in publications and judgements that were given a Nihil Obstat, and the Nihil Obstat was overturned later when the errors were found. It is rare, but Nihil Obstats are not unchangeable declarations - they can be overturned. So, until these apparitions are ruled to be supernatural, I'm not too sure there hasn't been an error missed.
Like I said, there seems to be a considerable error that got missed.
According to a video
called 'The Eyewitnesses' produced by M.F.J. Productions (New
Zealand, 1995) Our Lady told the children that after the upheavals and the
fire chastisement that would cleanse the earth, time will end, but
not the world. Even the Church has used the term 'end of the world' when speaking of the end things, not simply the 'end of time'.
If the info given in the video is accurate, this contradicts the teaching that when time ends, so does the world: the elements will pass, even the sun and moon will be no more. Christ Himself said the heavens and earth will pass away but His Words will not, so Garabandal contradicts this if the video was giving correct information. Even the disciples asked what are the signs when the END OF THE WORLD happens, they didn't ask when time ends, so yes, we know the current world and the cosmos as we know it will pass away when time ends.
True visions do not contradict Christ or Church teachings.
:::::::::::::::::::
A True Apparition would not do anything to undermine credibility in them that would cause the Church to rule against them.
While we do not have to believe in private apparitions even if approved, and there is no pain of sin in not believing in them, and, Heaven does not force our will, at the same time Heaven comes to warn or encourage and it would not make sense for Heaven itself to cause something to happen in which the credibility of its own warnings would be doubted by the Church and cause the Church to doubt them.
A major red flag regarding Garabandal is when Our Lady said as a 'sign' of the contradiction that would enter the Church between the bishops and cardinals, the children would contradict each other and even deny they saw her, which happened.
This undermined two key points the Church uses to approve an apparition, and since when does Heaven undermine Church procedure?
When judging an apparition or mystic vision the Church (local bishop) must determine among other things:
The facts in the case are free of error.
This means visionaries must keep their stories straight, and can hold up under cross examination and never refute what they have seen. If details can't be remembered, or stories can't be kept straight, or contradictions happen during an apparition, it is a sign something is seriously off with the mystics, and / or the vision is not supernatural. Either what has happened is human, or, perhaps even diabolical.
For instance, one recent set of apparitions in South America was dismissed by the local bishop because the visionary simply couldn't keep his details straight simply regarding the dates of events, the visionary sounded as if he didn't know what he was talking about. So, it sounded like human involvement or imagination and not supernatural. The bishop accordingly gave a negative ruling. Even with the visionaries of La Salette we see that despite the 'hot mess' their personal lives became after the vision, they never ever contradicted each other on the apparition itself and what occurred during the apparition, and they always stuck to the same story, a sign of its veracity.
The person(s) receiving the messages is/are psychologically balanced, honest, moral, sincere and respectful of church authority.
If there was no outright lying involved, one might dare say the psychological and mental state of the visionaries of Garabandal is in question due to any denial in seeing Our Lady at that one point.
For instance, this so-called prophecy of the children suddenly 'contradicting' themselves sounds more like a diabolical suggestion opening the children up to hand over their free will mass hysteria style or hypnotic style. True, Heaven permits temptation, and even possession, but why would Heaven cause the children to lie or allowed themselves to be manipulated by the SPIRIT OF CONTRADICTION, which is what happened if they contradicted what they saw and heard at Garabandal? Especially as in one of the last messages Our Lady was upset no one was listening to her warnings, so why allow any discredit happen? Either the children must have truly lied, or, the children had no control over what they were doing when the 'contradiction' period began, meaning when they heard about this so-called 'sign' was going to happen, they were mentally left open to a diabolical suggestion or even diabolical obsession to contradict themselves - meaning their free will was possibly impaired by this suggestion, or, had no control over their free will at one point. This is something Satan does.
And, even if Heaven permitted this contradiction, strange enough, allowing the children contradict themselves even as a 'sign', this returns us to the first point, they undermined one of the first things the Church uses to rule and make judgment on an apparition – so why would Heaven undermine itself?
Also, the fact this 'contradiction' entered into the apparitions at all sounds more like a devil intervening as Satan is the SPIRIT OF CONTRADICTION. It is a very convenient way for Satan to cover his tracks with a 'prophecy' of contradiction that's easy to believe once his contradictory spirit is forced to show itself and reveal things to be a fake. I wouldn't be surprised if on account of all the contradictions that entered into the case that this is one of the key issues that caused the local bishops to rule 'Non constat' regarding Garabandal.
Of interest, Mari Cruz continued to deny the apparitions for a much longer period, even hinting Conchita put them up to it, that visions were indeed a ruse concocted by Conchita.
In 1984 Mari Cruz said:
“I never saw the Virgin in the pines or any heavenly character. I believe that if Conchita had not been with us on the teacher's farm that afternoon of June 18, the story would not have been staged and San Sebastián de Garabandal would have continued on (with its) centuries of centuries its routine and calm life". [...] (Source: “Mari Cruz, la testigo que nada vio” El Pais, Spain, June 17, 1984.) According to the same article Mari told the bishop she had not seen any angel, Mari later also confesses “She (Conchita) suddenly went into ecstasy, and we were even scared of that kind of comedy, and we thought that she might have gone bad. She got into the head of the three of us that we had seen the angel. (...) We were harassed to see the angel and then the Virgin, and those fanatics did not stop until they even had a message written, as had always happened in other apparitions, such as in Lourdes or Fatima." Mari Cruz continued to maintain her absolute opposition to those who have made Garabandal a centre of pilgrimage: "Whenever I have the opportunity, although I never look for it, I let it (the truth) be known, but they don't want to hear that truth.”
And in 1992 Mari apparently repeated her refutation of Garabandal:
“The people tormented us so that we see the angel and the Virgin, and these fanatics came to write a message, as always happened in other apparitions, like Lourdes or Fatima. [...] Every time I have the occasion, although I don’t look for it, I say it, but they don’t want to hear this truth.. I remember perfectly how Conchita, who always used to organize jokes, invented everything. She did it without bad intentions, but the situation became so complicated that we had to go on. [...] Do you believe that the Virgin Mary would do such stupid things? […] But I'm afraid to be in the papers, because then they make life impossible for my other, (family members) who still lives in the village, and it is full of fanatics."[ Source: Gabriel Carrión López, El lado oscuro de María, Aguaclara, Alicante, 1992, pp. 106-107])
Apparently, Mari then did an about face, and began to believe in the apparitions again, but with such contradictory testimony that we see above, this alone would cause a bishop to normally rule negatively against an apparition.
So again, we come to the point, why would Heaven undermine Church procedure that is one of the official steps used to have an apparition approved if it wanted its message to get out?
::::::::::::::::::::
Other Signs of the DIABOLICAL
While levitation is a sign of a true vision or mystics, there are also demonic levitation – exorcists for centuries have noted levitating or flying backwards was a demonic sign. The children were noted levitating backwards on several occasions, and even falling backwards on their backs, or falling around in downward poses, or craning necks so far back it looks ghastly as if the spine would snap, not something truly serene. Twisted necks was in early days considered a demonic sign, and, during exorcisms, the devils can horrifically distort or contort bodies beyond natural poses to grotesque angles beyond natural human positions, but without hurting the possessed. Heaven always permits ecstasies to happen with more graceful poses, but there is something rather disturbing about some of the poses the Garabandal visionaries fell into, Even Fr Ripperger has noted this about Garabandal, that the children flying backwards is a disturbing sign something is “off” about them. Note, the devil can also fake ecstasies, so miracles like ecstasies are not absolute proof a vision is supernatural in any case.
:::::::::::::::
FAILED PROPHECY
The Bible notes if prophecies fail, then the prophet is false, not heaven-sent, and not to believe them.
Among the prophesies given at Garabandal, there was a notable one that has utterly failed.
Our Lady said regarding the blind man Joey Lomangino, according to the video “The Eyewitnesses” the actual message was:
“ON THE DAY of the Miracle for the world, Joey will see; first, he will see the Miracle that my Son will perform, and then he will see permanently.”
Joey died in June 18, 2014, and he did not live to see the Miracle and he certainly didn't get his eyes restored– the wording was he would see the miracle “ON THE DAY” - and would be given his sight back permanently on that day - he died and did not see the miracle.
People have tried to explain this away saying, 'Oh well, maybe it was a cryptic reference to the 'eyes' of the soul and he would see it in Heaven after his death, hence the expression he would have 'new eyes'.
No. This is not a case of 'prophecies come true, but not the way you expect' argument, or, 'prophecies don't make sense until you see them come true argument' because this prophecy gave a very specific detail on time itself and that a another miracle would happen exactly on the day of the promised miracle.
The wording of the
prophecy points out Joey would be given his sight permanently and it was supposed to happen on the day the
visible miracle would happen THAT OTHERS COULD SEE in the world –
this last part is the important section. The soul can see immediately upon death - there is no physical blindness after death - so if we use the "after death argument", he got his vision back right then - but did the rest of the world see the Miracle as foretold that very day of Joey's death when he could now see with 'new eyes' in the next world? No. No one else saw the supposed miracle. And, the permanent visible sign that was supposed to happen after the Miracle
hasn't happened yet either after Joey's death. Remember he died in 2014. We're still waiting.....waiting......waiting...... So the argument that the prophecy must have meant he would have 'his new eyes in heaven' doesn't hold up here.
So, no matter how people try to make excuses, or try to find what must be the 'real fulfilment of this prophecy', you CANNOT do away with the exact wording: this miracle of his sight being permanently restored was supposed to happen on the day itself of the great so called 'Miracle' itself that the world would witness, which didn't happen. The world didn't witness anything as promised. Failed prophecy.
Of interest - if the Church is actually waiting for the Miracle and permanent sign to happen as the sure proof that these visions are real before officially declaring on them as some people believe, (even Ted Flynn agrees this is the make-or-break moment for Garabandal), we already have this related 'sister-prophecy' regarding Joey getting cured 'on the day' of the miracle that the world was supposed to have been able to see failing outright, and the promised permanent sign that the would would see didn't happen either. So, since Joey already received 'eyes in heaven' as no one can enter the next world blind, the soul can see, and the Miracle plus the permanent sign didn't happen then when he died, how is the miracle itself going to to happen in the future 'on the day' Joey gets his new eyes when Joey already has vision in the next world?
Interesting paradox. Enough to make one wonder if the miracle or permanent sign will ever happen if this prophecy related to it failed.
:::::::::::::::::::::
Red flag – when a vision inspires DISOBEDIENCE to CHURCH procedure
We all know about the priest who yelled 'miracle' four times, having seen something during one of the apparitions there, Fr. Luis Andreu.
Well, whatever he saw, according to the video “The Eyewitnesses” from New Zealand, his own brother Fr. Ramon Andreu had some disturbing information, and there is no mistaking what he said as the camera was trained right on him as he said it – Fr Luis had told another priest, that after what he saw at Garabandal, the “prudence of the Church is nil in these matters”, which was duly recorded in that priest's own diary. This is how Fr. Ramon he found out about what his brother said.
If this is true, oh my, bad sign.
The prudence of the Church can NEVER be regarding 'nil' or disregarded concerning an apparition. Even if a bishop rules wrongly against an apparition we are required to show practical obedience to his decision. Saying the Church's prudence was 'nil in these matters' is disobedience.
It does not matter what anyone has 'seen' or how real they think it is. And, when an apparition is real, a true mystic ALWAYS abides by the prudence of the Church. Nothing can nullify the prudence of the Church regarding supernatural matters.
Our Lord told St. Margaret Mary: "Listen, My daughter, and do not lightly believe and trust every spirit, for Satan is angry and will try to deceive you. So do nothing without the approval of those who guide you. Being thus under the authority of obedience, his efforts against you will be in vain, for he has no power over the obedient.”
Therefore, Satan obviously has power over the disobedient.
I can't help but think Fr. Luis was infected with the spirit of disobedience after what he saw and preferred his own judgment. The fact he said the Church's prudence was 'nil in these matters' after what he saw, that is, could be counted as nothing in these matters is red flag. Disobedience opens oneself up to Satan.
:::::::::::::::::::
* Red flag -the Delivery of the Last 'Message' Contradict what we know of Our Lady's Character
Yes, Our Lord often sends messages through other saints, we see this in the visions of Marie-Julie Jahenny when the various saints come to her with messages from God the Father, etc, but there is one instance this occurs in a very odd manner at Garabandal that makes me raise an eyebrow as it contradicts what we know of Our Lady in Scripture and authentic apparitions.
Just before she gives her 'last message' of warning at Garabandal (I.e, the Message of June 18, 1965), Our Lady says according to the video “The Eyewitness” that she was sending St. Michael to give the 'Last Message' instead as it 'pained her' to give it, so she was sending St. Michael to give it instead.
Wait a minute.
The Woman destined to crush Satan with her heel and who suffered all those swords of sorrow and who endured the worst agony and pain at Calvary that no other human could or would bear, and, stood to take it too, Queen of Heaven and Earth who showed the little children of Fatima Hell and gave the world dreadful warnings, the Sorrowful Woman who wept at La Salette and yet there could give a dreadful message of coming punishments despite her sorrow, now at Garabandal finds a message of warning 'too painful' to give herself, hides away, and delegates it out like some weakling unequal to the task? The Woman clothed with the Sun with the moon at her feet, and is represented as fierce and dressed in battle array according to the Old Testament, "Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?", (Canticles 6:9) "Thou art beautiful, O my love, sweet and comely as Jerusalem: terrible as an army set in array." (Canticles 6:3) now runs away like a little snowflake?
And, the 'last message' which is supposed to have 'pained her' at Garabandal is tame in comparison with the prophecies she gave to Marie-Julie Jahenny long before Garabandal and Our Lady had no trouble giving the dire messages to Marie-Julie Jahenny which are even worse regarding the priesthood leading souls to perdition. Our Lady gave the same message if not stronger in Akita and had not trouble giving it. Even during an earlier vision to Bl. Elizabeth Canori Mora she has no trouble showing her that a time will come she will no longer ask for mercy for the world but will request God send His justice due to the grave outrages that will be committed against her by apostates, but at Garabandal "Our Lady" hides away when giving her last and therefore one might argue should be her most important message?
I find this hard to
believe. This seems like something Satan would love to do, show Our
Lady to be a weakling and demean her courage as The Woman destined to crush his head.
:::::::::::::::::::::
*) Details regarding the Universal Illumination of Conscience Event - ' The Warning' – this is a red flag.
Garabandal is the first major modern apparitions to bring this up since the time it was first given by an apparently non-existent seer called Madeleine Porsat from the 1800s. Ven. Barnardo Maria Clausi warned about mystics attempting to give details on a 'momentary universal plague or chastisement', they were not to be listened to as it such a revelation is fake, for God was NOT going to give the details on this but keep it for Himself.
For more details about this being a red flag, click here.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
SUSPICIOUS manner of blessing objects superseding the blessing of a priest
Apparently, Our Lady asked
that NON-BLESSED sacramentals like rosaries, etc, should be brought
to her because 'she' wanted to bless them herself.
The fact the apparition did not want a priest's blessing on them first has a ring of the diabolical about it.
First, demons don't like blessed objects around them.
And second, only the blessing of a priest is valid on sacramentals to have them considered 'blessed for use' – a blessing is different from a consecration, and even the Mother of God cannot give that type of blessing to an object that a priest can give as she is not a priest.
For instance, the mystic Marie-Julie Jahenny could could tell if a sacramental had been blessed by a priest or not, even to the point that when parts were missing, were repaired, but then not re-blessed after so the new parts were not blessed. (I.e. a priest had lost the crucifix on his rosary, got a new one but didn't think to get the cross blessed, she spotted the unblessed cross.) We also note Our Lady of Fatima had no problem with the children of Fatima laying people's rosaries out before the oak tree before the apparitions, a detail not many people know. Those rosaries already in use by their owners would no doubt have already been blessed by a priest.
So, if the apparition of Garabandal is not from Heaven, it succeeded in fooling the people who allegedly had those rosaries 'blessed' by her, for it is quite possible they would not not seek a priest's blessing on them afterwards thinking they wouldn't need it after such a 'blessing'.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
But....St. Padre Pio believed in Garabandal you all tell me.
So what?
His personal belief does not equal Church authority.
St. Pio believed in the Haroldsbach apparitions of Germany, but the Church officially ruled against them. When people complained to him about this, he immediately declared. "Obey your bishops".
We must follow his example in cases like this.
The bishops are the ones who have the discernment and authority to rule on an apparition. So far, while not officially condemned, the ruling of 'Non constat' on Garabandal was recently confirmed again with a further statement of 'no proof of supernaturality' by the local bishop: they have found not enough proof this is from Heaven. It is premature to keep claiming Our Lady appeared there when the Church has not officially declared she has, and can't see enough evidence that she has.
If the Church officially cannot see enough evidence Our Lady appeared there, I do not have to believe she appeared there, no matter what St. Pio himself may have thought. He does not have the official authority concerning what apparitions I personally may be devoted to or believe in. It is what the Church declares is authentic we may safely believe is what matters, and even then, we are not required to believe in private apparitions for salvation.
You are free to do so if you wish, but there are too many red flags for me regarding Garabandal.
:::::::::::::::::::::::
Considering these suspect 'red flag' details regarding Garabandal, some details which would normally have an apparition officially condemned, and considering the 'non-constat' ruling, i.e the bishops have not seen enough evidence this is from Heaven, it is not in the Timeline for now. This will change should the Church change its position and give a positive ruling, if ever.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Return to the Great Catholic and Angelic Pontiff Prophecy Timeline, click here.
