Warnings against Garabandal

Warnings against Garabandal

Copies of all the Local Bishop & Rome's Official Declarations

By Waterinckx Mark

As we have stated many times, the only proof we need in any apparition is the decision of the local Bishop (the problem is we have modernist bishops). He, and he alone, has the charisma of discernment in these matters. Not only did the Bishop in 1965 condemn Garabandal, but five bishops after him have condemned it. Even Rome had to come into the picture to aid the Bishop.

"The question having been closely examined and a decision having been reached by Your Excellency, the Sacred Congregation has come to the conclusion that there is no reason to intervene in this affair.

Cardinal Ottaviani

Cardinal Seper, Prefect of the congregation For the Sacred Doctrine Of the Faith wrote this letter to Archbishop Philip M. Hannan of New Orleans, Louisiana on April 21, 1970.

"Seal"

"This office has received you letter of April 1970 in which you expressed justifiable apprehension about the diffusion of the Garabandal movement in your Archdiocese and in which you asked for clear and reliable guidelines from the Holy See for dealing with this phenomenon.

"The Holy See share your perception about the manifest and increasing confusion due to the diffusion of this movement among the faithful and desires with this letter to clarify its position on the matter.

"This Sacred Congregation despite requests form various Bishops and faithful has always refused to define the supernatural character of the events of Garabandal. After the definitive negative judgment issued by the Curia of Santander this Sacred Congregation, after attentive examination of the proceedings forwarded to this office has often praised the prudence that characterized the method followed in the examination but has still decided to leave direct responsibility for the matter to the local Ordinary.

"The Holy see has always held that the conclusions and dispositions of the Bishop of Santander were sufficiently secure guidelines for the Christian people and indications for the Bishops to order to dissuade people from participating in pilgrimages and other acts of devotion that are based on claims connected with or founded on the presumed apparitions and messages of Garabandal. On March 10, 1996; this Sacred Congregation wrote a letter to this effect to the Bishop of Santander who had also asked for a more explicit declaration of the Holy See to the matter.

"However promoters of the Garabandal movement have tried to minimize the decisions and the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Santander. THIS SACRED CONGREGATION WANTS IT TO BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE BISHOP OF SANTANDER HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE THE ONLY ONE WITH COMPLETE JURISDICTION IN THIS MATTER AND THE HOLY SEE HAS NO INTENTION OF EXAMINING THIS QUESTION ANY FURTHER, since it holds that the examinations already carried out are sufficient as well as are the official declarations of the Bishop of Santander. There is no truth to the statement that the Holy See has named an Official Papal Private Investigator of Garabandal and affirmations attributed to the anonymous personage to the extent that the verification of the Garabandal apparitions lies completely in the hands of the Holy Father Pope Paul VI and other such expressions that aim at undermining the authority of the decisions of the Bishop of Santander are completely unfounded.

"In order to reply to certain doubts that you expressed in your letter this Sacred Congregation wishes to assert: that the Holy See has never approved even indirectly the Garabandal movement, that it has never encouraged or blessed Garabandal promoters or centers. Rather the Holy See deplores that fact that certain persons and Institutions persist in formatting the movement in obvious contradiction with the dispositions of ecclesiastical authority and thus disseminate confusion among the people especially among the simple and defenseless.

"From what has been said so far you will easily realize that though this Sacred Congregation certainly agrees with the contents of the note of May 10, 1969 (as published in various countries and especially in the French magazine LA DOCUMENTATION CATHOLIC September 21, 1966, n:1547 p. 821) It must say that it is inexact to attribute the part of the text that deals with the lack of supernatural character of the events of Garabandal of the Sacred Congregation which has always striven to abstain from any direct declaration on the question precisely because it did not consider it necessary to do so after the clear and express decisions of the Bishop of Santander. This is the genuine meaning of the letter written on January 21, 1970 by the Most Reverend Paul Phillippe, Secretary of this Sacred Congregation to the editor in chief of LA DOCUMENTATION CATHOLIQUE.

"In order to contribute further to your pastoral action in this matter, this office is enclosing other essential documents already published in other countries such as Spain: The two official notices of the Bishop of Santander, two letters of the Sacred Congregation to the same Bishop and a letter to the Apostolic Delegate to Mexico. This office hopes in this letter to have clarified a question that concerns not just your Archdiocese but also other dioceses. 

"With sentiments of deepest esteem and cordial respect

"I am devotedly yours

signed:

"Francis Cardinal Seper Prefect

also signed:

"Paul Philippe , Secretary"

On October 11, 1996 the new bishop, Jose Vilaplana, again placed his prohibition on the alleged apparitions and said it is final.

"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, as 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 Santander

Oct. 11, 1996

 I, the undersigned, have been three times to Garabandal, namely in the early seventies, eighties and most recently in October 2000. The belief in the apparitions is very delicate and controversial. There are claims that the Pope, Padre Pio and Mother Theresa believed in the apparitions.  If they did, they have been misled by one-sided information. Is this possible? Yes, it is possible.

1. Pope Gregorius XI (14^th century) warned on his deathbed against false seers by whom he had been deceived himself. This can be read in the book "De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonisatione" written by Prospero Lambertini, the later pope Benedict XIV.
Also the present pope John Paul II warns in the Observatore Romano dd. 18.09.96 against the confusion created by the multiplication of supposed apparitions and visions. Personal experience?

2. Padre Pio has been beatified, in 2002 he will probably be canonized, but so is the parish priest of Ars, who for eight years did not believe in La Salette. Even a saint is not infallible.

Mother Theresa believed in the apparitions of Medjugorje. Her informer was Mgr. Hnilica, a doubtful figure, who has ever been condemned to three and a half years of imprisonment by a court in Rome.
Everything depends on the personal attitude (Marian, pious, naive, looking for a support, for help from heaven, for miracles) and on the source of information. Very often it is well meant but subjective. Not the stories but the naked facts and decisions of the bishop are of primary importance.

NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE SO-CALLED APPARITIONS OF GARABANDAL

1. All eight bishops of Santander have from 1961 up to now, supported by the Holy See in Rome, publicly declared that no supernatural apparitions had taken place in Garabandal.
2. The parish priest of Garabandal told me during my third visit there on 03/10/2000 after mass, that the so-called apparitions merely caused problems in the Spanish Church.
3. He handed me over the document with the definite, negative, final judgment of the present bishop of Santander, Mgr. Villaplana.
4. Conchita said the pope (at that time Paul VI) as well as Padre Pio would still see the miracle. Both have been dead for a long time.
5. In Conchita's diary one can read (p.164 Dutch edition) that Paul VI knew the date of the great Miracle.
6. On 13/04/1995 almost 20,000 pilgrims were present at Garabandal. Many from the USA who had paid $2000 American dollars for their air-tickets. Once more the date was false.
7. Prof. Rutten, the retired economist from the Netherlands, now foretells this miracle is going to happen on 11/04/2002. This fantasist was just as sure of the fact that the pope would proclaim the fifth Marian Dogma (via Amsterdam) on 31/05/2001 ...
8. According to Conchita the present pope (John Paul II) is the last pope on earth. Many other false seers suggest the next pope might well be the Anti-Christ. This way the good faithful are soaked off from the local bishop. Because the latter does not recognize the apparitions, he is a bad bishop without faith. Afterwards they are incited against the next pope and so there appears a schism with Rome and in the end Satan is the winner.
9. The leader of the Garabandal center in the Netherlands, Mr. Wim L., said during the Dutch TV Program, Crosspoint on 20/05/01 that he himself did not know if Garabandal came from Satan or from God.
10. In the same program they showed one of the Van der Maazen brothers, who keeps a souvenir-shop in Garabandal. The other brother who thought he would be cured on the day of the miracle, has already died. Wim L. told me over the phone that Barry Hanratty of the Garabandal center in New York had discovered that the Van der Maazen brothers cheated with the sale of medals containing little pieces of the so-called missal of Jacinta or Loli, that the text on the little pieces appears to be a Dutch text! Yet the same organizer Wim L. permitted Mr. Jef Van der Maazen to claim on T.V. the Miracle would happen in 2002. (in imitation of Rutten, the other fantasist)
11. Already in 1966 Conchita wanted to enter the Carmelite Convent in Pamplona. "Jesus" told her to go back to the world. In 1973 she married the much older Patrick Keena, divorced from his first wife, whom he had previously married before the law. According to some people he had two children from this first marriage or even two children from two different women. Not one family member was present at Conchita's wedding.
12. The same main seer, Conchita, made a museum of her house in Garabandal. She has since sold that house and owns a house in New York and a flat in Fatima as well. Compare them with Bernadette in Lourdes.
13. The same Conchita admitted to Father J. Pelletier that she herself had stolen the Host from the tabernacle for the so-called mystical communion.
14. Just before the so-called apparition in Garabandal the four seers had stolen apples.
15. Conchita was often caught in contradictions.
16. All four seers have already denied the apparitions really took place.
17. Not one of the seers still lives in the Garabandal-village.
18. The whole Garabandal story bursts with sensation.
19. Many of the so-called mystic phenomenons point out satanic influence. Remember the backwards running parties with the head bend back. Which theological value has such a thing? Conchita's convent vocation was lost and she married a divorced man. She even said the Blessed Mother played hide and seek with her. On the other hand she even helped find shoes which had been lost by the pilgrims. The seers gave sweets to little Jesus and were allowed to take him into their arms. The Blessed Mother told the seers she perfumed the brushes of her slippers .... This Pope would be the last Pope. The un-Biblical Warning, the ever postponed Miracle are pure deceit and passion for the sensation. Satanic?
20. Typical too: the Garabandal - fans always try to undermine the local bishop's authority as well as that of the next pope. Once again dangerous phantasm. Who incites to disobedience? God or Satan?

DOCUMENTS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY

1. Document of Cardinal Seper (21/04/70), who was then Head of the Holy Office:
"... Promoters of Garabandal have tried to minimize the authority of the bishop of Santander. This Holy Congregation wants to make it clear that the bishop of Santander is the only person with full jurisdiction concerning this matter. The Holy See does not intend to make researches into Garabandal. It regrets that some persons and associations go on extending their action in clear contradiction with the decisions of the ecclesiastical authority and thus go on creating confusion.

2. Last official document of the present bishop of Santander (1991 to present )
"... All bishops of the diocese agreed on the fact there was no supernatural validity for the 'apparitions' ... The commission led by bishop Dal Val came to the same conclusions... I myself asked Rome for advice from the Congregation for Defense of the Faith. It answered on 28/11/1992 'After inquiry into the documentation the Vatican sees no reason for direct intervention to remove the jurisdiction of the local bishop of Santander in this matter. This right belongs to the diocesan bishop.'
Former statements of the Holy See confirm this point of view. That is why I say definitely: I agree with and I accept the decision of my predecessors and the guidance of the Holy See."

3. Letter of Mgr. Vilaplana, bishop of Santander (08/11/1999)

"Dear ......., I have received your nice letter and am grateful because you defend the point of view of the Church concerning the so-called apparitions in Garabandal. We intend to spread this official point of view of the Church by sending it to all persons interested in knowing the truth. In spite of the statements, some still do not obey the indications of the local pastor. We regret this. But we hope the Lord will little by little lead them to ecclesiastical obedience, thus following the example the Virgin Mary gave us."

What about Garabandal 

                      

TradcatKnight: The author of this piece clearly doesn't understand that you cannot be "obedient" to any council, prelate or pope teaching heresy (being a modernist). Having said that, I would STILL urge extreme caution against this unapproved site and just stay with the message of Fatima. The question is not about obedience but about some of the purported messages such as John Paul II being the "last pope", etc. There is no theological difference between John Paul II and Benedict XVI they are both modernists. The children seemed to be under the influence of the devil in terms of their "off the ground" movements as well. It seems the devil had his hand in this one; he likes to cause confusion/division and take focus off of Fatima.