1
2
FATIMA-GARABANDAL - including ANALYSIS.
English Catholic
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Under the 'old rules' of the CDF on alleged apparitions, the local Ordinary had the initial responsibility for any declaration on what occurred in his diocese. No other local Ordinary had any authority to intervene. Bishop Venancio may have held this opinion, but he was not entitled to publish it or make declarations regarding Garabandal, which is in another diocese. He had authority for Fatima, …More
Under the 'old rules' of the CDF on alleged apparitions, the local Ordinary had the initial responsibility for any declaration on what occurred in his diocese. No other local Ordinary had any authority to intervene. Bishop Venancio may have held this opinion, but he was not entitled to publish it or make declarations regarding Garabandal, which is in another diocese. He had authority for Fatima, not for Garabandal. If this opinion had been accepted by the subsequent local Ordinaries at Garabandal, why have all the official declarations up to 2022 been negative? I have written to Bp Monge's successor at Garabandal (made bishop on October 31, 2023) but have received no reply yet. Incidentally, here is an original letter of the 1996 declaration on Garabandal, sent to an enquirer in 2001. No mention of Garabandal being approved, or being an update of Fatima. OBISPADO DE SANTANDER
@English Catholic. I note again you and your supporters have an endless habit of sowing confusion; only this time you have drawn a blank. Bishops don't issue opinions, they are supposed to confirm authentic Catholic dogma consistent with that of Christ's teaching and as necessary validated by Saint Peters legitimately elected successors.
You selectively misinterpret the local ordinaries in Santander …More
@English Catholic. I note again you and your supporters have an endless habit of sowing confusion; only this time you have drawn a blank. Bishops don't issue opinions, they are supposed to confirm authentic Catholic dogma consistent with that of Christ's teaching and as necessary validated by Saint Peters legitimately elected successors.
You selectively misinterpret the local ordinaries in Santander to support your own personal opinion, while purposefully ignoring the fact the bishops, as stated by them, endorse that of their predecessors - that is: NON CONSTAT DE SUPERNATURAL meaning the supernatural aspect remains UNCERTAIN and therefore open to amendment at some future date. More here: Is Garabandal approved yet?
I do not consider Unity Publishing to be a creditable source of information.
You selectively misinterpret the local ordinaries in Santander to support your own personal opinion, while purposefully ignoring the fact the bishops, as stated by them, endorse that of their predecessors - that is: NON CONSTAT DE SUPERNATURAL meaning the supernatural aspect remains UNCERTAIN and therefore open to amendment at some future date. More here: Is Garabandal approved yet?
I do not consider Unity Publishing to be a creditable source of information.
English Catholic
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
As I said before, under the old rules, local Ordinaries ruled on alleged apparitions in their dioceses - not anybody else's. Sometimes the decision went to the Bishops' Conference of that country and in certain cases to the CDF. Fatima had already been approved by Bishop da Silva in October 1930. If any bishops made declarations about alleged apparitions in other dioceses out of their jurisdiction …More
As I said before, under the old rules, local Ordinaries ruled on alleged apparitions in their dioceses - not anybody else's. Sometimes the decision went to the Bishops' Conference of that country and in certain cases to the CDF. Fatima had already been approved by Bishop da Silva in October 1930. If any bishops made declarations about alleged apparitions in other dioceses out of their jurisdiction, they can only be opinions, as they have no authority to do so. I have never disputed the 'non constat de supernaturalitate' verdict and I know what it means. EWTN sums it up as thus: "Non constat de supernaturalitate. Finally, it may not be evident whether or not the alleged apparition is authentic. This judgment would seem to be open to further evidence, whether those which evidence it was supernatural, or those which evidence that it is was not supernatural." Although with the new 'six' options introduced by the DDF it would be interesting to see where Garabandal sits on that scale:
1°. Nihil obstat
2°. Prae oculis habeatur
3°. Curatur
4°. Sub mandato
5°. Prohibetur et obstruatur
6°. Declaratio de non supernaturalitate
Whether you consider Unity Publishing to be reliable is neither here nor there. I don't think there is any doubt that the bishop's 2001 letter of the 1996 declaration is authentic. The English translation is exactly the same. OBISPADO DE SANTANDER
1°. Nihil obstat
2°. Prae oculis habeatur
3°. Curatur
4°. Sub mandato
5°. Prohibetur et obstruatur
6°. Declaratio de non supernaturalitate
Whether you consider Unity Publishing to be reliable is neither here nor there. I don't think there is any doubt that the bishop's 2001 letter of the 1996 declaration is authentic. The English translation is exactly the same. OBISPADO DE SANTANDER