Beware Lifesitenews &”Itching Ears” – St Pauleditor
Editor: since the video originally posted here, above, has been removed from YouTube, please read this linked article on LSN: Prophecy: Death of Benedict XVI means a ‘new era’ with a possible ‘conditional chastisement’ from God – LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)
From the YouTube Platform hosting the above Lifesitenews (LSN) video – which promotes the condemned Garabandal “apparitions”.
The death of Pope Benedict XVI is shedding new light on the mysterious Garabandal Apparitions, which speak of the end times: an urgent need for repentance, the coming wrath of God, and the overflowing cup of poison filled by corrupt bishops, priests, and cardinals. Has the death of Pope Benedict XVI unleashed this prophecy despite all the warning signs? Listen to the Virgin Mary’s last warning as explained by Glenn Hudson, a man personally healed in connection with the Garabandal Apparitions. With the death of Pope Benedict XVI, Glenn Hudson’s account of Garabandal may be the last warning given during these times — and into the final era of the Church.
St Paul writes…
“For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned into fables.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
I’ve felt for quite some time that John Henry Weston, lovely character though he appears to be, has gone off the rails, ready to follow almost any and every alleged apparition in town. Commentator Credo on Gloria TV thinks John Henry has “lost the plot”: Regards to the veracity of Garabandal; You appear to have lost the plot John-Henry. – It has NOT been OK’D by the Church!!! 1961 [4 teenagers], in Spain. – Definitively condemned by the Bishop of Santander Jose Vilaplana 11.10.96.
That’s my understanding, too. At one time, Lifesitenews would not even allow the slightest criticism of a pope – as long as he was promoting the pro-life message. Now, they seem to have gone to the opposite extreme and, as St Paul warned, have grown itching ears, keen to hear any and every “message” that fits their apocalyptic mindset. This is very disappointing. Remember, these unapproved/condemned apparitions, are taking attention away from Fatima and the need to press and pray for the urgent Consecration of Russia. Why would anyone want to focus on spurious claims by alleged seers when every twentieth century pontiff has endorsed the unique importance of the Fatima apparitions? We need to beware of doing the devil’s work for him – God sent Our Lady to Fatima in 1917 to warn us of the diabolical crisis to come in the Church in our times. We’ve recently discussed, yet again, the warnings, given by Our Lady of Good Success centuries ago about the loss of morals in our times. These are hugely important and Church-approved apparitions. We need to spread knowledge of them to all and sundry. That’s difficult enough. Why go looking for others? Your thoughts…
LifeSite News has been promoting some way out stuff recently: the ridiculous ‘Two Sister Lucy’s’ conspiracy theory; the ‘Three Days Darkness’, and now this. A pro-Garabandal website states that Conchita of Garabandal said this about the blind Garabandal promoter, Joey Lomangino:- “Conchita informed Joey about what the Virgin said to her: “The first thing he (Joey) will see will be the miracle my son will perform through my intercession, and from that moment on he will see permanently.”
Conchita further explained that her understanding of the Virgin’s term “new eyes” is the eyes as we know them – not necessarily the spiritual vision – and that Joey’s new eyes “will be used for the glory of God.” Joey Lomangino died June 18th 2014, still blind. LifeSite News really ought to stick to what people give it money for – pro-life, pro-family and pro-marriage work, not doubtful private revelations and conspiracy theories.
Well said. I’ve become seriously disenchanted with Lifesitenews, after being a real fan. As you say, they should stick to pro-life etc. work and leave the gullible to their own ends.
I have now emailed the link to this thread to John Henry Weston.
I completely agree with you both on this one.
I wish they would retain their focus on pro life matters and not this spurious sensationalist material which at best in terms of content and analysis leaves a great deal to be desired.
Did you receive a reply from John Henry Weston?
No, I’ve not had a reply from J H Weston and this wouldn’t be the first time I’ve written to him and been ignored. It never ceases to amaze me that Catholics who are active in the lay apostolate will use that tried and tested method of showing contempt for someone. It’s astonishing.
I agree largely with your comment, but a serious look at the fake Sister Lucy situation is in high order. Dr Peter Chojnowski has put together a very credible argument with legitimate evidence and expert testimony. But even without that, the two photos of Sr Lucy, when compared side by side of her from her younger days and the oldest are not the same person. It does not take a forensics expert to see what’s right in front of your eyes.
Additionally her message completely changed post Vatican II. 🧐
May God richly Bless you on your journey
Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us
Let me tell you about an occasion some years ago, when I stumbled across an old photo of myself – I was 30 when the photo was taken and I found it when I was in my mid-fifties.
I took it into my place of work and asked the person with whom I worked closely every day if she recognised this person. She studied it for a few minutes, shook her head, studied it again and then said “no idea”. When I told her it was Yours Truly, she took it from me again, studied it again and said “no way!”
Faces change. Unfortunately, mine changed for the worse 😀
As for Sr Lucy’s “changed message” – that’s why Father Gruner, RIP, recommended that nobody pay any attention to anything attributed to Sr Lucy after her 1958 (?I think) interview with Father Fuentes. That is authentic. Anything later, comes, not from the Holy Ghost, but from the unholy Vatican, unless otherwise genuinely authenticated. 😀
A look at the ‘fake Lucy’ situation can in no way be ‘serious’! Please read my comment below at 5:57pm
I totally agree about the photos. When I look at photos taken in my younger days and then compare them with photos of me more recently, I’m flabbergasted at the change. I look completely different. I don’t believe the two Lucys theory – it’s just another attack on Fatima from the Devil.
I thought about this conversation re the two Lucys when I saw this video earlier. It’s very interesting indeed – shows some famous actors “then and now” and it’s amazing, in some cases you wouldn’t believe it was the same person.
I am so glad you mention the “three days of darkness” – that’s another piece of nonsense which I have no time for. Why are people going in for these strange ideas, as if we don’t have enough to contend with just being in the midst of this terrible crisis/apostasy? I’ll never understand it. I’ve seen people coming out of church with an armful of candles, having had them blessed in preparation for this three days of darkness. It’s madness, IMHO.
Hear, hear, about the three days of darkness. I am beyond amazed at the number of people I know who believe in that nonsense. Where do people find the time to uncover these ridiculous ideas?
Seems we’re in good company about the Three Days Darkness: https://gloria.tv/post/Rqi9HEGnpFAG2GUwpGMPfJPvH
Thank you for posting that WONDERFUL news!
On October 11th 1996 the new bishop of Santander, Jose Vilaplana, wrote this statement 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
Well, if that isn’t clear even to the worst of the fanatics, then I can’t imagine anything convincing them.
Many thanks for posting this invaluable information. Indeed, there is really nothing left to say! Shortest thread ever 😀 No complaints from me and moi 😀
Today Taylor Marshall had a video podcast on Garabandal, Putin and PF. I listened to most of it and from what he said, he definitely supports the Message of Fatima, is still on the fence re Garabandal but leaning towards it, because apparently St. Padre Pio supported them. He is definitely against Medjugorje though (thank goodness for that).
If Padre Pio said half the things he’s supposed to have said, or supported half the causes he’s supposed to have supported, he’d never have been canonised. It is the strangest thing, that this particular saint is alleged to have held the very views and opinions which directly contradict the Faith. No-one who seeks to be faithful to the Church “supports” any unapproved apparition, for example – end of. We have to wait for the formal judgment from the Bishop, and in this case he has been crystal clear: no authentic apparitions of Our Lady have taken place at Garabandal.
I’m now completely turned off both Lifesitenews and Taylor Marshall. It’s that “one drop of poison” thing. If there’s one drop of poison in a drink, no sane person would take it. Similarly, sources claiming to be authentically Catholic and providing opinions on matters of Faith during this crisis in the Church are not to be trusted once they show signs of poison – even one drop. I still receive the LSN emails but I only check their reports on abortion – nothing else. And I’ve stopped watching Taylor Marshall altogether. The drop of poison includes failure to disclose the whole truth. For example Taylor Marshall made a big show of supporting the laicised priest [Fr] Frank Pavone, but when the fact was made public that Frank Pavone had been accused of sexual misconduct, nothing was said by Taylor Marshall. At least, I hasten to add, nothing that I have seen – if I’m wrong about that, let me know. To the best of my knowledge, however, he did not update his videos to include this information, which smacks, to me, of this “if it’s a friend of mine, no matter what he/she does, I won’t report it/will support him/her.” I’ve experienced it at Catholic Truth. Report the modernists, by all means, I keep hearing, but shhhh … keep the failings of the “traditionalists” quiet. See that carpet over there? Sweep it all under that rug. Nope.
A priest once told me – years ago, when I lived in England – that I should never describe a priest as “a good priest” let alone “a holy priest”. The most I should ever say, he suggested, is that Father X, Y or Z is “a sound priest” because that is all that matters to me. I’ll never know if this or that priest is good and holy but I can tell from his words and actions if he is sound in the Faith. I’ve started applying that same simple judgement to the laymen offering commentaries on the crisis in the Church online. If they stray from the clear authoritative lines set down by the Church – such as this craze for “leaning towards” believing apparition claims which have received a negative, final judgement from the Bishop, the legitimate authority on the matter, then “sound Catholic” is not a description that applies to them, not to John Henry Weston or to Taylor Marshall. They can identify as “traditional Catholics” all they like but from the evidence emerging now, where their ears are well and truly “itching”, they’re not.
Confirmation that someone in Taylor Marshall’s outfit doesn’t want the truth to get out. I posted, under my own name, a selection of the comments that I made on this thread, on that Taylor Marshall Garabandal podcast – namely, the Bishop of Santander’s 1996 statement on Garabandal, the 1996 CDF Notification on alleged apparitions and a few other observations, in one comment. There was one comment on there already from a ‘Luci’. My comment passed moderation and was up there for some time, for all to see. It was even answered by a pro-Garabandal person called ‘Bob’. When I returned to Marshall’s thread, my comment had been removed, but the other two were still up there. There was nothing offensive or anything like that in my comment, so I can only assume that Marshall or someone in his outfit doesn’t want the truth to come out. Whatever he claims, I’m not sure he’s sitting on the fence on this issue, I suspect he’s already made his mind up. Otherwise why say that you’ve got research being done on it, and that you’re going to keep a very close eye on it, when the bishop has already made the declaration, so your instincts about the Marshall apostolate are spot on.
If that weren’t enough, I’ve found this on another website, which I’ve edited:
The (Disturbing) Facts of Garabandal
1. On the Garabandal website, https://www.garabandal.us/, it says, “On June 18, 1961, four girls, Conchita Gonzalez (12), Mari Cruz Gonzalez (11) Jacinta Gonzalez (12), and Mari Loli Mazon (12) were playing on the outskirts of the village when they heard a sound like thunder.”
The girls were not “playing”–they had committed sin by stealing apples.
They had felt guilty and decided to “throw stones at the devil” who is “to the left side”
When they heard the thunder they felt thrust onto their knees as if by some unseen force
When they went into “ecstasy” and had visions, they were bent over backwards and walked that way so quickly, many of the villagers had a hard time keeping up by running forwards. Last year a movie about Garabandal was released (see https://www.garabandalthemovie.com/en/). The movie accurately displays how Conchita looked in this state.
Walking and doing things backwards is also a sign of the Satanic. Moving backwards is exactly what occultist Aleister Crowley wrote about in his book Magick in Theory and Practice:
First Method. Let the Exempt Adept first train himself to think backwards by external means, as set forth here following.
(“a”) Let him learn to write backwards, with either hand.
(“b”) Let him learn to walk backwards.
(“c”) Let him constantly watch, if convenient, cinematograph films, and listen to phonograph records, reversed, and let him so accustom himself to these that they appear natural, and appreciable as a whole.
(“d”) Let him practice speaking backwards; thus for “I am He” let him say, “Eh ma I”.
(“e”) Let him learn to read backwards. In this it is difficult to avoid cheating one’s self, as an expert reader sees a sentence at a glance. Let his disciple read aloud to him backwards, slowly at first, then more quickly.
(“f”) Of his own ingenium, let him devise other methods.
(See online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib913.htm)
2. The “Virgin” asked that the girls not bring blessed sacramentals [rosaries, crucifixes, etc.], because she wanted to bless these objects herself. The vision is reported to have blessed and kissed hundreds of objects, such as pebbles, which were treated as “sacramentals.” This is troubling for two reasons: first, because only blessed sacramentals affect the devil and fallen angels; second, the Blessed Virgin Mary is not a priest and therefore she cannot confer a priestly blessing–especially upon mundane objects like pebbles.
3. A priest, Fr. Luis Andreu, went with the children as they marched backwards into the woods like they had “wings on their heels.” He then claimed he believed in the apparitions and was “overwhelmed with joy.” While telling all this to Fr. Valentin, the pastor of the village church, Fr. Andreu suddenly declared that he felt sleepy, lowered his head, coughed, and died on the spot. The priest was young (not more than 40 years old), and had no history of heart problems, no family history of heart problems, and had not been seriously ill. Garabandal supporters claim he “died from joy.” It was claimed by the seers his body would be found incorrupt. When his body was exhumed, it was decomposing normally. Defenders of the apparitions claim that his body will become incorrupt after “The Great Miracle.” My readers can correct me, but I’ve never heard of a saint’s body going from corruption to incorruption. Moreover, the seers never said this beforehand, it was made up post factum upon finding his body in a state of corruption.
4. At the death of Roncalli (John XXIII), many people wished the Council to end. Conchita said that she knew that the next “pope” would continue the Council, and she was happy about it.
5. Conchita and the seers were often found in contradictions regarding the dates of the alleged “Great” miracle, warning, chastisement, etc.
6. The children would often open their mouths and stick out their tongues while St. Michael the Archangel would give them “invisible Holy Communion.” To end the incredulity of some, Conchita claimed God would prove this was true. On July 18, 1962, during a nighttime ecstasy, there is film footage of what appears to be a Communion Host appearing on Conchita’s tongue which she then consumes. Conchita reportedly admitted to Father J. Pelletier that she herself had stolen the Host from the tabernacle of the Church and placed It on the roof of her mouth, letting It drop down on her tongue for the so-called “mystical Communion.”
7. Many men testified that while in their ecstasies and on their knees bent backwards, the girls were rigid and impossible to move. It was if they were frozen and weighed hundreds of pounds. The men of the village could neither lift or move small, thin girls.
8. Conchita reportedly said the Blessed Mother “played hide and seek” with her.
9. All four children signed a document with the bishop agreeing with the findings of the Church and promising never to promote the apparitions again. Does that sound like something real seers would do? The children at Fatima refused to retract what they had seen and heard even when an evil man threatened to kill them unless they did so. The girls at Garabandal later retracted their retraction.
10. The Night of the Screams: This point is worthy of special mention as those who accept Garabandal use it to assert the apparitions were a warning against Vatican II. This event was actually over two nights; June 18 and 19, 1962. Two of the seers, Mari-Loli and Jacinta went into the woods on the edge of town. They went into ecstasy on their knees and they shouted to “Mary,” –“Don’t tell us these things!” They then screamed all night in such a terrifying manner that the whole village was up and afraid to approach them. The other two seers remained in the village. The sounds were so frightening, here’s what a burly villager said in an interview: “Look, I don’t want to brag, but I’m a man, it might be said, who doesn’t know fear..but on those nights of the screams, with everyone together in darkness, in silence, hearing the girls’ sobbing and screeching in the distance, I shook so that my knees knocked against each other so much I couldn’t stop them. You can’t imagine what it was. I have never experienced anything like it.” (Testimony of Mr. Pepe Diez, stonemason in Garabandal).
On the second night, Conchita joined them in the screams. Only the prayers of the villagers made the screams subside. Every single resident of Garabandal asked their priest to hear their Confession the next day. What caused the screaming? They were allegedly told that prior to the three “Great” events, the Church would be nearly destroyed and the Mass would nearly disappear. They also saw the “reappearance” of Communism.
Was this a vision of Vatican II, and a major resurgence of Communism post 1989? Consider this: What could be more frightening than seeing Hell? Yet when the three children at Fatima were shown Hell by the Blessed Mother, there was no screaming. And why would the Blessed Mother inflict such fear for two whole nights? I can only imagine how frightening seeing little girls bent backwards in the woods at night screaming at the sky with unearthly sounds for hours must be.
11. At the last appearance in 1965, Conchita claimed that Archangel Michael had to tell her the message because “Mary was too upset to speak.” She stood under the Cross of Her Son, but couldn’t deliver a message from Heaven?
12. In 1966 Conchita wanted to enter the Carmelite Convent in Pamplona. “Jesus” told her to go back to the world (!)
13. Joseph Lomangino, a blind man, was promised by “Our Lady” that she would restore his sight on the day of the “Great Miracle.” Mr. Lomangino died on June 18, 2014 at the age of 86 at his home in New York. Rather than admit this “prophesy” was false, promoters and defenders of Garabandal point to the fact that he died on June 18th–exactly 53 years after the first “apparition” and there is some “mystical significance.” Perhaps he recovered his sight spiritually, not physically, etc. Yet the Great Miracle did not occur, and they can’t escape that fact.
14. Two of the “seers” admitted to hiding a statue of the Blessed Mother in the woods so they could claim Mary told them where to go and find it. They did this (allegedly) because they were jealous that “Mary” talked to Conchita the most.
15. Where are the seers today? Mari Loli Mazon came to the United States and lived in New Hampshire until her death in 2009, just before turning 60 years old. Jacinta González became Jacinta Moynihan and lives with her husband and daughter in California. Mari Cruz González lives in Aviles, Spain with her husband and four children. Conchita made a museum of her house in Garabandal. She has since sold that house and owns a house in New York with her husband and a flat in Fatima as well. Compare that with St. Bernadette in Lourdes.
Well is that interesting or what?! It smacks of cover-up to me and that is not good.
I sometimes wonder if Taylor Marshall keeps an eye on this blog, the way this blog checks him out, and if so, I hope he thinks twice about defying the authority of the Church on the matter of Garabandal, once he’s read the comments here. That would be very serious because as others have said here often, these false apparitions and some them are formally condemned e.g. Garabandal, are taking attention away from Fatima. They are doing the devil’s work, in other words, and nobody should support that.
If Taylor Marshall (or his team) put themselves above the local Ordinary who said his declaration was ‘final’ and the CDF Notification on apparitions in general, which was pretty much all that was in my comment, then that speaks volumes to me.
I don’t think Taylor Marshall can palm off any blame on his “team” – the buck stops with him. If he is misleading people into thinking they can dabble in false apparitions then he is guilty of infidelity to the faith.
You comment at 3.31pm is powerful, and packed with crucial information – “well said” would be the understatement of the year and even the English version “well said, YOU” doesn’t quite cut it 😀
I have contemplated launching a separate thread on the way Taylor Marshall seems to have gone from being a doctor to needing one 😀 But it’s a bit soon after the John Henry Weston exposé, so I’ll hang fire on that to see if he mends his ways any time soon.
Thank you for that direct report from the Bishop responsible for deciding if the Garabandal apparitions are true or false. He says “false” and that should be sufficient for any Catholic. He is the voice of God in this matter, so it really is a case of “end of.”
This is hugely disappointing. LSN has always been a favourite of mine so it’s not good to think I need to monitor its material carefully. I will do – and I have taken note of the odd remark on here about John Henry Weston’s tendency to believe in false apparitions. This is the worst yet though – I always think some of us are more inclined than others to believe these claims but even I could see through the Garabandal visionaries, coloured beads and walking backwards! Sure signs of diabolical activity, yet Weston doesn’t see it? How sad.
I think more shocking was John Henry Westen’s promotion of Peter Chojnowski’s ‘apostolate’ pushing the ‘Two Sister Lucys’ conspiracy theory. That was a real jaw-dropper – but for all the wrong reasons. I watched the video on LifeSite News.
Although the LifeSite News ‘Two Sister Lucy’s’ video is presented as stunning new evidence, it’s just the same old, same old, which Peter Chojnowski pushes on any platform he can. I’m sorry LifeSite News has given this an even larger platform. I fear Chojnowski will end up discrediting Fatima altogether. The only thing I learnt from the LifeSite video that I didn’t already know (or had possibly forgotten, but I have no memory of it) was that World Apostolate of Fatima member Carlos Evaristo allegedly went to the police and asked them to investigate, as he thought the Sister Lucia he saw was an imposter? This doesn’t add up. Even if it were true that Evaristo went to the police, why would the Portuguese police send him to an American civilian – Dr Zugibe – a man who first met Sr Lucia post 1967 (I think he met her in 2002), thus he would have met the supposed ‘fake’ Sr Lucia, having never met the ‘real’ one, so how and why would he be qualified in the eyes of the police to be able to tell the difference? And how on earth would the Portuguese police even know of this American layman’s existence?
Also, if Carlos Evaristo didn’t believe that this was Sister Lucia, why is he still in the World Apostolate of Fatima, still pushing the Vatican party line on the Consecration and 3rd Secret, still maintaining that the Sister Lucia who died in 2005 and is buried in the Basilica is the real one? I met Evaristo in Fatima in the late 1980’s. He had a large collection of relics and we were taken to see them. Also, I saw him again in 2017 working in Domus Pacis – the HQ of the WAF. I didn’t speak with him, but it was him. I went to the WAF chapel because it contains the actual statues of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart which were in the original chapel in Tuy when the Trinitarian vision took place to Sr Lucia in 1929, and I always like to say a prayer in front of them. I certainly wouldn’t use WAF for anything else. But why would Evaristo still be in the WAF HQ if he thought Sister Lucia was a fake?
Also, if Sr Lucia was ‘switched’, so many people – including all who had ever known or met her, many in the Holy See, all the Carmelite nuns she lived with, her living relatives like Maria do Fetal Neves Rosa, and some childhood friends like Mrs Eugenia Pestana – would have had to be in on it, as to make it impossible. Someone, somewhere would have blown the whistle. No-one ever has. Even the Vatican hasn’t got that much power to silence everyone.
As for Sister Lucia’s accent, which Chojnowski alleged has changed – she lived in Coimbra and Spain for a long time, and accents do change. I have noticed that some people absorb accent changes like a sponge, while others don’t so much, if at all. I thought Chojnowski said they had pinpointed the accent of the ‘fake’ Sr Lucia to Viseu. But Viseu is not far from Coimbra Carmel. He made it sound as though it were right up the other end of the country. Bear in mind Sr Lucia had been in Coimbra Carmel since the 1940’s. Plenty of time for her to absorb any local accent, if indeed she did. I’d also be surprised if the Viseu accent would be noticeably different.
I don’t trust the photographic ‘evidence’ either. People do change. I remember when I went to visit my friend in hospital. I hadn’t seen her for a while, and walked straight past her bed because I just didn’t recognise her. Even when I asked the nurse and went to her bed, I still found it hard to believe it was her, until she recognised me and spoke. We can all get ‘experts’ to say what we want them to. I would have thought we would all be very wary of ‘experts’ these days. Look how many qualified ‘experts’ told us to get covid-vaccinated.
Also – think about it – if the Vatican had placed a compliant fake in there, why was she forbidden to see anyone without Vatican permission and all her publicly released writings had to be vetted by the Vatican as well? If it was a fake, singing from the same hymn sheet as those who planted her there, they surely wouldn’t have been so concerned about isolating her, and would have made far more use of her to confirm that the Consecration had been done and the full 3rd Secret released. As it was, the Vatican always relied on the same very scant, non-verifiable evidence allegedly from Sr Lucia to confirm their version of events (in fact, as Christopher Ferrara has pointed out, everything points to these ‘proofs’ as being fake. That seems far more likely to me – I think he even named one of the culprits as Msgr Guerra, who used to be the Shrine Director).
I still maintain regarding Sister Lucia, that it’s a case of an elderly religious, who took her vow of obedience very seriously, being manipulated by elements in the Vatican. She has stated in her books that she was only the witness and not the interpreter of the Fatima events. Even if she thought the Vatican had misinterpreted various elements, and even if she had privately corrected any misinterpretations, they would never have seen the light of day. Sadly, in her latter years, it appears she might have, to some degree, accepted what was fed to her from the Vatican through her superiors about various things. People also seem to think that Sr Lucia is in some way infallible, which of course, she isn’t. Age, confusion, pressure from the Vatican, a desire to fulfil her vow of obedience, may have all contributed towards the contradictions in her earlier and later stances. I’m not famous, but if I was suddenly substituted for a lookee-likee, don’t you think my family, neighbours and friends might notice? I’m afraid I can’t give Chojnowski’s theory any credence. And, of course, it’s become an ‘apostolate’, so money will be involved somewhere. I checked and Chojnowski’s website does have a ‘Donate’ page. Naturally.
Although Chojnowski quotes several professionals who support his theory, and he grudgingly admitted one came back with a neutral result, I wonder if any more that were contacted didn’t agree with this theory and if he’s conveniently airbrushed those out of the equation.
Another point – I have one of those booklets from the Coimbra Carmel, written by a Sister Maria Celina de Jesus Crucificado, OCD. Most of it is quite predictable, taking the Vatican party-line on everything. However, even in a booklet like this, which appears to have been written to conform to the Vatican agenda, I feel that Heaven has allowed something to be inadvertently revealed, which appears to contradict the tone of the booklet. On page 45, the following is stated:-
“It was in the year 2003, on 26th May. I went with her (Sister Lucia) to the lower choir in order to take a photograph of her with the image of the Immaculate Heart of Mary which had just been given to us. It is this photograph which has been used for the cover of this booklet. When I had taken the photograph, Sister Lucia continued to gaze at the Image. I did not disturb her. Then, turning to me, she said anxiously: “Our Lady is crying!!!” I think that, thanks to her extraordinary purity, her “ingenuousness”, she who had been the recipient of so many visions that no-one else had seen, thought at that moment that I, too, could see what she saw. And I, thinking that her statement was a question, said “No, she’s not”. I saw that she looked ‘caught out’, so to speak, like a child whose mother finds her stealing the jam! I said nothing. I thought that I should not ask any questions. I have not spoken of this incident until now. And I wished that that particular image should watch over her mortal remains with her motherly gaze until they were due to be taken to the Cathedral in Coimbra.”
If Our Lady knew that Her wishes had been fulfilled in 1984; that the Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart had been accomplished, and that the full Third Secret had been revealed in 2000 – why did She reveal Herself crying to Sister Lucia in 2003? These tears of Our Lady, witnessed by Sister Lucia, and unwittingly revealed by Sister Maria Celina de Jesus Crucificado, are another sign that Sr Lucia is the genuine article and that Our Lady’s requests haven’t been fulfilled. A fake would have said that Our Lady was smiling because the Consecration was done in 1984 and the full Secret released in 2000.
I once met Joao Marto – Francisco and Jacinta’s brother (he was the one who Lucia sent off to get Jacinta and Francisco just before Our Lady appeared at Valinhos, after they were kidnapped) the very first time I went to Fatima. It was in the mid 1980’s. He was born around 1906 so he would have been in his mid 80’s. I think we went the next year, or maybe it was the year after, and found out he had died. But there were many other living relatives of both families (Lucia’s and Jacinta/Francisco’s) in Aljustrel as well – Joao’s daughter, Jacinta Pereiro Marto, still lives in Aljustrel to this day. I’ve met her as well, and another man who was a Marto although I forget his name and relationship to the seers. They are surrounded by little piety shops in Aljustrel selling books and pictures depicting the supposed ‘fake’ Lucia, and don’t seem concerned by it. I’ve never got the impression they were part of a massive conspiracy.
While I think Fr Gruner may have flirted with the idea for a while (possibly egged on by Chojnowski who worked for the Fatima Network at that time – not any longer) to the best of my knowledge, he didn’t reflect this in the Fatima Crusader or any of his writings, even to the end. He just didn’t go down that road, and if anyone knew the Fatima issues inside out, it was Fr Gruner. In fact, he even did a YouTube video with John Vennari about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MZX8Bm-agc Fr Gruner also wouldn’t have been helping to publish, promote and sell Christopher Ferrara’s books through the Fatima Network when Ferrara makes it obvious he believes that there was only one Sr Lucia who was a victim of Vatican silencing, lies and machinations. By mentioning Fr Gruner and showing his picture, I felt Chojnowski made it appear in that LifeSite video, that he was part of this whole thing and supported Chojnowski’s views, which isn’t right because the YouTube video shows that Fr Gruner didn’t support his views.
Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite, the author of the masterly trilogy on Fatima ‘The Whole Truth About Fatima’ never mentioned or entertained the theory even once to the best of my knowledge. The trilogy is out of print but available free online here: https://fatima.machado-family.com Joao Machado who runs the site, has also written a book called ‘Fatima, the Pope and America: The Decisive Battle’ advertised on the site, but it has to be purchased and I haven’t read it.
The trouble is with people like Chojnowski, once they get a bee in their bonnet about something, and build an ‘apostolate’ around it, taking money and staking their reputation on it, they seldom, if ever, tend to back down, and end up bending or ignoring any and every fact to suit their agenda. The Vatican simply wouldn’t need to resort to the drastic measures of ‘switching’ Lucia and risking a leak from literally countless people, when they already had a cloistered nun, forbidden to speak to outsiders without permission, committed to obedience and totally submissive to the will of her superiors, and as I said, if they had put a plant in there, they’d have made far more use of her to support their agenda than they did. Also, what does Chojnowski think happened to the ‘real’ Lucia? Did she die of natural causes or was she murdered? And what happened to her body? I’m not going to wait with bated breath for the next ‘gripping’ instalment in this saga. In my opinion, Chojnowski is off the rails, and so is anyone who gives credence to this nonsense, and shame on LifeSite News for pushing it.
“…Although the LifeSite News ‘Two Sister Lucy’s’ video is presented as stunning new evidence, it’s just the same old, same old…”
It is this quest for “scoops” – to be first with “breaking news”, to report “stunning new evidence” – that I detect overtaking a number of Catholic sites. It is, in fact, spoiling them. As in this case. It makes me dubious about everything they report. Same goes for The Remnant which took the case for Akita (so to speak) right to the door of the convent, if you recall – we discussed it here on a dedicated thread.
Michael Matt’s assumption then, as with John Henry Weston’s assumption now with this Garabandal report, is that it is true. They are so desperate to believe these claims that they’ve just ditched the (dare I say) traditional Catholic attitude which is to be (a) sceptical about all such claims of supernatural activity until the diabolical can be ruled out and (b) await formal Church approval, which comes from the local Bishop.
It’s really sad. Dispiriting, and sad.
Your rebuttal of the “two Lucys” nonsense is masterful (@5:57pm)
The very idea that a community of Carmelite nuns – usually a smallish number because, I think I’m correct in saying that the Foundress, St Teresa of Avila set a figure of around 13 Sisters maximum in any one house – would agree to live a lie, to be complicit in the cover-up of a message from Heaven, is unthinkable. I should add that in the Carmelite Order, every community is autonomous so the 13 Sisters only rule may be flexible, to be decided by each individual Community. The point is, though, that there is no way on God’s green earth that Carmelite Superiors and Sisters would be complicit in effecting such a fraud as that proposed by Chojnowski & Co.
We know there’s a massive crisis in the Church and the facts about that are difficult enough to swallow, but when crackpot theories like this are proposed and then believed by the weak and utterly credulous Catholics it makes life even more difficult; those with “itching ears” as St Paul warns, make life even more of a strain for the rest of us trying to keep our eyes on “the ball” – the ball being the Consecration of Russia. It is that Consecration by which the apostasy in the Church and the world will be ended, according to the Fatima prophesies.
The Devil must be laughing his head off – no shortage of useful idiots these days.
I know not of the Truth of apparitions, but what i certainly do know is that no one need prophecy of the times that we are in. I personally like L.S.N. none of us are perfect and unlike the Vatican Mob they are at least Catholics . Surely ED if we are to survive then we must at least give the likes of Catholic Sites the Benefit of the doubt . Am not saying to believe any False Apparitions but at least to give them our support .
It’s difficult to give support to Catholic pro-life apostolates who are promoting dubious things, when we can easily give support to Catholic pro-life apostolates who aren’t doing that.
You disappoint me. Those who cut dear old Father Martin Luther some slack at the time of his revolution now known as the Reformation, left the rest of us to pay the price. Christendom split down the middle and thereafter into millions of sects.
No, error must be corrected wherever we find it. The Devil is leading souls astray through false apparitions. Are you seriously OK with that?
I forgot to say, in my original response to you, that there IS no “doubt” about these apparitions – if you read WF’s quotation from the local Bishop about these fake claims, the Bishop (the person with authority to pronounce on the matter) makes it clear that these are not Heavenly apparitions. End of all doubt.
Again, that clears up your “I don’t know the truth about these apparitions” – read the Bishop’s judgement and you’ll find the truth there. There is no apparition of Our Lady at Garabandal. End of discussion.
If you want to support a so-called Catholic site spreading false teaching, you will have to have good reasons to hand when you face God at your judgment, but I’ve enough to explain away without adding that clanger to the list.
ED Their are Miracles all around us and we do not notice them . For example . A very good friend of mine was walking through Glasgow just a few years ago when He had a Heart Attack . The attack He said would have been fatal had a Fireman not been their to respond and resuscitate Him . He is a Good living Man and i told Him that it was a Miracle that the Fireman was there at the exact spot and at the exact time. There is a Movie about Garabandal on You Tube . Of course its easy, very easy to manipulate a Movie ,but not easy to manipulate Padre Pio . As for your comment about me facing my maker for speaking Good about a Catholic Website i have no fear of that as my comment clearly said at least they are Catholics.
If I had a pound for every alleged saying attributed to St Padre Pio, I’d be richer than Bill Gates. Also, even if he did believe in it, Padre Pio was not the local Ordinary and had no authority in the matter. If a website is promoting things that are at variance with instructions from the Holy See and the local Ordinary, and also, in the case of the ‘Two Lucys’, plain foolishness, then it it right for faithful Catholics to call that website out.
Would you just answer me this question – it’s a serious question:
If I came on here and announced that I had received a vision, a message from Our Lady, what would you tell me to do? [Politely, now!] Seriously, what would you advise?
Al tell you a True Story. A Man who seen no reason to live was about to commit suicide. On his way He went into a Catholic Church and lay Prostate and said. God if I only knew you were real I would carry on . Immediately He heard the voice of God say . I am real so do what should do and know that I am with you.
Did He imagine it . Maybe .
Was His mind played tricks also Maybe.
Or did God see a troubled Hurting Soul cry out to Him and have Pity and Mercy on Him .
This is one of the reasons many do not believe today ( and I do not mean you ED ) . That God is the same now since the beginning of time. I know for a fact that Miracles have taken place in my Life.
It doesn’t matter whether You or Uncle Tom Cobly and all don’t believe it . The important thing is that I believe it .
As to your question ” Who Am I To Judge “
Faith of our Fathers,
I don’t know why you are telling us stories about supposed miracles, because nobody here has ever denied that miracles happen all the time. But you are dodging editor’s question. The obvious thing to tell anyone who thinks they’ve had a vision is to go and report it to their bishop. Then he will organise an investigation and decide it it’s a real visit from Heaven or not. Just like the bishop did with Garabandal when he decided it was not a visit from Heaven. Then you see from the reaction of the supposed seers whether they are humble or not. If they go on with their claims, then it is obvious that their supposed apparitions were either made up or something from the devil.
If you don’t make judgments on those alleged apparitions, it means you’re gullible and will believe anything and everything you’re told!
Laura I am lots of things but I can assure you that Gullible is not one of them. Try asking me for a loan to pay off the Provident and you’ll find out.
What is a Miracle to you,to me it’s Devine Intervention
simple. Something that Happens everyday, and if God is not in control who is .
We have enough Enemies without this Site adding L.S.N. Michael Matt, Michael Voris and sometimes Taylor Marshall. They are trying to do good even with their faults. I personally don’t care what you believe, that is your choice. But at least give Catholics trying the Benefit of the doubt. Not for what they think as we all really think differently, but for what they do . When Bergoglio Banns all T.LMasses ( and He will ) these are the people who will at least protest against it .
I don’t think of LSN as an enemy, and I’m sure no-one else does who frequents this blog. But there’s nothing wrong in offering fraternal correction to fellow Catholics when deemed necessary. In fact, it’s one of the spiritual works of mercy, and they are not an option – they are our Christian duty.
I remember that image of the “seers” of Garabandal running backwards down a hill at speed, apparently in an effort to meet a flying host, and I knew right then that it was a supernatural event – a diabolical one! I know many Traditional Catholics who put faith in this false apparition without even weighing the facts. All of the “seers” went on to enjoy married secular life, as far as I know, something we would not expect from children blessed with heavenly visitations. No Catholic should believe in Garabandal.
Apart from the fact that no Catholic should believe in them because the local Bishop has condemned them and it is his call, you’d have to be really gullible to believe them anyway. All the signs are that there is diabolical activity there, not any visit from Our Lady.
I believe it was a preternatural event – i.e. diabolical, to distract from the Fatima message. Fatima was of prime interest in the 1960’s as everyone was waiting for the release of the Third Secret and this came along to distract everyone. One of the seers, Conchita, is interviewed here on the Gay Byrne show. I can’t say I was impressed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8O3VdJDejk I also read somewhere that after the events happened, either all or some of the alleged seers denied it all for a while, and then seemed to pick up the threads again. Not the hallmark of a genuine apparition.
I saw Conchita interviewed on another TV programme, a documentary it was, and when she was asked about what she told people about her apparitions, she said she didn’t mention them because she was worried that boys wouldn’t ask her out if word got out – something like that, I forget her exact words, but that was what was bothering her. I found it unbelievable at the time.
I agree. Here’s a link to a short video of one of the “seers”, now deceased. It’s a very short video but watch at about 20 seconds in where she gives the appearance of making the sign of the cross before receiving an invisible host during one of the apparations. She does not make a full sign of the cross, a defect for which she would have been seriously upbraided by a heavenly visitor, had it been a heavenly visitor, which it wasn’t! I hope this link posts ok:
I hadn’t give much thought to Garabandal in years. I figured everybody had moved on.
TM just had Glenn Hudson on today. Apparently a big promoter of the supposed ‘apparition’.
When Glenn was asked about the Joey L. situation, he claimed the the only thing that was said was that Joey would ‘see again on the day of the miracle.’ Of course TM didn’t push him beyond that.
But what’s interesting – there are apparently more quotes about Joey, that do not allow for the ‘spiritual eyes’ interpretation so easily – including the one mentioned above, ““The first thing he (Joey) will see will be the miracle my son will perform through my intercession, and from that moment on he will see permanently.”
Like this from an apparent interview in 1974:
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 world rapidly. I am not worried. I know that if the Blessed Mother wants you there, you will be there.
Interesting. Apparently Glenn has also replaced Joey’s role, and Conchita will be calling him first to spread the word about the impending Miracle (according to Glenn).
But something else I’ve been thinking about – during the JPII pontificate I remember a few books and maybe even some blogs (it was awhile ago) that used the “only three more Popes” prophecy to conclude JPII was the final Pope before the “end of the age”. Paul VI, JPI, JPII.
In fact here’s a video that picks up on the same at about the 7 minute mark. You can find other websites that did the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQY6jXDyWxs
Conchita: “The bells are tolling for the dead! It must be for the Pope (John XXIII). Now only three remain.”
Aniceta: “What nonsense are you talking about?”
Conchita: “It is not nonsense. The Virgin told me, ‘After this pope there will be only three more’.”
and possibly (I have not been able to verify where this came from)
‘Also in that same year, Conchita told Mother Maria des Nieves: “After Paul VI there will only be two more popes; then will come the end of time.”’
Nowadays, the quote that is used by promoters of Garabandal has an additional line about Mary clarifying that she actually meant 4 Popes, but JP1 didn’t count:
From a Garabandal website:
“After this pope, there will be only three, and after that will be the end of the times.” Shortly thereafter, the Virgin clarified that while there would only be three popes, there would be another one, but he would “govern the Church for a very short time,” and that was why She did not include him in the list. There are witnesses who affirm that they heard Conchita speaking on this precise matter during that same month of June of 1963.”
Here’s my challenge – and maybe I’m wrong – but are there books/websites/interviews prior to Benedict XVI’s pontificate that include the “clarification” Mary gave? I can’t find any – yet. But I find plenty saying that JPII was going to be the last pope. If this quote existed – how did so many miss the calculation? When did that new quote first surface? Who are the witnesses?
Thank you for your very informative comment – I’d not heard of that “clarification” but it’s not unusual with these fake apparitions for the “seers” to tie themselves up in knots to cover up their falsehoods. All very interesting, so thank you for educating us further on this sorry topic.
You’re right, many people did move on from Garabandal, especially after the 1996 final declaration. But the hardened Garabandalists wouldn’t move on and continue to dissemble whenever another ‘prophecy’ is shown to be wrong, like the Joey Lomangino one, or the amount of Popes left etc. The ignoring of the bishops’ declaration (I posted it above and also on Taylor Marshall’s website, but he removed it) is scandalous, and LSN and Marshall and anyone else who pushes this, will regret doing so in the end. This Glenn Hudson is a self-appointed promoter and has absolutely no ecclesiastical authority in the matter.
I can’t believe that anyone is still pursuing these unapproved apparitions. What is wrong with them? What are they getting from these phony “seers”?
Is it because Fatima is not sensationalist enough for them? I can’t see any other reason why a Catholic would spend so much time, energy and give publicity to, the likes of Garabandal, a bunch of kids walking backwards and clearly under diabolical control.
So much for Lifesitenews – another one bites the dust! First it was The Remnant and Akita, now it’s Lifesitenews and Garabandal, plus the ridiculous Two Lucys theory.
I actually think you’re onto something – Fatima isn’t sensationalist and so I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there. That would explain why do many people are distracted away from Fatima to follow the likes of Garabandal and Akita. That is about the only way to explain the phenomenon of why so many people believe in these fake seers.
Michaela / Fidelis,
Like you, I am now skeptical about Akita, but to be fair to Michael Matt, at least it was initially approved by the local Ordinary, Bishop John Ito in 1984: http://www.1260.org/Mary/Apparitions_Akita/Akita_Ito_Letter_of_approval_en.htm My main concern is that the Akita statue is an exact replica of the ‘Our Lady of All Nations’ image, which alleged apparitions have now been definitively condemned by the Vatican, after the local Ordinary gave it some kind of approval. I think things have moved on since then though and perhaps Michael isn’t aware. One case concerns Fr Teiji Yasuda’s book, Akita: The Tears and Message of Mary. When it was originally translated into English, and published in 1989, the apostolic nuncio in Japan, Bishop William Aquin Carew, asked that sales be suspended, because of the text on the back cover. This was taken from an article in the October 1988 edition of the Catholic magazine, 30 DAYS, which ultimately came from a story reported by an Asian news agency. This detailed a meeting between Cardinal Ratzinger and Bishop Ito in June 1988, at which the latter handed over a dossier on Akita.
The article in 30 DAYS contained the sentence: “Ratzinger, after studying the dossier, is reported to have judged the Virgin’s messages as creditable.” But in April 1990, Bishop Carew noted of Cardinal Ratzinger that: “His Eminence did not give any judgment on the reliability or credibility of the ‘messages of the Virgin.’ According to the transcription of the meeting, he simply affirmed that ‘there are no objections to the conclusions of the pastoral letter.’ ” The back cover of the book was thus changed following the nuncio’s statement. (30 DAYS Magazine, July-August 1990, “The Tears of Akita,” by Stefano M. Paci, pp. 42-43.)
Later on, the situation was further clarified. It appears that the Vatican has not approved of Akita, as the following statement from the Apostolic Nuncio in Tokyo, Ambrose de Paoli, issued in 1999, makes clear. In response to a query from the editor of a British Catholic magazine, the Apostolic Nuncio stated: “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has asked me to respond to your query re: Akita. … The Holy See has never given any kind of approval to either the events or messages of Akita.” (Christian Order, December 1999, p. 610.)
As regards the wider Church, following the first commission, the Japanese bishops’ conference decided against Akita, and ordered that group pilgrimages to the shrine should cease, although they were prepared to allow individuals to visit the convent. Indeed, in 1990, the president of the conference, Peter Seiichi Shirayanagi, told 30 DAYS, in what were described as terms of “unusual harshness,” that, “The events of Akita are no longer to be taken seriously. We think they do not now have a great significance for the Church and Japanese society.” (30 DAYS Magazine, July -August 1990, “The Tears of Akita,” by Stefano M. Paci, p. 45).
I’m sorry to say, I’m not surprised at this coming from LSN. I’ve thought for a while that John Henry Weston is a gullible man, ready to believe anything at all in the realm of claimed apparitions. Personally, I see it as the Devil’s way of undermining the great work LSN used to do when they focused on fighting abortion. I wish they’d get back to that.
I agree about the Devil distracting people from Fatima. That’s the purpose of these unapproved apparitions, and it’s very concerning that so many Catholics fall for it.
A couple more points about LSN’s promotion of Garabandal. The supporters of Garabandal often state that nothing has been found in the messages which is contrary to Church teaching. I’m not so sure. Take for instance, this ‘Warning’ as described in the above LSN video. If it is to be believed, every single person alive will see the state of their souls and all their sins “as God sees them”. This means that everyone is to receive some kind of infused knowledge from God, which obviously cannot be separated from a knowledge of Him. Otherwise, how can we know if we have offended God and neighbour, unless we have this infused knowledge that God exists and that this is what we have all done to offend Him? This seems to me to negate the theological virtue of Faith, because non-believers would be given infused knowledge of the existence of God and how they have offended Him, which is not the same as having Faith: “Faith is the virtue by which we firmly believe all the truths God has revealed, on the word of God revealing them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Baltimore Catechism). It also negates 1 Corinthians 13:12 “We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.”
LSN really ought to take note of these next two paragraphs before it promotes anything else doubtful or patently false in future: An important document was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in November 1996 and placed in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official organ of the Holy See. It stated:
“Regarding the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, the Congregation states: The interpretation given by some individuals to a decision approved by Paul VI on 14 October 1966 and promulgated on 15 November of that year, in virtue of which writings and messages resulting from alleged revelations could be freely circulated in the Church is absolutely groundless. This decision actually referred to the “Abolition of the Index of Forbidden Books” and determined that after the relevant censures were lifted, the moral obligation still remained of not circulating or reading those writings which endanger faith and morals. It should be recalled however, that with regard to the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, Canon 823#1 of the current code remains in force: “the Pastors of the Church have the … right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgement”. Alleged supernatural revelations and writings concerning them are submitted in first instance to the judgement of the diocesan Bishop, and in particular cases, to the judgement of the Episcopal Conference and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
In a speech reported in the 18th September 1996 edition of L’Osservatore Romano, Pope John Paul II stated: “Some members of the People of God are not rooted firmly enough in the Faith, so that the sects, with their deceptive proselytism, mislead them to separate themselves from true communion in Christ. Within the Church community, the multiplication of supposed “apparitions” or “visions” is sowing confusion and reveals a certain lack of solid basis to the faith and Christian life among her members.”
Previously I knew very little about Garabandal; I couldn’t see the point really in chasing after unapproved “apparitions” when we already have many approved ones, Quito and Fatima being the most important in my mind. When reading about it on this thread, the first thing that struck me was the “walking backwards” which sounds diabolical as well as farcical. Also, if I saw the face of the Blessed Mother I’d enter a cloister! Akita I know nowt about although I did hear a priest promoting it. If somebody could enlighten me (in a few words!!) as to its claims, I’d be grateful.
I’m saddened that LSN is promoting an unapproved apparition. They do great work in other areas and John Henry comes over as a really nice humble man. Hopefully he’ll read this blog and change his tune.
Re: Akita – see my comment of January 26, 2023 at 10:03 am
Thank you very much.
N O T I C E . . .
I’ve just received a request for prayers for Paul, the husband of a good friend of the CT apostolate: indeed, both of them are fully supportive of our work. He has been ill for a while and receiving treatment. After a recent scan result came through, he has been recalled to hospital. Our Lady of Lourdes, Health of the Sick, pray for him.
I’ve prayed for Paul.
It seems that both LSN and Taylor Marshall have succumbed to different varieties of sensationalism: LSN to the equivalent of reading tea leaves, and Marshall to dredging up old scandals and calling them “explosive,” as if they weren’t explosive before. These tactics only have the effect of stirring up fear or anger (or both) among the faithful.
Better we should listen to our shepherds (if they are faithful) than to laity with their hands constantly out for more money.
Sometimes what My eye sees sometimes others don’t . For instance in Carfin Grotto their is a Photo of Cannon Taylor taken back in the 50s. Cannon Taylor for anyone who does not know had Special Devotion to St Therese The Little Flower. In the background of the Photo their is a Face ( or what looks like a Face) of St Therese in the background among the flowers. Is it Her face or is it just the way the Flowers were or are arranged in the Background .
Who knows it’s really up to the individual what they see. We all know that we live in a Beautiful World created by God but it is full of Evil People. As for Prophecy that we’re in the End Times Etc . Let’s hope we’re not and that Britain and Germany don’t send Tanks to Ukraine as that could be the last Straw for Europe at least.
I saw online that the Medjugorje crackpots are now claiming Pope Benedict is appearing there!
Good to see you back. Well, I’m not surprised the Medjugorjists are saying that. They said JPII appeared there as well. It seems everybody who is anybody appears at Medjugorje at one time or another. It’s probably to distract from this bad news:- No Miracle Has Ever Taken Place in Medjugorje https://gloria.tv/post/tFZDxUgpHFoj6bqceabT9KfkS
LifeSite must be taken with a pinch of salt. It is well-documented that they have close ties to the Opus Dei. They never permit real criticism of John Paul II, Vatican II or the Novus Ordo. They also incessantly promote Vigano, who is Opus Dei and a naturalist heretic (cf. his letter to Trump).
You say it is ‘well documented’ that LSN has Opus Dei connections. Can you point us to any source? I know of several sources that tie Church Militant to Opus Dei, but I’ve never seen one for LSN. Thanks.
I had no idea that they were close to Opus Dei !
Thank you Thomist, Athanasius and especially Madame Editor. God Bless!
I thought Archbishop Vigano’s letter to Donald J. Trump was excellent. How was it heretical?
The link to this short video by John Henry Weston (who is now a scripture scholar as well as an expert on alleged apparitions) arrived in my inbox this morning…
We had a discussion very recently on just how UNRELIABLE is John Henry Weston – that he would go to the trouble of making that ridiculous video, is just further proof. [link to this thread given here].
Notice that his list of so-called Catholic bibles excludes the ORIGINAL translation – the Catholic Bible, the Douay Rheims*, where you will find Matthew 17:21 intact, loud and clear: “And when they abode together in Galilee, Jesus said to them: ‘The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men.”
* ”Translated from the Latin Vulgate and diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek and other editions in divers languages (The Old Testament was first published by the English college at Douay, AD 1609 and the New Testament was first published by the English college at Rheims, AD 1582) With notes by Bishop Challoner and also the Encyclical Letter On the Study of the Holy Scriptures
Thus, it is a little concerning that your question was “Any idea why?” rather than (assuming you don’t have a Douay Rheims Catholic bible to check it yourself): “This, surely cannot be true?”
Weston has gone off the rails. I’ll post this link as further proof on the blog. Ends.
When I saw that video, without reading the rest of your comment, the Douay Rheims was the first thing that came to mind. This is a classic case of throwing everything and anything at the viewers to keep the momentum going, without regard to quality of content. I also used to get LSN emails but had to unsubscribe as I was sick and tired of the constant and lengthy demands for money.
Fr. Gruner did 2 old videos (“Your Questions Answered,” with John Vennari) about Garabandal, one of them being on Lomangino. The first one:
The second one:
Believe it or not, I’ve just gotten around to watching those videos – well, I only watched a few minutes of the first one and the whole of the second one.
It is disappointing that Fr Gruner is weak on Garabandal but not too surprising. He was a big supporter of the Marian Movement of Priests (Fr Gobbi) about which I know little but which seems a bit questionable to say the least. There were rather a large number of alleged inner locution messages from Our Lady to Fr Gobbi, including # 532 (I think) when she revealed that Our Lord would return in glory at the millennium year (2000). Of course, He didn’t.
It’s also surprising that Fr Gruner is always keen to quote this business of “there’s nothing contrary to the Faith in these apparitions” when the elephant in the room, staring us in the face, is that there IS something highly contrary to the Faith – i.e. the manifest evidence of diabolical activity, such as the walking backwards, rosaries changing colour etc.
So, disappointing as it is to hear Fr Gruner’s albeit limited tolerance of Garabandal, I’m not all that surprised. In any event, he knows the truth now! RIP…
See the letter below on Fr Gobbi’s writings, third paragraph down. They are NOT the words of Our Lady, just his own musings:
United States of America
3339 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008-3687
December 7, 2000
Ms. Dawn D. Dugie
Post Office Box
I acknowledge receipt of your letter that arrived recently at the Apostolic Nunciature presenting certain questions.
Concerning your inquiry about Medjugorge and apparitions alleged to have taken place there, I enclose herewith some information, including a copy of the statement adopted by the Yugoslavian Bishops’ Conference in November 1990.
As to the writings of Father Gobbi, I can inform you that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has advised that they are not the words of our Blessed Mother, but his private meditations for which he assumes all the theological, spiritual and pastoral responsibility.
Trusting that the above is helpful to you, I remain, with prayerful best wishes and cordial regards,
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo
P.S. Fr Gobbi died in 2011. His ‘messages’ never received Church approval before or since his death.
Comment deleted. Garabandal condemned apparition.This post misleading in the extreme. Mistakenly released from moderation. Apologies.
I’ve just put this on Taylor Marshall’s website. If he allows the comment to get through moderation, I’ll eat my hat.
Taylor Marshall (or ‘whoever’) deleted a previous comment of mine which contained a statement from the Bishop of Santander, Jose Vilaplana, made on Oct. 11, 1996, stating that the apparitions were not supernatural and that his statement was ‘now final’. Let’s see if Marshall deletes / allows this comment: The very latest from the new bishop of Santander (Oct 2022): https://www.ncregister.com/cna/spanish-bishop-makes-statement-on-alleged-apparitions-at-garabandal
The bishop of Santander, Manuel Sánchez Monge, has stated regarding the extraordinary events of Garabandal that “my position, like that of my predecessors, is that Rome’s assessment remains valid: ‘There are no signs of supernaturality.’ In addition, he acknowledged that he contacted the San Pablo Center of University Studies (CEU) to express his displeasure because they had not consulted him before hosting an event of devotees of the alleged apparitions. Did Marshall contact Bishop Sanchez Monge before making an online video about Garabandal, which probably reached a far wider audience? I doubt it.
Update: Yes, the comment got deleted almost immediately. So we can conclude from this, that when Marshall says that his apostolate is neutral and not trying to overrule legitimate authority on this subject, he is not telling the truth. All but one comment critical of Garabandal have been removed. Make your own mind up folks. Stop giving people like Marshall money. It’s not about truth, it’s about him making a living.
Thank you for that information – I am now officially a non-Taylor Marshall person. I think you are right about being in these “apostolates” for the money, not the Faith. The Americans do seem to know how to make a living out of the crisis in the Church and there is something distasteful about it.
This morning, I was taken aback and disappointed to hear Father Morris (Immaculate Heart of Mary, Balornock) announce a talk on Garabandal to be held in his hall this evening at 7.30pm. I decided to go along. My Great-Nephew came with me and I don’t call him “Great” for nothing 😀 A darling!
I had copied material from this thread – chiefly your comment quoting the 1996 Statement from the Bishop of Santander, and other information from a National Catholic Register article dated 21 October, 2022, where the Bishop of Santander repeated that the ruling on Garabandal is final
I copied some of the above material onto a Word Document and printed ten copies which I was pleased to see accepted willingly by some of the people at my table where I’d settled before the event. Everyone around me appeared to believe in the claims of apparitions at Garabandal but we managed to have a civilised conversation on the subject anyway. Then the gentleman giving the presentation began his talk and immediately put a statement on screen about the Church’s various “options” (in summary and paraphrasing: nothing supernatural, something supernatural, not certain) He opted for “not certain” and stated over and over that he was sticking within the bounds of the Church’s ruling. After he said this a number of times, I put my hand up to say that, in fact, the successive bishops and condemned the alleged visions and the recent statement from the bishop on 21 October, 2022 was very certain:
The bishop of Santander, Manuel Sánchez Monge, has stated regarding the extraordinary events of Garabandal that “my position, like that of my predecessors, is that Rome’s assessment remains valid: ‘There are no signs of supernaturality.’”
The gentleman contested this. Anyway, as the talk progressed I was astonished to read the claims (helpfully published on a screen) – I’d forgotten most of it, such as the “apparitions” number 2,000 and took place 24/7 night and day and if the “seers” were asleep when Our Lady arrived, she just went away and returned later. I mean, gimme a break. The real corker for me, however, about which I asked the speaker’s opinion, was the claim that there would be a great miracle, after which Russia would be converted. I asked how that squared with the very specific instructions given to the Fatima seers about the Pope and Bishops consecrating Russia in a specific way etc. The speaker agreed that it was a puzzle.
Afterwards, I have to say, I was impressed with his kindness in coming over to apologise to me – he accused himself of lack of charity but I didn’t see it that way at all: he had allowed me to speak and had been very courteous. As was Father Morris. At the start of the presentation, when I intervened to respectfully challenge the claim that the judgement of the local Bishop has been “not certain” (i.e. that there may be supernatural occurrences there) I had expressed my “shock” at hearing the announcement at Mass about this talk. The speaker then suggested that I had my own agenda that I didn’t believe in Garabandal, to which I replied that he was correct. At the end of the event, I had a few (pleasant) words with Father Morris who reassured me when I asked if he were going to ban me from Mass after my cheek and interventions. “No way”, or similar was his kindly response.
So, all’s well that ends well – it was a pleasant evening overall and I was just sad to see so many people misled by this false apparition. Pray for them all – good, well-meaning souls, each one, no doubt about it.
The three forms:
1)’the apparition is found to be supernatural’;
2) ‘the apparition is found to be non-supernatural’;
3 ‘the apparition cannot be confirmed as supernatural’
is a ruse frequently used by Garabandalists. They usually use the Latin terminology to confuse people even further. The simple fact is no bishop has ever confirmed Garabandal as supernatural and the decision was made final in 1996 (see Bp Vilaplana’s Oct 11 1996 statement). The ecclesiastical decisions re: Garabandal have always been put in such a way that the bishops did not want people to keep going over old ground, but people disobey them and keep disobediently raking over Garabandal, even though the failed prophecies are piling up. The most famous one being about the blind man Joey Lomangino who would regain his eyesight when the alleged ‘Miracle’ happened. He died and never regained his eyesight and no sign of any Miracle before his death. I’ve been reading some of the mental gymnastics the Garabandalists go to, to try and explain this problem away, and they are risible. One said Lomangino might have seen the ‘Miracle’ in Purgatory, so that could be interpreted as seeing it through ‘new eyes’. You couldn’t make it up. Anyway, well done for going out last night Editor and defending the Truth.
Another document from Cardinal Seper, ex-Prefect of the CDF, should also suffice in putting this matter to rest:
PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI
PROTO N. 1065/64 Roma, 21 April 1970.
Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11.
This office has received your letter of April 8, 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 shares your preoccupation 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 from various bishops and faithful, has always refused to define the supernatural character of the events of Garabandal. After the definitive negative judgement 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 the 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 bishops, in 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, 1969, 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 in 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 this 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 the fact that certain persons and institutions persist in fomenting 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 Catholique, Sep. 21, 1969; n. 1.547, 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 to 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 Philippe, 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, i. e. 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
FRANC., Card. Seper. Praef.
You’ve posted a treasure trove of facts about Garabandal here – I do hope the people who attended the Balornock meeting last night visit this thread. It’s all they should need to convince them that it’s not true.
As I mentioned to Editor, these people who hold Garabandal meetings rarely work as individuals and are part of Garabandal groups and centres, which endlessly churn out pro-Garabandal propaganda. It’s like fighting a losing battle. I remember having endless correspondence (and arguments) with a huge Garabandal centre in Ireland many years ago. Anyone who points out the statements from the local Ordinary or the Holy See are quickly discredited, or cancelled, blocked or silenced, one way or another. Witness my recent dealings with Taylor Marshall. I hope people will come to this blog and read these things, but until they realise that they are in the grip of a spiritual addiction, whether it’s Garabandal or Medjugorje, or any other alleged ‘apparition’, there’s little you can do for them.
Well done for going and speaking out. I am very surprised there was a talk about Garabandal. It’s not something I’ve ever been attracted to and if it’s not approved by the Church I wouldn’t go near it!
I agree – really we should all be doing this sort of thing and making a stand for the truth anywhere it’s under attack. You don’t expect it to be under attack in a Summorum Pontificum parish, though.
Comments are closed.