June 18th is the sixtieth anniversary of the first vision in Garabandal. The events were controversial from the start, largely because of the negative evaluation made by the local diocese. It has since become evident that the evaluation was neither methodical nor impartial (more on this later), but the image of the site has remained tarnished to this day as a result. The ironic thing is that Garabandal has all the hallmarks of a genuine heavenly visitation: clearly miraculous events, a Gospel message of repentance, and visionaries who have lived upright lives in keeping with the message.
The “delay” in the fulfilment of prophecies
Though the events still await official Church approval, they were viewed positively by four people who have since been canonised: Padre Pio, Mother Teresa, Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. It goes without saying that doubters also abound. One of the most frequent motives for suspicion concerns the prophecies associated with Garabandal. These foretell a Warning, a Miracle and a possible Chastisement. Some people believe that the fulfilment of these prophecies is at hand, given that Conchita is now over seventy and she has been entrusted with revealing the date of the Miracle eight days in advance.
In addition, other conditions that were to immediately precede the Warning now appear to have been met as a result of the pandemic. These include a period of tribulation in which churches would be widely closed with reduced access to the sacraments. The truth is, however, that for many decades already people have been conjecturing possible dates for these events. When the proposed dates come and go without a whimper, scepticism tends to grow. It is fair to say that many people who believed in Garabandal in the 1970s and 80s would never have thought that the world would still be waiting for the Warning in 2021.
Though the “delay” in fulfilment has led to many doubts, it would be unwise to focus on this delay and to lose sight of the power of the original events. The Lord gives us supernatural signs for a reason. St John’s Gospel emphasizes that the signs performed by Jesus were all directed towards manifesting his divinity.
We are blessed if we believe without seeing wonders, but Jesus also tells us that it is ok to believe on the basis of miracles alone: “Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves” (John 14,11). In the case of Garabandal, it seems plausible that the Lord provided a super-abundance of miracles in order to counteract the scepticism that would arise because of the long delay in the fulfilment of the prophecies. But are we justified in thinking that the events were genuinely supernatural in the first place?
Clear evidence of the supernatural
Fatima has a unique place in the history of heavenly apparitions in that the miracle of October 1917 was seen by many thousands of people. Apart from this extraordinary event, if someone were to ask you which apparition had the most compelling body of supernatural evidence, which site would you say? Lourdes? Guadalupe?
The answer, of course, is Garabandal, and by some distance. For a period of four years and during the course of thousands of apparitions, a catalogue of remarkable events was witnessed by doctors, scientists and ordinary faithful – events that absolutely defy a natural explanation. These included gravity-defying ecstatic marches, levitations, insensitivity to pain and bright light, locutions, healings, and supernatural knowledge of the visionaries.
Knowledge from a heavenly source
The most common example of supernatural knowledge involved the ownership of religious objects given to the girls to be kissed by the vision. There is not a single recorded case where they returned an object to the wrong person. Various efforts were made to try to “trick” the girls. On one occasion, a medal was given by its owner to three intermediate persons before eventually being passed to one of the visionaries.
After offering the medal to Our Lady, the visionary walked into the crowd and returned it to its correct owner. In another instance, a lady gave two wedding rings to one of the girls. After the blessing, the girl went back to the lady and placed her ring on the correct finger. Then, without hesitation, she went into the midst of the crowd, directly to the husband of the lady, and restored his ring to him. The vast number of documented cases of this kind of privileged knowledge indicates beyond reasonable doubt that the behaviour of the girls cannot be explained in terms of hallucinations, mental illness or an elaborate scam.
In 1965, Francisco Sanchez-Ventura y Pascual, a highly respected attorney, compiled a book with a long catalogue of eye-witness accounts. These include reports from paediatricians, neuropsychiatrists, and other medical professionals confirming that the trances couldn’t be explained by any pathological or physiological means. In addition, it was noted that the parapsychological phenomena accompanying the trances (telepathy, levitation, clairvoyance) were a “veritable scientific miracle” (joint report of Dr Alejandro Gasca Ruiz and Dr Ortiz Gonzalez).
The clear absence of the demoniac
If the presence of the supernatural in the events of Garabandal cannot be denied, then what was present was either heavenly or demonic, since in these matters there is no middle ground. Is it at least possible that the visions were of demonic origin, as occasionally alleged? To address questions of this sort, the strategy of the Church has been threefold in the case of other apparitions. Firstly, the events around the alleged visions are examined for consistency. Secondly, the message of the purported vision is studied theologically. Thirdly, the characters and behaviour of the visionaries are evaluated. On all three counts, the events of Garabandal preclude the presence of the demonic.
Regard for the sacrament of matrimony
There is a wealth of documentation to show that the replies of the girls to questioning, their attitudes towards the clergy, the blessed sacrament and their parents, all show appropriateness, reserve and harmony with Church teaching that is quite striking. For example, rosary beads and medals were held up during every apparition to be kissed by Our Lady, whereas the girls would not accept ornamental rings and other jewellery. Wedding rings, however, were accepted. These rings represent the relationship of fidelity between husband and wife.
As the first chapter of Genesis makes clear, the covenant of marriage is a central element in God’s plan for humanity. It is entirely appropriate that Our Lady would make a distinction between wedding rings and other jewellery! Given that Satan’s primary mission is the destruction of the Christian family, it seems implausible that an apparition of demoniac origin would make such a distinction.
Regard for the Eucharist and the Rosary
Similarly, the girls’ attitude towards the Eucharist is very revealing. Some of the first ecstasies took place in the parish church. Eyewitnesses recount that the girls would not turn their backs on the tabernacle during their trances, even walking backways to exit the church. When the diocesan authorities ordered that the ecstasies not take place inside the church, the girls complied immediately.
Such deference towards the Blessed Sacrament and legitimate authority is a hallmark of what genuinely emanates from heaven. In addition, onlookers mentioned that the girls would recite the prayers “rather quickly” while not in ecstasy.
When Our Lady was present, however, their recitation would become slower and more fervent. The manner in which they would make the sign of the cross in the presence of Our Lady was markedly elegant and devout. On occasion, the girls sang the rosary while in ecstasy. Again, witnesses describe the otherworldly grace and celestial sweetness of this sung form of the rosary.
In short, the sheer wealth of harmonious details and their overall consistency with the Catholic faith make it hardly credible that such behaviour might be associated with the presence of dark forces. The reverence for the Blessed Sacrament and the rosary, the obedience to legitimate authority, the devout manner in which they made the sign of the cross, seem sufficient in themselves to rule out the presence of the demonic.
The witness of a Christian life
Regarding the behaviour of the visionaries, it must be said that this is not decisive for the truth of the visions, since a visionary retains their capacity for free will and may live as they please after the apparition is over. The 1846 apparitions at La Salette were approved by the Church. One of the visionaries, Maximin Giraud, lived an unsettled life afterwards. Thus, the subsequent life of the visionary is not a sure indicator of authenticity. However, it is natural that the credibility of a vision is linked to the credibility of the person at the centre of the event.
Did St Bernadette really see Our Lady at Lourdes? Her life of heroic sanctity confirms the reliability of her testimony. In the case of Garabandal, the girls claimed to live an intimate mother-daughter relationship with Our Lady for many months. If the relationship was genuine, then surely we should see the fruits in the girls’ lives? And, indeed, that seems to be the case. Raising their families in the faith with discretion, their refusal to exploit fame and publicity is a fitting rejoinder to those who accused them of inventing the apparitions to gain attention.
Deficient evaluation by diocesan authorities
Last year saw the release of an excellent documentary, Garabandal, Unstoppable Waterfall. This includes the testimony of Fr. José Luis Saavedra, whose doctoral thesis at the University of Navarra is the first ever to deal with Garabandal. Fr. José Luis gives overwhelming evidence to show that the original diocesan investigation was not carried out systematically and with fairness. The commission did not undertake their study with the intention of uncovering the truth, but with a vested interest to discredit the apparitions.
Ed Kelly has spent a lifetime promoting the message of Garabandal and he too has frequently drawn attention to the shockingly deficient response of the diocese of Santander to the apparitions. This is comprehensively summarized in the appendices of his book.
Incredibly, Dr Luis Morales Noriega, the central figure on the diocesan commission, did a complete U-turn in 1983 when he announced to a university conference that the Virgin Mary had truly appeared in Garabandal. The disavowal by Dr Morales was complete. He asked the Virgin of Garabandal “that the years that I still have life pass in her shadow, and that she welcomes me later in her womb”. After the talk, he revealed that the “Marian enthusiasm” exhibited by Pope John Paul II when he visited Spain had prompted him to re-evaluate what he had experienced.
The message of Garabandal
The purpose of the remarkable supernatural occurrences of Garabandal was to call the world to radical repentance, prayerful meditation on the passion of Christ, and devotion to the Eucharist. The October 1961 message delivered by the girls to the world was a condensed form of the Gospel, theologically flawless, scrawled on a grubby scrap of paper and poignantly signed by all four children with their ages written beside their names.
Why did such extraordinary prodigies accompany the message of Garabandal? In order to provoke extraordinary attention to the message! As is clear from the Gospel of St John, it is not the great signs that matter, but what the great signs are pointing to. How ironic it is that when the girls delivered their message in October 1961, there was general grumbling from the public. People had expected some “novel” communication from heaven; the last thing they expected was the message of the Gospel!
It is fair to say that Garabandal has often been mistreated in the intervening sixty years. A lot of ink has been spilt in the effort to work out the date of the Miracle, but has comparable attention been given to the messages?
Some prominent Garabandalists have an impressive knowledge of the prophecies, but they foment opposition to Pope Francis. Granted, these people are often well-meaning, but the visionaries (who have always shown deference to Church authority) must be dismayed by such attitudes.
The makers of Garabandal, Unstoppable Waterfall lead by example at the beginning of their documentary, which, they say, is prompted “by an intense love for the Pope and the Catholic Church. This love for the truth and for the Church is what inspired us to undertake this project”.
For a more comprehensive treatment of this subject, please see the author’s blog.
[…] article on Garabandal, Garabandal: Believe the Miracles, published last week on Catholic Stand raised many interesting comments. These could be divided into […]
@E.B.
“He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world.”
The term “even to the consummation of the world” used here by the fathers of the Second Vatican Council is borrowed from the Gospel of Saint Matthew. This phrase comes from the last verse of this Gospel, and in many Bible translations it reads [Matt 28, 20b]: “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Until the age is over! What age? The era of the Church as we have known it for 2 millennia. Now the Lord Jesus is making a radical change, because He leads God’s people to the Kingdom of God’s Will. The apparitions in San Sebastian de Garabandal fit exactly this plan and are crucial for the implementation of this plan because of the great miracle announced in this pine grove in the Peña Sagra mountains. Peña means Rock, and it is the same rock on which Jesus Christ built His Church, and now through the Holy Rock [=Peña Sagra] in Cantabria, He will lead His people into the Kingdom of God.
On the sixth day of the Octave of the Ascension
P.S.
I like reading Garabandal articles, also written by you. I have absorbed everything from http://stjosephpublications.com/, so please forgive me my criticisms.
@E.B. (13 May, 3:25 pm)
Edward said: “Suddenly after 2000 years, is the rock on which the Church is built to become superfluous,” – just as the Church of Christ grew out of the Mosaic religion, the Kingdom of God’s Will grows out of the Church of Christ. Just as the Jerusalem Temple became a hindrance and by God’s Will it was completely destroyed, and the same fate will be shared by Rome (the Vatican), because it has become an obvious obstacle in the implementation of God’s plans for his people. In the passages from “Book of Heaven” that I have quoted, the Lord Jesus makes this clear enough. He is leading the history of salvation, not me or the Catholic Stand columnists.
E.B .: “… a private revelation to a lady, Luisa Piccarreta, who NEVER interpreted her own visions to indicate that the Church would one day be without a pope?” – Has this servant of God Luisa EVER interpreted the visions received from the Lord Jesus that the popes will always be in Rome? Perhaps she listed their number, as St. Malachi of Armagh or Conchita of Garabandal? Have you read the 36 volumes of Luisa’s writings to say “NEVER” categorically?
E.B .: “She [Conchita] would want us to interpret that locution in the light of the Church’s teaching,” – the teachings given by the Lord Jesus to Luisa Piccarreta and by Our Lady of Mount Carmel given to Conchita in Garabandal are in line with the tradition and teaching of the Church. I know this is a fresh tradition, similarly the Revelation to Saint John was a private revelation and completely fresh 19 centuries ago.
E.B .: “… and when we do, it is clear that the locution is referring to the number of popes BEFORE the dramatic events begin to unfold, not the total number of popes left before the end of the papacy!” You transform your own interpretation of the words of Conchita (dated June 3, 1963) into a categorical statement. Even if your assertion were true, the dramatic events in the Vatican, before and after Benedict XVI’s removal from office, show the elementary truth of Conchita’s testimony: after John XXIII there will be only 3 popes. The papacy in Rome ended with Benedict XVI according to the prophecies of St. Malachi and a girl named Conchita of Garabandal. Did you notice that Moses the Patriarch did not enter the Promised Land, that the high priest Caiaphas did not enter the Church of Christ. Likewise, Benedict XVI, the last vicar of Jesus Christ, will not enter the Kingdom of God on earth as the high priest.
E.B.: “Take Christ at his word when he said he was founding his Church on the rock of the papacy and promised us that the gates of hell would NEVER prevail against it…”
After all, the passage of God’s people from the Church of Christ on earth to the Kingdom of Christ on earth does not in any way destroy the rock which is St. Peter the Apostle (and his successors in the past 2 millennia). Only now, at the end of time (after epoch change), will Sancta Ecclesia shine in full splendor in the Kingdom of God’s Will on earth.
P.S.
E.B.: “…the mystical experiences of a saintly lady…”
I don’t know English very well, so I ask: Is “a saintly lady” the same as “a Servant of God”? Or is it an attempt to irony about the dignity of the Daughter of the Divine Will, Luisa the Virgin?
Greetings again MyronM!
It seems to me that our relationship has deteriorated in your last reply. I hope that we can keep the conversation without animosity or aggression. Did you notice how often exchanges like these end up with anger and accusations? Peace!
Your English is excellent and I never would have imagined that you were a non-native speaker. When I described Luisa as “saintly” I was being completely sincere, not ironic. I have lived half my life in Italy and my wife is Italian, so I know the story of Luisa and am familiar with her writings. Her confessor for a time was Saint Annibale Maria di Francia. He is the patron of the parish where my parents-in-law live. We know the Rogazionisti priests and have a lot of respect for St Annibale and for Luisa.
I have complete confidence in the claim that Luisa never stated that the Church would continue without the papacy. The first reason for this is because if she had written any such thing, it would be getting quoted all over the internet by the many people who consider Pope Francis to be illegitimately elected. The complete absence of any such quote is a good sign that no-one has found any such thing in her writings. But if anyone reading this comment would like to correct me on that, please do.
Secondly, I am confident that she never said any such thing because if she is a genuine mystic (which I believe her to be) then she would not state something that goes against the teaching of the Church.
The great test for genuine mysticism is whether or not it is in line with Church teaching and respectful of proper authority in the Church. Catherine of Siena is the great example. Sr Faustina’s works were held in suspicion until they were evaluated properly and seen to be completely in line with perennial Church teaching which stated that mercy is the greatest attribute of God, bar none.
If Luisa is genuine then she will not make a claim that goes against pronouncements of Ecumenical Church councils such as Vatican Two which in Lumen Gentium (Chapter III) states:
This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.
Luisa’s writings can be interpreted so that they are compatible with the above, without speculating on any end to the papacy.
For those among us who deny also the legitimacy of Vatican Two, please note that this pronouncement is fully in line with previous pronouncements of ecumenical councils. The Church will remain until the consummation of the world built on the foundations of the twelve apostles and held together in unity by the successor of Peter. The Church (not me) teaches that this grounding of the Church upon the successor of Peter will be perpetual until the end if time. Yes, a crisis in the papacy could happen (as has happened before) and we could be without a pope for a short time, but we are guaranteed by the Holy Spirit that any such crisis will be temporary.
With respect, I wanted to respond to a point in your comment where you “take a swipe” at me. You write:
‘In the passages from “Book of Heaven” that I have quoted, the Lord Jesus makes this clear enough. He is leading the history of salvation, not me or the Catholic Stand columnists.’
There is a great irony here, MyronM, but I say this in friendship and with full respect for you. You are insinuating that I (“Catholic Stand Columnist”) am purporting to lead in some way the history of salvation. But all I was doing was stating that private revelations (such as Garabandal or the writings of Luisa) must be discerned in the light of settled Church teaching. This obviously is not my opinion but the opinion of the Church. Without wishing to defend myself too much, I was insisting that we NOT follow our own interpretations, but instead follow the Church. It is when we follow the Church that we can be sure that we are following Christ. So, actually, I am doing the very opposite of “leading the history of salvation” and simply asking that we submit our own opinions to those of the Church. But you, in the very same paragraph, are following your own interpretation of the writings of Luisa, an interpretation of a private revelation that is out of harmony with Church teaching on the perpetuity of the Petrine ministry. A little bit ironic, do you agree?
Finally, you write:
“the teachings given by the Lord Jesus to Luisa Piccarreta and by Our Lady of Mount Carmel given to Conchita in Garabandal are in line with the tradition and teaching of the Church. I know this is a fresh tradition, similarly the Revelation to Saint John was a private revelation and completely fresh 19 centuries ago.”
Luisa and the visions of Garabandal have no “teachings” about the definitive end of the papacy. These are interpretations by people who do not have the authority to make such interpretations on private revelations (as the Council of Trent lays down); they do not come from the visionaries themselves, and they are not in line with settled Church teaching.
The revelation to St John cannot be compared to the private revelations of Garabandal or those of Luisa, sorry! The Book of Revelation is Sacred Scripture, a different thing altogether. It belongs to the deposit of public revelation of the Church which ended with the death of the last of the apostles.
MyronM, with respect and in friendship I would like to leave my input at that. Thank you for all the time and work you have put into these comments. If you wish to comment further, you are welcome, but I will probably not reply since I think (or at least hope) that my position is clear at this point and I really need to move on to other things. I have spent more time responding to comments than writing the original article! Here again is my position in very shortened terms:
1. The events at Garabandal were surely of supernatural origin because the miracles that happened there cannot be explained by any other means.
2. They were surely of heavenly and not demonic origin because of the clear respect for the Eucharist, the Rosary, proper authority in the Church, the lives of Christian witness of the visionaries, etc.
3. The fact that Garabandal has more miracles than all other apparition sites is an indication that we should take its message very seriously and respond very urgently.
4. The message of Garabandal is basically a return to the Gospel, repent and believe, be devoted to the Eucharist and to prayer.
5. Any other interpretations of Garabandal (the end of the papacy, the illegitimacy of Pope Francis, etc.) are not in line with Church teaching on the perpetuity of the Petrine ministry in the Church. This is not the opinion of a Catholic Stand columnist but the mind of the Church united around the successors of the apostles under Peter.
I need a cup of tea! If anyone would like to do my job and respond to other comments on this article, you are welcome.
Capacity to cite the Council of Trent and quote selectively from the Code of Canon Law might come in handy.
Knowledge of unapproved private revelations advantageous.
Use of reason or common sense not essential.
Only joking MyronM! Thank you again!
E.B:
I am a columnist here and I have a Garabandal Facebook page for anyone interested. I have written many articles on Garabandal over the past twenty years including many on Garabandal International. The work that I am most proud of is my Pebbles to the Pines which can be found in my Facebook page linked below. Perhaps I will post those Pebbles here someday. They are over 20 key points about Garabandal that will help anyone new to Garabandal understand the central ideas of the Garabandal message. Here is the link and thank you for this wonderful piece.. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Pebbles2DPinesGarabandal
Gabriel said: “They are over 20 key points about Garabandal that will help anyone new to Garabandal understand the central ideas of the Garabandal message.”
If you’ve researched the events in San Sebastian de Garabandal for 20 years, then you probably have a lot of knowledge about these miraculous apparitions. Would you be so kind as to give these 20 key points here because I don’t use facebook?
To E.B. [May 12, 9:39 a.m.]
I provide a testimony [unfortunately, when I copied it many months ago, I did not note the source], which would indicate that Conchita announced prophecy about the Popes on December 20, 1962, while John XXIII was still alive.
[Beginning of the quote]
“On the night of December 19th to the 20th [1962!], Wednesday to Thursday, there was something very important, according to the notes of Mr. Clapes Maymó:« Conchita had an ecstasy from 3:15 to 5:15. She began in her house. Mrs. Salisachs, Nati, her mother, and her brother Serafín were present. She went out from the house, went through the village, went up to the Cuadro and came down backwards, went into the cemetery, to the house of Mari Cruz …. During the ecstasy she was heard to say, Mercedes (Salisachs) said that Saint Malachy had prophesied about the Popes and that only two are left … After the ecstasy, Conchita told us the Virgin’s response: After the present (John the 23rd) there were still three; after that there would be no more. » [end of quote]
Edward, you don’t take into account in your arguments that the end of times is the end of an age, an age of the Church as we know it. Now the Lord Jesus is taking His Church into a new era, the era of God’s Kingdom on earth.
And now listen to what the Lord Jesus said to the servant of God Luisa Piccarreta:
November 27, 1917
“…. And then, churches are few and many will be destroyed. Many times I do not find Priests to consecrate Me; other times they allow unworthy souls to receive Me, and worthy souls not to receive Me; other souls are unable to receive Me, therefore my Love finds Itself hindered. This is why I want to make the Sanctity of living in my Will. In It, I will no longer need Priests to be consecrated, nor churches, tabernacles or hosts. These souls will be everything altogether: Priests, churches, tabernacles and hosts. My Love will be more free. Anytime I want to consecrate Myself, I will be able to do it – in every moment, during the day, at night, in any place where they might be. Oh, how my Love will have Its complete outpouring!
Ah! my daughter, the present generation deserved to be destroyed completely; and if I will allow a little something to be left of it, it is to form these Suns of the Sanctity of living in my Will, who, through my example, will repay Me for all that other creatures, past, present and future, owed Me. Then will the earth give Me true glory, and my “FIAT VOLUNTAS TUA, on earth as it is in Heaven” will have its completion and fulfillment.”
Do you now understand why the papacy had to end and that it was foreseen in God’s plans?
End of the Papacy [Feb. 28, 2013] does not mean that the gates of hell have conquered the Church on earth. On the contrary, the Church of Christ will only now flourish all over the globe, but already in the form of the Kingdom of God.
Please, read what the Lord Jesus said about this transition (change) to the aforementioned Luisa:
January 29, 1919
“My beloved daughter, I want to let you know the order of my Providence. Every two thousand years I have renewed the world. In the first two thousand years I renewed it with the Deluge; in the second two thousand I renewed it with my coming upon earth when I manifested my Humanity, from which, as if from many fissures, my Divinity shone forth. The good ones and the very Saints of the following two thousand years have lived from the fruits of my Humanity and, in drops, they have enjoyed my Divinity. Now we are around the third two thousand years, and there will be a third renewal. This is the reason for the general confusion: it is nothing other than the preparation of the third renewal. If in the second renewal I manifested what my Humanity did and suffered, and very little of what my Divinity was operating, now, in this third renewal, after the earth will be purged and a great part of the current generation destroyed, I will be even more generous with creatures, and I will accomplish the renewal by manifesting what my Divinity did within my Humanity; how my Divine Will acted with my human will; how everything remained linked within Me; how I did and redid everything, and how even each thought of each creature was redone by Me, and sealed with my Divine Volition.”
Dear MyronM,
I am grateful for your civilized tone and well-presented arguments, but I fear that our discussion will lead nowhere since we do not share the basic common ground required for a discussion like this to be fruitful. The fundamental basis for a non-heretical Catholic discussion of private revelations is that all such revelations must be interpreted in the light of Scripture and Tradition, and with respect for legitimate authority in the Church. With respect, a Catholic has gone off the rails when they start interpreting private revelations to mean something that is incompatible with perennial Church teaching. When Christ said that he was founding his Church on the rock of Peter, he meant exactly what he said. Let us take Christ at his word! The rock, of course, is not just Peter, but Peter and all of his successors. Suddenly after 2000 years, is the rock on which the Church is built to become superfluous, just because of your personal interpretation of a private revelation to a lady, Luisa Piccarreta, who NEVER interpreted her own visions to indicate that the Church would one day be without a pope?
As discussed in my other reply, Conchita’s locution gives us absolutely no basis for thinking Pope Francis is not the legitimate successor of Peter. She would want us to interpret that locution in the light of the Church’s teaching, and when we do, it is clear that the locution is referring to the number of popes BEFORE the dramatic events begin to unfold, not the total number of popes left before the end of the papacy!
I don’t want to get into a discussion on the legitimacy of the election of Pope Francis, since there are a lot of wild opinions out there, but the people who claim the election was somehow invalid are on very shaky grounds. Pope Benedict XVI is one of the great men of our age, steeped in the mind of the Church, a fantastic theologian. If he believed that his own retirement was possible (and indeed there were precedents in history) then we can be confident that his retirement was legitimate and the subsequent election of Francis was valid.
I agree with those who say that Pope Francis is out of line with perennial Church teaching in Amoris Laetitia regarding communion for the divorced. He is out of line and should be corrected. But this doesn’t invalidate his election. Lots of popes in history were out of line with the Gospel in various ways, but they were still successors of Peter! I believe that Francis has allowed a defective notion of “compassion” to cloud his judgement, and this has led him to compromise certain truths of the Church’s teaching. But he has done so from sincere motives, I believe. We should pray for him, but also remain loyal to him as our rock given to us by Christ as our principle of unity .
Thank you again for the civilised discourse and apologies if my reply has been a little strongly worded in places. As I see it we have two choices here: Take Christ at his word when he said he was founding his Church on the rock of the papacy and promised us that the gates of hell would NEVER prevail against it; or follow our own whimsical judgements, interpreting the rather confusing language in the mystical experiences of a saintly lady to mean that the Church would not always be founded upon the rock of the papacy after all. I know where I stand!
Conchita said, “Ya solamente quedan tres papas antes del final de los tiempos.” (Now only three popes remain until [the beginning of] of end times]. As far as I know, Conchita said nothing about how many popes remain. For a number of reasons, I think “the end times” is a better translation of Conchita’s words than “the end of times” and much better than the more common one that I see, “the end of the times.” I have a long article explaining the reasons if anyone is interested. See “A Walk to Garabandal a Journey of Happiness and Hope,” and watch “Garabandal Unstoppable Waterfall.”
Ed Kelly, your contribution and familiarity with the original Spanish are very valuable, thank you. I really enjoyed your book “A Walk to Garabandal”. The appendices were a great bonus.
Dear Edward,
Thank you for all the time and effort you put into my original post, but I must apologize to you and ask your forgiveness; for I feel that I have wasted your time, which is most unfair indeed. I say that because my struggles with this issue do not seem to be educational or intellectual in nature at all, but rather one of the heart – understanding seeking faith (trust), instead of faith (trust) seeking understanding [which is the norm]. My trust issue on this is with the human C/church, not with our triune God.
There are many components to that disparity, which would likely re-direct this topic altogether, and that’s not fair to you. However, I greatly appreciate you acknowledging and agreeing with my main concern. You have been a true gentleman and a good brother (in Christ) in that regard. May the peace of the Lord be with you always and bless you with the desires of His divine heart for all your days!
In Christ,
Andrew
A pleasure Andrew. God bless.
E.B.
All the bishops of the diocese from 1961 through 1970 asserted that the supernatural character of the said apparitions, that took place around that time, could not be confirmed. [no constaba].*
non constat de supernaturalitate (it is not established supernatural)
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/alleged-apparitions-at-garabandal-3719
——————————
For clarity, this is the Official pronouncement from the Church. The Local Ordinaries are the proper authority.
Certainly, we should have respect for the local ordinaries, but a pronouncement of this sort is not like official Church teaching. It must be reexamined and held up to the light of day. In 1958 or 59, the Holy Office in Rome made a negative judgement on Sr Faustina’s visions and banned the Divine Mercy Devotion. Their decision was based on a faulty translation of Sr Faustina’s diaries. So were the faithful supposed to just accept that decision for ever more, because the Holy office had the “proper authority”? No! That condemnation was based on faulty reporting of Sr Faustina’s writings and also some prejudiced judgements on the part of certain officials in the Holy Office. Thanks to St John Paul II (and others) the issue was reexamined and Faustina was vindicated. Not just vindicated but canonised! And when John Paul completed the ceremony in Rome in 2000, he said that he had just carried out the most important act in his pontificate.
So a pronouncement by any official in the Church should be respected, but if it is not an official teaching or a definition of dogma, then we are expected to continue to use our God-given faculties of reason and common sense to evaluate such judgements.
In Garabandal, Unstoppable Waterfall, Fr. José Luis Saavedra speaks very respectfully and eloquently about this diocesan investigation and he argues convincingly that it was not carried out systematically or with impartiality. In fact, he shows very clearly that the testimony of a key witness, Fr Laffineur, was effectively FALSIFIED by the commission. They twisted his words around and when he refused to sign the statement, the diocesan officials signed it for him with his initials. In later years, this false testimony was used by the diocese against Garabandal.
So are we really to accept a diocesan judgement just because it was made by the “proper authority”? We should respect authority certainly, but also consider if the judgement was made using proper standards of evaluation (openness to the truth, fairness, etc.).
Fr. José Luis is a priest of the order of the Home of the Mother, a wonderful congregation loyal to the Holy Father and fierce defenders of the Blessed Virgin. His testimony is balanced and reliable.
Edward, thank you for the reply.
It is important to note the authority rooted the office of the Bishop in safeguarding the faith and teaching in his territory does make his pronouncement on such issues binding to the faithful. (Canon law 212 and 753) As affirmed by the Council of Trent, the local bishop is the first and main authority in cases of alleged apparition(s). Thus the discernment of apparitions and miracles is the responsibility of the local bishop not the laity. Yes, these pronouncements are within the realm of prudential judgments – yet, private revelation themselves can never rise to the level of religious assent.
Since no “new” information will ever be given, since public revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle and given that the faithful are never required to assent or believe in any such messages – the proper place of private revelation is to point to the Gospel and help the faithful in a specific time with its specific challenges. The Gospel
As Pope Benedict XVI noted:
“It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pius belief)” .
If Ecclesiastical approval is not given the faithful in a specific private revelation, at the very least – one would not be acting in prudence if they ignored such pronouncements.
What do you mean by “does make his pronouncement on such binding to the faithful”? The official position of the Santander bishop today is “it isn’t certain whether the apparitions are supernatural or not.” I know that they are supernatural and know how I know. Nothing that I know of obliges me, or others, to agree with the Santander bishop. And belief brings certainty. God warns us in the second message of October 18, 1965 that He is displeased that His first message (Oct 18, 1961) has not been complied with and not been made known to the world. For that reason I have been speaking and writing on these, the most important apparitions of our times and perhaps of all time, since my third visit to the village in 1971.
Ed Kelly, “A Walk to Garabandal” and the English speaking participant in “Unstoppable Waterfall.”
Thank you for your respectful mode of corresponding! We can all agree that the proper place of private revelations such as Garabandal is to point to the Gospel, and the messages delivered by the girls certainly do that.
However, it is not correct to imply that the laity cannot take an active role in helping the bishop to discern. You write:
“As affirmed by the Council of Trent, the local bishop is the first and main authority in cases of alleged apparition(s). Thus the discernment of apparitions and miracles is the responsibility of the local bishop not the laity”.
Fine, he has that responsibility, but the laity must speak out to assist him, especially if he is seen to be failing in his responsibility. Respecting the authority of a bishop to discern the validity of an apparition does not mean that ordinary priests and the laity must be silent and refuse to participate in the process. Fr. José Luis Saavedra is very respectful of proper authority in the Church, yet he is absolutely right to exercise his right as a baptized person to speak out about the unfairness and deficiencies of the diocesan investigation. See the text of Canon 212 pasted below which states that the faithful have the duty to express their opinion to their pastors. This article, Fr José Luis Saavedra, Ed Kelly, and all those who see deficiencies in the diocesan investigation have the right, nay, the DUTY, to express their views to their bishops in a respectful manner.
For too long in the Church we have failed to see that we can offer constructive criticism of a bishop or his behaviour whilst maintaining proper respect for his authority. For too long there has been slavish deference to bishops whose behaviour, judgements and lifestyles were in contradiction of the Gospel. Think of people like Theodore McCarrick (and many others) whose judgements and actions were not challenged by people because they feared that they were going against the authority of a bishop. These people could have quoted the Council of Trent until the cows came home, but it would have been better if they respectfully challenged the errors and wrongs that they witnessed.
Just because the bishop has a certain authority, does that mean that the laity do not have the right to challenge that authority at times? St Catherine of Siena was a laywoman, a humble third order Dominican. She was not afraid to challenge bishops and popes whose judgements on Church matters (such as the proper residence of the successor of Peter) were clearly deficient. I am sure that lots of people complained to Catherine that she did not show proper deference to pronouncements from bishops, but we know now that she was absolutely right to challenge these errors.
I am completely in agreement with you that we use prudence and that we show respect to pronouncements from the local ordinary. But we also have a duty (as canon law affirms) to (respectfully) challenge those pronouncements if we discern that they are deficient or unfair. The diocesan investigations of Garabandal need to be reconsidered. No-one in the Church can argue credibly that we are compelled to accept slavishly an unprofessional investigation. Respect for a bishop’s authority and person, yes. Slavish acceptance of error, no.
Thanks again for your comments!
CANON 212:3 According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, [the faithful] have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors . . .
The EWTN link that you provide 1) spells Vilaplana as Vilaplaua at the top. In EWTN’s first translation of the Bishop letter, that agency misspells the name three time and misses two out of five letters in his predecessor del Val Gallo’s name. It says, that the bishop “released the following statement Oct.11,1996.” No he didn’t. The Bishop provided a copy of his original 1993 letter to Ramon Perez. I got my copy while in Santander in 1995. More damaging, EWTN incorrectly translates Vilaplana’s “no constaba la sobrenaturalidad” as “there was no supernatural validity . . .” Yes, as your link shows, EWTN corrected that translation but only after the damaging one had traveled the internet world for years. 2) Your EWTN link gives the translation of Vilaplana’s “que doy por terminada” in paragragh 6 as “this question, which I give finally.” That translation can be misleading. It should be, “which I consider finished, a big difference. I would stay away from EWTN and its sibling National Catholic Register. Both have a long history of reporting inaccurately on the Church’s position on Garabandal and on one’s proper response to the reported apparitions there.
E. – this link should be active:
https://spiritdailyblog.com/archives/ezkioga
Edward, thank you for your comment – your insight is actually very helpful. I never disbelieved the visionaries or thought they were faking things – much of the phenomena had to be supernatural. Your explanation of Ezkioga makes so much sense now. Of course the initial negative response by the diocese would be based upon the negative judgment on Ezkioga, I never thought of that. I’m able to temper my skepticism now, considering your interpretation of the events. I wanted to note that another saint you didn’t mention, who believed Garabandal to be authentic is St. María de las Maravillas Pidal Chico de Guzmán,
O.C.D. Thank you again for your insight on the apparitions.
Thanks Terry. It’s also interesting to hear about that Carmelite saint you mention.
E.B. said: “Some prominent Garabandalists have an impressive knowledge of the prophecies, but they foment opposition to Pope Francis.”
Pope Francis? Edward, you are an expert on the apparitions of Garabandal, so you are certainly also familiar with this prophecy about the popes announced by Conchita on June 3, 1963:
“The sound from the belltower came to the little kitchen where the widow Aniceta González and her daughter Conchita were on that afternoon.
— Listen; they are ringing the bells! — the daughter exclaimed immediately.
— It’s for the Pope — said the mother.
— Certainly . . . Now only three remain.
Surprised, Aniceta raised her head:
— What are you saying?
— What I heard. That only three popes remain.
— And where did you pick that up?
— I didn’t pick it up; the Virgin told it to me.”
Source: https://whatisgarabandal.blogspot.com/2015/09/she-went-in-haste-to-mountain-page-187.html
Why do you ignore this prophecy and insist that Jorge Bergoglio is the Pope?
Hello MyronM,
I am no expert on Garabandal, nor anything else for that matter. However, you don’t need to be an expert to exercise some old fashioned common sense. Any prophecy needs to be interpreted in the light of Scripture, Tradition and the teachings of the Church. That is certainly so in this case. When Conchita heard “Only three popes remain”, we need to try to discern what this could mean in the light of Scripture and Tradition. In Matthew 16,18, Christ says: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. The Church has always interpreted this to be a promise by Christ that the Church and the papacy will endure until the Second Coming.
Now the occurrence of the Warning and the Miracle will be major events in world history, but they are not the Second Coming. And the fact that there may or may not be a conditional chastisement after these events confirms that the world and the Church will persist for some time (probably quite some time) afterwards. So the Church is going to be around beyond the lifetime of Pope Francis and we can be confident that after he dies his successor will be elected to the See of Peter, and his successor after him.
Christ’s promise in Matthew’s Gospel makes clear that the papacy will be around after the Warning and Miracle, so we must try to interpret the locution Conchita received in this light. Evidently it means that the prophesised events (Warning and Miracle) are going to occur AFTER THE TIME of these three popes. The third of these is Pope Benedict (since it was later clarified by Conchita that in addition to the three there would also be a very short pontificate, and this prophecy was fulfilled perfectly in the 33 day reign of John Paul I).
In short, Conchita’s locution indicates that the events are upon us now, since we are in the period immediately after the pontificate of that third pope (but the facts that the events are upon us should not be cause for alarm or sensationalistic behaviour, but rather a motivation to repent and live the message of the Gospel)
We cannot use this prophecy to come to the conclusion that there will only be three more popes and anyone who comes after Pope Benedict is not a valid pope. I am sure that Conchita would be mortified if her locution was instrumentalised in this way by enemies of Pope Francis. Of course there will be other popes! Christ has assured us of that. Shouldn’t we take Christ at his word?
Let’s put it all in logical format for those who like syllogisms:
1. Conchita said “only three popes remain”
2. Either this means that there will be no other popes AT ALL (in which case Pope Francis is a charlatan), OR,
3. It refers to the TIMING of a particular event (only three popes remain UNTIL such and such happens).
4. Christ promised that the papacy would remain until the end of time.
5. Therefore, Conchita’s locution tells us ONLY about the timing of a particular event, and tells us nothing about how many popes there will be.
6. Therefore this locution gives us no reason whatsoever to consider Pope Francis not to be the legitimate successor of St Peter.
Of course, if we don’t like Pope Francis for other reasons, then maybe we could use this locution to undermine his position. But that plainly goes against Scripture and Tradition, and it would also be to exploit for selfish purposes a locution given to a lady who has never done anything to undermine the successors of the apostles.
[…] The Stream Ring in the Month of Mary with (What Else?!) Mary Rings! (Catholic Mode Blog) – MAS Garabandal: Believe the Miracles – Edward Benet at Catholic Stand The Sound of Beauty – Joseph Pearce at National […]
There are a few questions I always have when it comes to prophecies: How vague are they? Is there a way to concretely show they’ve been fulfilled? Is there a way to show they have not been fulfilled?
It seems the prophecies of Garahandal fail to meet all of these criteria. The Warning, Miracle, and Chastisement are left widely open to temptation that given enough wordplay could mean a great many things — to which no one can come close to agreeing on. And by leaving the time frame open-ended there is no way to say the prophecy failed. There’s always a tomorrow, or next year, or thirty more years from now.
One would have to stretch to find sufficient ambiguity in the prophecies of the Warning and Miracle for the kind of confusion that you attribute to them. Some have tried to reinterpret them in such a manner in recent years–particularly following the death of Joey Lomangino, which led many (myself included) to no longer believe in the apparitions–but the visionaries themselves were very explicit on the matter. If there’s any doubt whatsoever as to whether they have happened or not, they haven’t happened yet.
Beyond that, we have an unmistakable, iron-clad point of reference–Conchita’s announcement of the Miracle 8 days in advance. She hasn’t made that announcement yet; if and when she makes it, if the Miracle does not happen, then the prophecy has failed. If she dies without making the announcement, then the prophecy has failed.
Could you comment on the apparitions at Ezkioga some 30 years earlier? It’s in the same region as San Sebastian, Garabandal. That particular region had seen outbreaks of witchcraft in the 17th century, when wizards were intensely active, supposedly casting spells, causing infertility, and denying God and the Virgin Mary, although the spirits were said to have mimicked them. The center for witches was in the mountain range of Amboto, where it was said that a deity known as “la Dama” (the lady), patron of witches, lived in caves. The devil was also said to appear as both a black male goat and a man.
Those devoted to Our Lady of Garabandal, while awaiting the Warning, the Miracle, and then the Chastisement, maybe aren’t as well acquainted with the apparitions at Ezkioga thirty years earlier. I’ve written about it in the past, but I’d like to share something I came across on the apparent link between the two events. I find it interesting that the events in Garabandal occurred a mere 30 years after the events of Ezkioga – with very similar messages.
The alleged series of apparitions in 1931 took place not far from San Sebastian, the city in Northern Spain near Garabandal. The visionary was Ramona Olazábal and her visions began on the feast of Mt. Carmel, July 16, 1931 at Ezkioga, Spain. (The BVM was identified at Garabandal as Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.) The visions became popular and attracted crowds, but it was said they became corrupted by anti-clericalist Freemasons and were subsequently politicized. The apparitions were later condemned. 1934 the Vatican condemned them as well.
I’ve been to Garabandal in the mid ’70’s. It was very beautiful and peaceful. I had no negative feelings there, but nothing especially edifying either. Could it be the events were a repeat of the 1930’s phenomena at Ezgioga?
“Most striking were the prophecies: the apparitions at Ezkioga predicted chastising calamities for mankind. There would also be a “great miracle” that would be seen at Ezkioga but noted in the entire world.
“One seer said she knew the date of a chastisement and would be allowed to tell people eight days in advance. “Between the chastisement and the miracle there will be little time,” she said. “The Virgin has told me which day the chastisement will be and which day the miracle, and I have declared it in writing to my confessor in sealed letters that he keeps, and on the envelope is indicated the day he may open them….” http://www.spiritdaily.net/ezkioga.htm
Would you kindly please check the link at the end of your post. It seems to be broken. Thanks.
Hi Terry, thank you for your interesting comment. I don’t know much about the events at Ezkioga but it is true that sometimes people begin to doubt Garabandal when they hear that there were similar apparitions in the same neck of the woods just 30 years earlier, and these events also included the prophecy of a great miracle that would be revealed by one of the seers 8 days in advance.
People naturally suspect that the girls in Garabandal were copying what they had heard about Ezkioga. It is no harm, though, to be aware that Ezkioga is actually a few hundred kilometres from Garabandal and the many researches carried out by various writers have found no confirmation that the girls in Garabandal (which was extremely isolated before the visions of the 1960s) were being influenced by any outside events. Apart from all that though, the main point of my article is that we can have all the doubts in the world about Garabandal – thinking it was caused by trickery, hallucinations, self-delusions, etc., – but the undoubtedly miraculous nature of the events RULES OUT any possible natural explanation. On questions like these we need to be hard-nosed scientists. Before we can accuse the girls of any deception or self-delusion, we need to provide an explanation for gravity-defying movements, supernatural knowledge, etc. The scientific reports from doctors Alejandro Gasca Ruiz and Ortiz Gonzalez (and others) are very clear. These events can not be explained by natural means.
Given that Garabandal HAS to be genuine, your question then becomes very interesting. What happened in Ezkioga? Is it a coincidence that the events and prophecies have similarities? Here I will give my own personal opinion Terry, since I think this is what you asked me for. I believe that Ezkioga WAS visited by heaven in 1931, and that the Lord intended this to be a preparation of some sort for Garabandal. However, human freewill being what it is, some people misused the visions. The exact same thing happened in Lourdes. In the immediate aftermath of the visions of Bernadette, literally dozens of young girls started to claim that they were having visions. The Church had to step in and condemn these “visionaries”. Some people used this against Lourdes and claimed that Bernadette was probably a fake as well. But Bernadette’s sincerity, honesty and sanctity won the day.
In Ezkioga, there were some genuine visions, in my opinion, and some genuine visionaries. But there were also many fake ones, as happened at Lourdes. Ezkioga also had fake prophecies, alongside some genuine ones, for example the prophecy of an immanent second world war. The Church had to take action and rightly came down hard on the events in Ezkioga. In my opinion, the negative approach of the diocese of Santander to Garabandal was directly motivated by the mess the fake visionaries had caused in Ezkioga.
As a Catholic who is strongly rooted in biblical Scripture, I keep coming back to the same question over-and-over again whenever I hear about apparitions of any kind; especially ones that don’t solely involve Jesus.
Why, when Jesus tells the Jews that they have Moses and the prophets and need not be looking for someone to rise from the dead (in order to believe) and then His actual work of resurrection laid down by the apostles for us all, does anyone need anything further to follow Him? For blessed are those who believe and have not seen, especially since the proof of God is all around us.
It seems to be quite unnecessary and potentially problematic, especially since everything of more recent years has been said to come from Mother Mary and not Jesus Himself.
I also give great credence to where the Bible says that even the elect will be led astray when the end is near. So what is the value of any of these apparitions if we are so stodgy of heart to either dismiss or ignore the witness of creation and the undeniable biblical history of the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus? And that’s not even mentioning the warnings and convulsions of our own hearts that cry out it pain, even when we drown and deny it, for our own sinfulness and unrepentant wretchedness without Him.
In Christ, Andrew
Hi Andrew, your concerns are very well expressed and very legitimate. I’ll try to write a better response later when I get time, but for the moment I think your comment already alludes to the answer: the fact is that we are stodgy of heart and we do ignore the witness of creation and biblical revelation. You are quite right that we shouldn’t need extra signs and apparitions. What the Lord has already done should be enough for us. But he sees our hardness of heart and for that reason he gives us these “extra” aids to help turn us towards repentance. Your question then is: why does the Lord send Our Lady in so many of these apparitions? Why does he rarely appear himself? That is a great question and the answer is also great! I’ll try to get around to writing it down either this evening or tomorrow. God bless for now,
Edward
not even true, there are apparitions of Jeremiah mentioned in the Bible…
Paul tells us to discern prophecy does he not? this reply tells us to shut it down altogether, not very Biblical
Hi again Andrew. In reply to your understandable concerns, firstly to reiterate that you are surely right that biblical revelation should be more than sufficient for humanity. But given our hardness of heart, the Lord has deigned to assist our faltering faith with these heavenly messengers. In the cases of Margaret Mary Alacoque, Sister Faustina, and others, Jesus himself was the messenger, but, as you point out, Our Lady is the usual choice. You ask why this should be the case. Great question! I am no expert and I am sure there are many answers. This morning my wife repeated to me the answer she heard from Fr Michael Gaitley. Fr Gaitley said that humanity is naturally drawn to a mother figure. All of us need nurturing in the faith, we need comforting for our wounds, we need to be educated and formed, and a mother has a natural capacity to do that. The Lord knows our weakness and draws us to himself by means of his mother.
A variation of that answer is found in the deep Mariology of the Second Vatican Council. The title “Mother of the Church” was officially promulgated alongside Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) in 1964. Pope Paul VI said that this title is about Mary’s spiritual maternity over every Christian. It calls us to deepen our understanding of the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s perpetual virginity, all of which point to the fact that Mary was called to be mother of every Christian born of the virginal womb of the Church in baptism.
That might sound a bit abstract Andrew, but another way of looking at is is the following: just as Mary was called to be mother of the Son of God according to the flesh, so she is called to be mother of the children of God (i.e. the Church) according to the Spirit.
Jesus instituted the Church, ascended to heaven and sent the Holy Spirit. He expects the Church to carry out its task of bringing all of humanity to the bosom of the Father. He has given us that freedom and independence, but he is with us always as the invisible head of the Church. The Pope is the visible head and Mary is Mother of the Church, so it is fitting that she be given this maternal role of forming us as children of God according to the Spirit. When Mary came to Lourdes, Fatima and (as I believe) to Garabandal, she is being given this role by Christ to be our Mother in faith, to increase the supernatural life in us. She is basically doing what she did at Cana, pleading to God for her children and pleading to her children to “do whatever he tells you”.