|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 31, 2013 22:08:05 GMT
St Philomena seems to be very popular in certain trad circles - when the ICKSP took over their church in the Wirral near Liverpool they rededicated it to SS Peter, Paul and Philomena. The TABLET threw one of its hissy fits and suggested this was illegal since St Philomena has been specifically removed from the Roman Calendar. (This is an interesting point, though since the EF uses the old calendar it may not be conclusive. We have St Raymond Nonnatus whose acta have a great deal of the legendary about them, though that doesn't mean he didn't exist, and who got kicked off the Roman Calendar after Vatican II but his feast is still included in the EF every year.) Canonised saints don't always get things right - I heard somewhere though I cannot now verify it that St John Bosco believed Pope Pius IX and Franz Josef I of Austria were the Angel Pope and Last Emperor of mediaeval apocalyptic prophecy, and he may also have believed they were the Two Witnesses of the Apocalypse.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Nov 5, 2013 13:40:02 GMT
Yes, St Philomena is attractive to trads. The problem is not that there isn't a martyr (though it's not clear Philomena was her name - this is immaterial; we are invoking a martyer of unknown name by the name of Philomena), but rather that the parish priest of the church which received the relics in the 19th century wrote a life of the saint and no one has any idea what sources outside his own head he was using - it may have come out of his head. So we can accept the saint, but not necessarily her life.
|
|
|
Post by eircomnet on May 10, 2014 19:22:53 GMT
I replied to Alaisder's post in the past but could not find my reply, so here it is again: Bishop del Val is the bishop who served on the original commission to study the events. All the other bishops merely accepted the original decision that there was no proof that the events were supernatural. The chief architect of that negative judgement was a Doctor Morales, who later reversed his decision & with the permission of the bishop of Santander told a packed hall that he now believed that the Garabandal apparitions were in the same category as those of Lourdes & Fatima. Bishop del Val later undertook a new study of the events & he was interviewed in a Garabandal magazine. www.garabandal.org/vigil/interview.shtml ( if the link doesn't work, please copy & paste). Also more recently (2011) the 50th anniversary of the apparitions was celebrated in the village, not without the support of the local clergy. I am also told that Bishop Jiminez of Satander is very open on the events. So the matter for now remains in the hands of Rome. In my opinion it is unlikely that Rome will pronounce definitively until the prophesied events take place.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 14, 2014 21:12:38 GMT
"It is unlikely that Rome will pronounce definitively until the prophesied events take place". And if they never take place within the timespan that was prophesied?
|
|
|
Post by eircomnet on May 14, 2014 23:33:56 GMT
If they didn't take place then obviously that would be that & there would be an end to it, it's as simple as that! One interesting thing that does strike me though is that in the 70's we all who studied it at that time thought that it was much nearer in time, but then the other preceding events have not yet taken place such as the resurgence of the " new communism". So Conchita's date is still ahead in time, otherwise Rome would have exposed it already as a deception, so those who believe wait, and if you don't happen to believe that's your prerogative.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 6, 2015 13:30:01 GMT
In response to something I wrote elsewhere, a gentleman who believes in Garabandal sent me some literature on the subject. I don't believe in it, but I'm surprised how little objective information there is about it on the internet-- all the resources seem to be from believers. I had never heard of it before, apart from on this forum.
By the way, the name of this sub-forum is mispelled; "Supersition" instead of "Superstition". I keep meaning to point it out but I keep forgetting.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on May 6, 2015 16:46:08 GMT
Any official Church statements anywhere? The prophecies seem to be bunk anyway. We're either one or two Popes past the last.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 6, 2015 18:43:49 GMT
They have been re-interpreted!
One interesting aspects of this apparition is the idea of a 'lasting sign' which will be visible, capable of being filmed and photographed, but not touched. I don't believe in it, but it's a fascinating idea-- in the same way that the literal Trinity of Mormonism is an interesting idea.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on May 6, 2015 20:03:08 GMT
They have been re-interpreted! Ha! I don't know what else to say.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 6, 2015 20:10:00 GMT
The gentleman who sent me the literature sent it with a very nice letter and it was very kind of him to send it. If he reads this, I don't want to appear ungrateful or dismissive. I don't find the evidence convincing myself, but I might be wrong-- we all know many genuine visionaries and saints have been misunderstood in the history of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 6, 2015 21:00:55 GMT
Whatever your view, some harmless amusement may be derived from this web page which sets out to debunk the visions. I laughed out loud at parts of it although I find it quite endearing: Garabandal is a village in Northern Spain in the diocese of Santander. Our Lady of Mount Carmel appeared there from 1961 to 1965 to Conchita Gonzalez, Jacinta Gonzalez, Mari Cruz Gonzalez and Mari-Loli Mazon. The Virgin wore a white dress and a blue mantle. A crown of twelve stars rested upon her head. The children said she bore a close resemblance to the face of the Turin Shroud. They said, “No other woman looks like her or sounds like her”.
The first error is the crown of twelve stars. In Revelation a pregnant woman symbolising Israel who brings forth the saviour child wears such a crown but she is not Mary. The Virgin of Garabandal thinks she is the woman of Revelation, what an error!
The children reported a close resemblance between the lady’s face and the face on the Turin Shroud which is interesting for it is a forgery. The real Virgin would not look like a picture of Jesus that was a fake. Yet the Lady of Garabandal sanctioned the Shroud by making herself look like it.
And if the children saw a Lady at all they must have realised that some woman would look and sound like her. They are lying about what they saw and heard. It is just one of the silly mystical lies that some people indulge in. This is the page: www.miraclesceptic.com/garabandal.html
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on May 7, 2015 12:22:03 GMT
I can see what you mean. It appears that the person who runs that website is an atheist, though, who attempts to debunk everything supernatural. Interesting that he's using the authority of scripture to do so!
And I'd second your previous point, there are many genuine people who believe in these apparitions and I wouldn't question their sincerity. I suppose that Knock, Fatima etc. wouldn't have taken off and got Ecclesiastical approval without people running with them. The general criteria for discernment should always be applied though.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 7, 2015 22:39:30 GMT
The identification of the woman in Revelation with the Virgin Mary is fairly well-established, so the blogger's view that it is self-evidently false is rather dubious (on the most obvious level, she is described as giving birth to the Messiah and Revelation/Apocalypse is explicitly Christian, so the identification with Jesus's physical mother would seem quite reasonable). An example of the view that if you scratch an atheist you'll find a Biblical literalist? Knock is actually a striking example of the problems that can be caused by enthusiastic and self-promoting devotees. Margaret Cusack, the Nun of Kenmare, basically set out to take over the shrine (including by claiming to be a visionary herself) then decamped after quarrelling with numerous local people and ecclesiastical authorities. The shrine fell into such disrepute as a result that it became a mainly local and unofficial matter, and wasn't officially recognised until the 1930s.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Sept 20, 2022 18:12:42 GMT
Might be proper to this thread:
|
|