AVISO NEWS: No longer supports supporters of Pope Francis

Discussion in 'Pope Francis' started by local, Oct 19, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Well, Cardinal Burke is now the appointed patron of the Order of Malta. Will he give an order against the Pope after this synod since he's already spoken out early on that the Church is "rudderless" under him!! And he was "demoted" by Pope Francis many people feel. Division, division....sad!
  2. local

    local Guest

    That's the problem with these amorphous messages, they can mean anything. Anyone in Malta - a terrorist tourist for example - can fit this.
  3. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    No, Glenn, I am trying to discern the validity of Garabandal which remains an unapproved apparition. It is our duty to put all unapproved private revelation to the test. The question I asked remains unanswered: if Conchita was prohibited from giving the date of the Miracle, then why would she tease with giving tidbits narrowing the Miracle to a range of months or to the date corresponding with the Eucharistic martyr? Doesn't make sense. Same with regard to the Warning: why tease by making the cryptic statement that the Warning is an event "beginning with the letter A" instead of just naming the event.
    Teresa likes this.
  4. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    Glenn, the other thing is that the "mountain" of so-called evidence that you have listed has not yet convinced the Church of the supernatural validity of Garabandal. The veracity of Garabandal hinges on the fulfillment of the prophecies made there. The message of Garabandal adds nothing to the deposit of Faith, so the more important question is: is Garabandal true; did the Blessed Virgin actually appear there? Until the Church approves Garabandal I will remain skeptical and continue to ask questions.

    One other thing bothers me about Garabanal: why did the girls recant during their examination by the Bishop? Here I am reminded of the seers of Fatima who refused to recant even when threatened with being boiled alive. Something to ponder.
  5. Re: that Pedro Regis message about "order coming from Malta" mentioned in above comments:
    Pijon said:
    The translated message is:

    2950 - From Malta will come an order that will topple the Church and the faithful will suffer.

    Pedro Regis didn't say that the Pope will go to Malta. According to my studies, the meaning of the message is: an order will come from someone linked to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (which is a Roman Catholic lay religious order of, traditionally, a military, chivalrous and noble nature), that will topple the church and the faithful will suffer.

    But, there'll be falsity in that order, because:

    2952 - An order will be given by an Order. Falsity exists in its promise and the throne of Peter will be torn down.

    Cardinal Burke
    [Patron of Order of Malta] attacks Pope Francis’ annulment reforms


    For his part, Burke began by declaring that the Synod cannot decide such matters, which would involve amending canon law. “The Synod of Bishops has no authority to change doctrine and discipline,” he said. He then proceeded to dump on both recommendations, saying they effectively violated the church’s doctrinal obligation to determine that a given marriage is truly a “nullity.” The whole enterprise, he claims, reveals the dangers of “sentimentalism” and “a false compassion,” reflecting a “post-canonical antinomianism” that has afflicted the church since the end of the Second Vatican Council. Whew.

    Now, you might ask, why did Burke go ahead with his speech when, as even the folks in Steubenville cannot have failed to notice, the pope had just, on his own authority, promulgated new canon law (here and here) incorporating both recommendations. As they say, Roma locuta est, causa finita est (“Rome has spoken, the case is closed”).

    Pontiffs have been laying down canon law on their own say-so since the 11th century, so Burke, traditionalist that he is, can hardly claim that Pope Francis has no warrant for doing likewise. But as the Washington Post reported Monday, he went so far as to declare in a recent television interview that the pope “does not have the power to change teaching [or] doctrine.”

    It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the cardinal believes this pope has acted beyond his authority in changing the annulment procedure as he has. It’s also hard to avoid the thought that, as the pope proceeds to change what the church teaches, some traditionalists will abandon ship, and go into schism.
  6. Glenn

    Glenn Guest

    You fail to understand that Conchita is not the one dispensing information, she is REPEATING the information the Blessed Mother gave to her. So if you're upset, take it up with Mary,( if you dare ) not Conchita. " Don't shoot the messenger ! ".
    Joe Crozier likes this.
  7. Infant Jesus of Prague

    Infant Jesus of Prague The More you Honor Me The More I will Bless Thee

    To me Alot of these so called Locutionists and Visionaries all serve to undermine the True Church Authority. They make one to have such a critical eye on all Bishops.

    Whats the better news is, long ago are Mother, The Catholic Church taught us that private revelation approved/unapproved isn't nessacary for ones Salvation.

    Now Cardinal Burke is in the cross hairs.... stop it!
  8. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    I'm not shooting the messenger, Glenn. You act like Garabandal is settled. Far from it. That is why I am asking questions. But you have failed to answer my two questions:

    1. If Conchita was prohibited from divulging information regarding the Miracle until 8 days in advance, then why has she teased us with pieces of information regarding the Miracle such as narrowing it down to a range of months and narrowing it down to the date of the Eucharistic martyr?

    2. If Conchita knows the name of the Warning, then why not just state it for the public record? Why tease with the cryptic statement that "the event of the Warning begins with the letter A?"
  9. Glenn

    Glenn Guest

    You are like many who have not researched the WHOLE story,or you would understand why the church was put in an uncomfortable position when the bishop LIED ! Did you know that the Bishop NEVER filed a report to the Vatican ? Ask yourself WHY ??? The Vatican did, and they called in Conchita for an interview in 1966,BECAUSE they didn't believe the bishop's opinion, and what happened ? Cardinal Ottoviani & POPE PAUL VI BELIEVED CONCHITA'S STORY ! Pope Paul VI said : "Conchita, I, the Pope, bless you and with me the whole Church blesses you." I could fill pages with testimonies from the "Commision" priests ( one of which ,Dal Val GALLO, resigned over fighting with the Bishop ) and The head of the Civil Guard ,who the Bishop ignored, wrote his own account calling the "investigation " a farce " ! Testimonies from hundreds who asked to testify ,but were refused. I could go on forever.

    So take the time to go back in this thread and read some of what is written about the bogus "commission" ,and the Vatican reaction to it. IF this was not true ,the Vatican would have shut it down already, use your common sense.

    Now you obviously have no idea either what happened to the girls to cause some discrepencies. The Bishop whom you base your opinion on, since he could NOT get the girls to recant their stories ,decided in his wisdom to divide and conquer. He actually took a 12 year Conchita away from her home, shipped her with strangers to the coast, CUT OFF HER HAIR ,BECAUSE THE BISHOP THOUGHT IT POSSESSED POWER, TOOK CONCHITA OUT OF HER RESPECTFUL DRESS ,AND PUT HER INA BATHING SUIT, and they badgered her until she finally told them what they wanted to hear !!!

    Today that Bishop would be facing criminal charges for child endangerment and abuse !

    You are only skeptical because you are uniformed on the WHOLE TRUTH of what really happened. Here you go, start reading






    APPARITIONS OF GARABANDALhttp://www.ourlady.ca/info/ApparitionsBook/contents.htm


    Memoirs of a Spanish Country Priest

  10. Glenn

    Glenn Guest

    Are you listening to what I said ? Conchita doesn't make the rules here, Mary did, Mary asked her to divulge CERTAIN facts as to when the Miracle would happen. We are to take those on faith. If she gave us the date, no faith is required here, STOP blaming Conchita for what Mary told her to say.
    #2- If you bothered to read, you would have also learned that Conchita NEVER heard of the " A" word when it was used ( being a 12 year old mountain girl, with a less than stellar education there). She said she forgot what the word was.
  11. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    Glenn, I know of no evidence supporting the statement that any Bishop of Garabandal lied. To call them a liar just because you don't like their conclusion, is rubbish. We are called to be obedient to the local bishop. "Obedience," isn't that what Conchita stressed?
  12. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    Thank you for the answers, Glenn.

    By the way, we are not to take unapproved apparitions on faith.
  13. Joe Crozier

    Joe Crozier Guest

    Great response Glenn. You certainly earn your keep. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. As far as I can see Garabandal has been put to the test and passed with flying colours....many times in many ways. Conchita has in no way teased us with titbits. She has given us every piece of information that is permitted by heaven. It is not for us to judge the ways of heaven. As Glenn says Conchita is the messenger, not the author. Richard has never provided any evidence that refutes the true mountain of evidence - and it is a mountain - in support of the veracity and supernatural nature of Garabandal. All he can quote is the ruling of a dishonest cleric who was in gross deriliction of duty in the way he conducted his investigation. The Church was shamed and terrified in 1965 that it had been sussed and exposed by none other than the Blessed Mother of God. I feel its reaction was one of panic and anger at the truth coming out. While I am sure this also refers to other aspects of church conduct the revelation about the fate of clergy remains for me one of the strongest confirmations of Garabandal prophesy. The huge and desparately sad and shameful scandal of child abuse that followed showed the that word given in Garabandal about cardinals, bishops and priests heading to hell and taking others with them etc was absolutely true. But it was too much for church authorities of the day to face up to. If they had, the suffering of innocent victims could have been lessened and the crisis of faith in the church that followed, better handled. Why do the likes of Richard not focus their energies on Church authorities and badger them into revising their opinion. I actually hope he does not pursue this line as his grasp of the evidence is tenuous at best and negligent at worst....just like the local ordinary. Sure we are not obliged to believe in private revelation but we are obliged on a purely human level to give the benefit of the doubt when that benefit is for the whole world and when the grounds for doubt are all but washed away by the tides of evidence that carry the crashing truth in every wave. The evidence that the local bishop was wrong in his method and conclusions is overwhelming. He was even by-passed by the pope. In respect for church authority he was not contradicted but the blessings and affirmation given to the seers by Paul VI and other saintly people seem to countermand his findings.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2015
    Glenn likes this.
  14. Glenn

    Glenn Guest

    Richard, I call the Bishop a liar for many reasons,and with just cause. As I have already said HIS OWN HAND PICKED PRIEST ( who would later replace him as Bishop ) Dal Val Gallo RESIGNED because the bishop refused to record ANY favorable testimonies, including HIS OWN PRIESTS !
    Now if you need more proof, and I'm sure you do, here is the testimony of the HEAD OF POLICE CIVIL GUARD:

    Upon presenting the memoirs of Juan Alveraz Seco, Brigadier Chief of the Civil Guard, and the man responsible for maintaining order in the village during the apparitions, Anotnio Pacio, M.S.C. Professor at the University of Barcelona writes:
    “ I would like to only state one thing to forestall the objections on many based on various official communiqués coming from the Diocese of Santandar. These communiqués should have been preceded by a substantial interrogation of the myriad witnesses”
    “Among these witnesses , one who stands out is Juan Alvarez Seco, Brigadier Chief of the Civil Guard,who is the author of these memoirs. He was present from the beginning to 1962,and at 1965 at the time of the Message, and he had the duty of informing his superiors and the Civil Governor and all that was going on in Garabandal, while at the same time he had to maintain order in the village. “
    “Well, none of the Commissioners, who rejected the supernatural events at Garabandal, ever asked him to testify, nor did they deign to even interview him, who was the “official informant” to the authorities. This detail suffices to illustrate the “true and impartiality “ with which the various episcopal commissions endeavored to inform themselves. "THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED IN BELIEVEING WITNESSESS, BUT ONLY THE UNBELIEVING. THEY WANTED AT ALL COST, TO DISCREDIT THE MANISFISTATIONS, AND IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THIS, THAT HAD TO ELIMINATE ANY WITNESS,INCLINED TO BE FAVORABLE, NO MATTER WHAT HIS COMPENTENCY”.
    From “The Village Speaks” pgs 69 - 70.

    Enough for you ?
    ps. You said " By the way, we are not to take unapproved apparitions on faith.". If you are so decidedly against Garabandal as unimportant to your faith , WHY are you here ?
  15. Joe Crozier

    Joe Crozier Guest

    Conchita was obedient to her erroneous bishop and is obedient to this day.
    Glenn likes this.
  16. Glenn

    Glenn Guest

    I forgot to address this issue too, of Obedience. Since we are ALL called to be obedient the
    Holy See, you'll be glad to know we are obeying POPE PAUL VI.
    Pope Paul VI had shown a very special interest in the apparitions. At an audience given to Fr. Jose Escalda, S.J., the latter mentioned there were many opponents of the apparitions even amongst his own people. His Holiness promptly rejoined:
    "It doesn't matter; tell these gentlemen that it is the Pope who has said that it is most important and most urgent to make these messages known to the world."

    SO I AM TRYING ! :)
  17. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    That cleric was not dishonest nor was he in gross dereliction of duty.

    You speak of Garabandal as coming "from heaven" when that has not been established. That remains to be demonstrated.

    I doubt that you or Glenn is more qualified or informed than the local ordinary when it comes to the question of the veracity of Garabandal.

    The blessing of the seers by Paul VI was in no way an endorsement of Garabandal. To say that it was is deceptive.

    Most of the so-called "evidence" that saintly persons like Mother Teresa and Padre Pio supported Garabandal is circumstantial at best; there is no official statements by Padre Pio or Mother Teresa supporting Garabandal.

    There is no real evidence that the local bishop was wrong about Garabandal or that his methods were lacking. When I see promoters of an unapproved apparition start to chip away and question the local bishop, that puts up red flags in my book.
  18. Joe Crozier

    Joe Crozier Guest

    Made me smile a bit and think of a conversation I had with my old mum only yesterday. We were trying to think of a place of pilgrimage that we knew but could not recall. I thought it began with a 'C' . Sadly these lapses of memory are becoming more frequent for both of us. How many 12 year olds remember what they are told. I think Conchita did very well in recounting what she was told.
  19. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    This is an example of circumstantial, anecdotal "evidence" not real evidence in writing in the public record. And Pope Paul VI certainly did not rule on the veracity of Garabandal.
  20. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    Her bishop was not erroneous.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page