Why did our lady not show her feet in Garabandal?

Padre Pio Saïd that it may not be our lady of she doesn't show her feet. But what about Garabandal I know he believed in it.

 

Can I ask how you know that Padre Pio said this?

 

St Padre Pio would see the virgin but he knew it wasn't her. Because her feet crush the serpent head.

 

Please, do you have a link to this information? I never heard this before. Thank you.

 

Malachi Martin on one of the Art Bell interviews was asked about Medjugorje and he said he did not believe it to be authentic. He gave a number of reasons but mentioned the Irish belief that you had to see Our Lady's feet and that at Lourdes she had s rose at her feet and her feet were showing at Fatima but her feet were not visible at Medjugorje and according to this Irish belief supposedly the evil one gives himself away by his cloven hoofs. I am not saying he is right but I am just relating what he said to Art Bell.

 

AED, Thank you. I do remember Father Martin stating this in an interview but I never heard of Padre Pio saying this. Maybe member sponsa Christi will provide the information.

I came across this video of Garabandal in which a witness to the events states something about the angel's feet. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...E2BFADA5F1FBDCB9F162E2BFADA5F1FBD&FORM=VRDGAR I know that the Garabandal seers were questioned about the Blessed Mother's feet being visible and if I remember correctly they said no. I was quite excited when I found that video that this is proof against Father Martin's claim but only heaven really knows. Personally, I am a believer but I think everyone needs to draw their own conclusions after studying the apparition.

 

Also, at Medjugorje the apparition would recite the Our father with the seers. This was another red flag because the real Blessed Mother would never say "Forgive us our trespasses" since she has none. For example, at Lourdes, the Blessed Mother was careful to keep her lips closed during all the Our Fathers and Hail Marys, reciting only the Gloria Patris. This is partly why I feel Pope Francis will issue a final, negative ruling in June.

 

I believe in Garabandal. I am not sure about Medjugori.

 

M. Martin actually thought Garabandal was legitimate. I think Padre Pio did as well. At least I seem to remember that.

 

Yes, Malachi Martin did say that in one of the interviews. I'm fairly sure that he also said he believed Garabandal to be authentic or, at the very least, had a favourable impression of it.

I don't know whether it is an old Irish belief about the devil's cloven hoofs. I have a vague memory of an old story along those lines. The gist of the story is that a stranger at some social gathering in one of Ireland's grand houses was playing cards with a group of men. The stranger was winning and all were in good spirits until one of them dropped the joker, bent down to pick it up and saw that the stranger had cloven hoofs. There was a furore and the stranger disappeared into the fire or in a puff of smoke (I don't remember the details). The part about the devil being unable to disguise his cloven feet was taken as fact whenever the story was told.

Perhaps Sponsa can tell us where she heard or read that Padre Pio was suspicious of apparitions where Our Lady didn't show her feet.

 

I know where but it on YouTube. I promise God not to go on YouTube after 11pm.

I should have it tomorrow

 

No. Ivan the visionary says that she says the first part of the Our Father, not the second part. I was there when he told a group of pilgrims.

 

I think at one time it was widely believed in Catholic England as well because Shakespeare makes reference to it in the tragedy Othello. When Iago's villainy is discovered Othello looks down at his feet believing he might see cloven hooves because Iago seemed to be the devil himself.

 

these don't believe in Medjugori but I think they talk about Padre Pio please tell me if this is the wrong video. God bledd

 

Ivan the "visionary" sounds like he makes it up as he goes.

The Medjugorje Hoax

To demonstrate briefly by means of events and quotes that the apparitions at Medjugorje, because of their banality or lack of dignity, the containing of heresy in the messages, and their undermining of Church authority, are certainly false, and cannot have come from Our Lady and Heaven.

1) Banality or Lack of Dignity.

According to the "Treatise on Mystical Theology," by Fr. Farges (1923), "Whereas the divine vision always conforms to the gravity and majesty of heavenly things, diabolical figures will infallibly have something unworthy of God, something ridiculous, extravagant, disorderly, or unreasonable about them."

A) Thursday, June 25, 1981: "(The seer) Mirjana asked Our Lady to leave us a sign...and the hands of Mirjana's watch turned." (book of Fr. Yanko Bubalo, p.22-25)

B) Saturday, June 27, 1981: The seers stated that the Virgin had disappeared several times because people had trod on her veil. (Bubalo, p.29-32)

C) Aug. 2, 1981: That evening during the apparition, those present followed one another in order to touch "the veil, the head, the hand, the dress" of the apparition. "At the end the Virgin seemed dirty, full of stains." (Bubalo, p.73-74)

D) Sept. 4, 1981: Seer Vicka in her diary writes: "We questioned her (the Virgin) about the man who saw Jesus in the street, when he was driving in his car. He met a man who was all bloodstained - this man was Jesus - who gave him a bloodstained handkerchief, telling him (the driver) to throw it in the river. Going on his way, he met a lady - it was the Blessed Virgin Mary; she asked the driver for the bloodstained handkerchief. The man gave a handerchief belonging to himself, but the Virgin asked for the bloodstained one. 'If he had not given it to me, it would have been the last judgment for all.' The Virgin said that that (event) was true. (report of Bishop Zanic, 1990, in whose diocese of Mostar, the apparition took place.)

E) Autumn, 1981: Jakov asked the Virgin whether Dynamo, the soccer team from Zagreb, would win the title. This gave rise, during the apparition (in the supposed presence of Our Lady) to mad laughter on the part of the other seers. (Bubalo, p.154-157)

F) Sept. 8, 1981: Jakov shook hands with the Virgin. "Dear Holy Virgin, I wish you a happy birthday." ("The Virgin Mary is Appearing in Yugoslavia," by Fr. Marian Ljubic, p. 42)

G) August 5, 1985: Mirjana says that she has received from Heaven a white sheet on which the secrets will become legible in due time. But she won't show the sheet. (Report of Fr. Rene Laurentin)

H) "One day, as she (Mirjana) was waiting for the Virgin, she saw the light, and out of the light came the devil, disguised in the features and clothes of Mary, but he had a dark, hideous face...After a while, the Holy Virgin came and said to her: 'I am sorry about that...'" ("Yugoslavia and the BVM" by Tequi)

(...who is really appearing there?)

2) An Apparition Teaching Error and Heresy

A) Fr. Tomislav Vlasic: "Do you feel the Virgin as she who gives graces (which is the traditional Catholic doctrine of Mary, the Mediatrix of All Graces) or as she who prays to God? (true also, but in conformity with some Protestant theology and not the fulness of Catholic teaching.) Vicka: "As she who prays to God." ("Is the Virgin Mary Appearing at Medjugorje? by Fr. Rene Laurentin, 1984, p.135-136, 154)

B) The Virgin was accustomed to reciting the Our father with the seers. (But how could Our Lady say: "Forgive us our trespasses," since she has none? At Lourdes, Our Lady was careful to keep her lips closed during all the Paters and Aves, reciting only the Gloria Patris.)

C) Mirjana: "I recently asked the Virgin this question (whether many souls are damned), and she told me that nowadays most souls go to Purgatory." (book by Fr. Faricy, p. 64)

(...a comforting thought, perhaps, but opposite to the teaching of Fatima, St. Louis de Montfort, Pope Gregory the Great, St. Alphonsus, St. Anthony Claret, St. Augustine, etc., etc.)

D) Oct. 1, 1981: "All religions are equal before God," says the Virgin. (Chronological Corpus of Medjugorje, p. 317)

E) The Virgin: "I do not dispose of all graces...Jesus prefers that you address your petitions directly to him, rather than through an intermediary." (Chron. Corp. p.181, 277-278)

F) "In God there are no divisions or religions; it is you in the world who have created divisions." (Faricy, p.51)

G) "God directs all denominations as a king directs his subjects, through the medium of his ministers" ("The Apparitions at Medjugorje," by Fr. Svat Kraljevic, 1984, p.58)

H) "Each one's religion must be respected, and you must preserve yours for yourselves and for your children." (Kraljevic, p.68)

I) "The Virgin added: 'It is you who are divided on this earth. The Muslims and the Orthodox, like the Catholics, are equal before my Son and before me, for you are all my children." (Fr. Ljubic, p.71)

(...unbaptized Muslims equal to the baptized, who by this fact are the adopted children of God?)

3) The Undermining of Church Authority

A) June 21, 1983: The Virgin states: "Tell the Father Bishop (Zanic) that I request his urgent conversion to the events of the Medjugorje parish...I am sending him the penultimate warning. If he is not converted, or will not be converted, my judgment as well as that of my Son Jesus will strike him." (Seer Ivanka writing to Bishop Zanic)

B) Dec. 26, 1983: ...But the Virgin takes the side of the chief propagandist for Medjugorje: "Our Lady prays for this work (i.e., the writings of Fr. Rene Laurentin.) May he who undertakes it do so in prayer, which is where he will find his inspiration." (Laurentin, p.105-111)

C) August 1, 1984: The Virgin says: "Make the priests read the Abbe Laurentin's book and spread it." (A Franciscan from Belgrade received this reply, when he had the seers bring up the matter to the Virgin.)

D) From August, 1984, to April, 1985, the apparitions continued to take place in the parish church despite the Bishop of Mostar's former prohibition. (A certain sign of a false apparition, when Church authority is disobeyed by the apparition itself.)

E) Jan. 1982: The Virgin states that two Franciscan priests, removed from their order and under suspension by the bishop, one of whom later fathered a child by a nun, may continue to say Mass and hear Confessions. Vicka the seer is asked "If the Lady said this, and the Pope says that they cannot..." Vicka answers: "The Pope can say what he wants. I'm telling it as it is." (from Bishop Zanic's document, 1990)

(...obedience to an apparition greater than obedience to the Pope?)

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/privaterevelation/medjugo.html

 

I don't believe that anything about Padre Pio is mentioned that video which is directly related to your comment. Father Gruner I believe says that Padre Pio had a vision of the devil but it is so quick that I am not certain. Nothing related to feet being visible or not. Go to around the 10:40 mark.

Maybe you forgot that the statement came from Father Malachi Martin. I know he made the statement about feet being visible as others have said and it is true that he was in support of Garabandal and not Medjugorje. Personally, I am waiting for the church approval on Medjugorje which will be available soon.

 

Padre Pio was mentioned in the context of some priest (a Fr. Luigi Villa?) having been commissioned by Pope Pius X11 and Padre Pio to fight Masonry within the Church. They were talking about the devil having appeared at Medjugorje but I didn't hear them quote Padre Pio in any context.

 

There are apparitions like Lourdes or La Salette for instance, that the Vatican has held off on agreeing with all of its entities. Yet they still approved it. The same may follow with Medjugorge.

 

What part of the Lourdes apparitions has the Church not approved?

The Church has never made an official determination regarding later apparitions to Lucy of Fatima but I don't think they were submitted for investigation.

 

I found the video Sponsa was probably referring to with the story about Padre Pio and Our Lady's feet. It is a video about Medjugorje on Youtube. I don't want to post a link because it contains derogatory information about a priest. In any case it also is not a primary source for the information. Though I think the video maker is trustworthy and not in any way prone to propagate outlandish stories. I don't think he would repeat it if he didn't think it was accurate.