By Peter I. Galace

Introduction

On December 11, 2015, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith issued PROT. N. 226/1949, which maintained that a March 28, 1951 CDF verdict that declared the phenomenon in Lipa was not of supernatural origin, and subsequently confirmed by Pope Pius XII on March 29, 1951 was the final decision of Vatican on Lipa. PROT. N. 226, in itself a Decree, also voided a declaration made by Archbishop Ramon Arguelles three months earlier, on September 15, 2015, that Lipa was “worthy of belief,” dashing the hopes of millions of Filipino Catholics that Lipa Carmel would become one of the world’s few approved Marian apparition sites that could stand side-by-side within the ranks of Lourdes or Fatima. 

While the CDF Decree of December 11 is clear and emphatic in its directives, the bases for such orders are patently deficient and defective. First, PROT. N. 226 lacks proper documentation, for which Vatican is always known for, and more importantly, the March 28/29 declarations were not properly promulgated in accordance with Canon Law. PROT. N. 226 also contains glaring contradictions, only sowing more confusion. In addition, the Decree showed obvious inconsistencies with some known facts and events that were to follow after March 1951. PROT. N. 226 evident errors render it null and void and only showed that even CDF itself is confused.

The Code of Canon Law 

The Canon Law is the system of laws and legal principles made and enforced by the Catholic Church. Canon 8 of the Church’s Ecclesiastical Laws requires that a law or decree, to be properly promulgated, should be published in the official commentary, Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Official Acts of the Holy See), unless another manner of promulgation has been prescribed in particular cases. Under Canon 8, a particular law takes force only after three months have elapsed from the date of that issue of the Acta unless they bind immediately from the very nature of the matter, or the law itself has specifically and expressly established a shorter or longer suspensive period (vacatio).

The Acta was established by Pope Pius X on September 29, 1908 with the decree Promulgandi Pontificias Constitutiones, and publication began in January 1909. Since then, the Acta contained all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, decisions of Roman congregations, including CDF, and notices of ecclesiastical appointments. 

Thankfully, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis archives are available on the Internet (http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/index_sp.htm) and all the CDF and papal Decrees could now be viewed by year, under whoever pope was reigning at any time. 

In addition to publication itself, the Holy Office also makes sure that those published decrees are duly edited in form and style, following justa Stylum Curiae. What that means is that any Decree or law, to be properly promulgated, must follow strictly the style, standard, and format of the Holy Office before it becomes a law. Afterall, Vatican is known to follow scrupulously its standards. 

In July 1951, CDF made a decision on the supposed apparitions that occurred in the village of Heroldsbach, archdiocese of Bamberg in Germany. Based on reports, in 1949 an apparition took place at Heroldsbach in which initially four young girls between the ages of 10-11 saw the Blessed Virgin. [scroll below ad for more]

CDF examined the records and documents pertaining to the alleged visions of the Blessed Virgin Mary. After consultations and vote, CDF declared that the visions were not supernatural and subsequently, in a Decree on July 18, 1951, CDF prohibited even the distribution of the Holy Eucharist in the in the apparition site. On July 19, 1951, the next day, in a CDF audience with the Holy Father Pope Pius XII, CDF reported its Heroldsbach negative verdict, which was confirmed by the Holy Father. [continued below ad]

In the Heroldsbach case, the CDF conducted an investigation, it issued a negative verdict, and the CDF Decree was confirmed by the Holy Father. All the information pertaining to the Heroldsbach phenomena are properly documented and PUBLISHED in the Acta in 1951, pages 51-52, and could be downloaded on the Internet.

Another negative verdict of CDF, on another apparition in 1934, concerning Ezquioga in Spain is also worth noting.  

Ezquioga, now Ezkio, is a small town, part of the municipality of Ezquioga-Ichaso, in the Spanish province of Guipúzcoa or Gipuzkoa, in the autonomous community of the Basque Country. It is most famous for alleged Marian apparitions, controversial public visions of the Virgin Mary starting in 1931.

But on June 13, 1934, the CDF also issued a negative verdict on Ezquioga, which was subsequently affirmed by the Pope the next day, on June 14, 1934. Again, the Decree issued by the CDF and the affirmation of the Pope on the negative verdict were duly published on page 433 of the 1934 edition of Acta and, thus, properly promulgated. 

Similarly, other CDF decisions on apparitions and other phenomena worldwide are published in the Acta. CDF publishes all the Decrees justa Stylum Curiae.

Missing: March 28/29 Declarations in Acta 

The CDF PROT. N. 226 anchors its main argument on a March 28, 1951 declaration that the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, as the CDF was then known in 1941, that the events in Lipa “have no sign of supernatural character or origin.” This decision, CDF declared, “was confirmed by His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, on 29 March 1951,” the Protocol reads. 

There would have been no problem with the March 28/29 declarations except that CDF could not show or have not shown, until today, any evidentiary proof of their existence, including the official promulgation of the twin declarations. 

A careful review of all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, and instructions of Pope Pius XII in 1951, which are all published in the Actas don’t contain anything that resembles a declaration made against Lipa. 

Curiously, there is one mention of Lipa among the Actas of Pope Pius XII in 1951. This is the dedication of a Minor Basilica for the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Martin in the town of Taal which was within the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Lipa in April 1951. This event, while important, is much less significant than the phenomenon in Lipa, yet it merits mention in the Official Acts of the Pope. Why then should there be no such document about Lipa, which was the most significant Marian event in the Philippines in those days?

The question now is, sans the proof of evidentiary existence or documents on March 28 and 29, 1951 declarations, and lack of proper promulgation, are the directives of PROT. N. 226 valid? [scroll below ad for more]

Assuming, for arguments sake, that sometime before December 2015 CDF made a thorough search of its archives and finally found the documents of March 28/29, 1951, would PROT. N. 226 be still valid because indeed, there are signed documents to prove their existence? 

The answer is still a big NO. As mentioned earlier, because the March 28/29 Decrees were NEVER published in the Actas. Any March 28/29, 1951 rulings if presented today remain ineffective and inutile for lack of publication. The March 28/29, 1951 Decrees, even if they existed at all, never obtained the legal force of a law because of failure to abide by Vatican’s protocol for promulgation – that is the lack of publication.

Here are two other curious facts. 

In addition to the Actas, the CDF itself also has a dedicated webpage on the Vatican website where it publishes all its Orders and Decisions. Calling it the “Complete List of Documents  of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/doc_doc_index.htm”), the webpage enumerates and lists all CDF Decrees, Letters, Notifications, Instructions, Notes, Circulars, Commentaries, Responses to Questions and all other CDF Decisions from 1966 up to the latest CDF Decision rendered on August 2020. 

Nowhere could you find in this list the March 28/29, 1951 Decree of the CDF. 

And nowhere is in this list could you find PROT N. 226/1949 released on December 11, 2015!

PROT. N. 226, Apocryphal! 

Fr. Paul Kramer, lecturer and author of numerous articles and books on the Catholic Faith and on the subject of Fatima, shares the idea of the invalidity of PROT. N. 226, which he says must be dismissed as “apocryphal.”

“The onus is on the CDF to produce the evidence of the alleged confirmation, otherwise the claim must be dismissed by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) as apocryphal. It is standard procedure to note the approval of a higher authority on the decree itself. Such a notation is nowhere to be found on the decree April 1951; and it is inconceivable that Pius XII issued some other decree confirming the 11/04/1951 decree on Lipa, since such a decree is totally unknown to ever have existed, and unless duly promulgated, it would remain bereft of all juridical force.”

If Pope Pius XII made a “definitive confirmation” in 1951 of the decree, as CBCP claims, then that “definitive confirmation” would be noted on the decree itself, as is the case with the July 1961 decree of the Holy Office condemning the “All Nations” apparitions in the Amsterdam apparitions. 

Another big question is why no bishop in the CBCP ever questioned the authenticity of the March 28/29 edict of CDF. The answer is obvious. Surely, no Philippine bishop eyeing or angling to become a Cardinal someday would want to tangle with CDF or with Vatican. 

Inconsistent with Known Facts: Subsequent Acts Prove March 28/29 Declarations as Inexistent

Based on the “disclosure” of PROT N. 226, the CDF, had already made an official stand on the Lipa issue by March 28, 1951, after what it says, it conducted careful investigations on the phenomena. Based on this, CDF said, for almost two years it conducted its own investigations quietly in 1949 or early 1951. After CDF made its conclusion, it wanted Philippine bishops to make known its stand to make it more acceptable to the Filipinos. Item Nos. 4, 6 and 7 of PROT. N. 226 says so.

To do this, CDF enlisted the support of the then Papal Nuncio to the Philippines, Egidio Vagnozzi, who, on obvious orders of Vatican, was ordered to organize a commission to investigate Lipa. On April 11, 1951, or barely two weeks after the Holy Office declaration and Holy Father’s confirmation were made, the Philippine church also made its stand. Now obviously a rubber-stamp commission, a select-group of Philippine bishops made the following declaration:

We, the undersigned Archbishops and Bishops, constituting for the purpose of a special Commission, have attentively examined and reviewed the evidence and testimonies in the course of repeated, long, and careful examinations, have reached the unanimous conclusion and hereby officially declare that the above-mentioned evidence and testimonies exclude any supernatural intervention in the reported extraordinary happenings — including the shower of petals at the Carmel of Lipa.

(Signed) Gabriel M. Reyes (Signed) Mariano Madriaga
Archbishop of Manila Bishop of Lingayen

(Signed) Cesar M. Guerrero (Signed) Juan Sison
Bishop of San Fernando Auxiliary Bishop of Nueva Segovia

(Signed) Vincente Reyes (Signed) Rufino Santos
Auxiliary Bishop of Manila Apostolic Administrator of Lipa

Manila, 11 April 1951

Concordat cum originali
(Signed) Egidio Vagnozzi
(Apostolic Nuncio) 

The very next day, on April 12, 1951, as a result of the Special Commission report, then Apostolic Administrator of Lipa, Bishop Rufino Santos, issued a decree banning public veneration of the image of Our Lady Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace. Santos concluded his Decree by stating “…. until a FINAL decision on the matter will come from the Holy See.’’ 

This Decree of Santos, to most Catholics of the Philippine Church, was the prevailing Church Stand on the issue since April 1951 until the 2015 PROT. N. 226. The gap took all 64 years!

Here again is the problem. The concluding Statement of Santos’ decree obviously rules out a March 28/29 Vatican declaration on Lipa. For if he were aware of it, why would Santos ask or seek a FINAL decision from Vatican, when in fact, as CDF claims in PROT. N. 226, that has already been decided on. Surely, Santos, who earned a Baccalaureate in Canon Law in 1929 and a Doctorate in Sacred Theology in July 1931 at the Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, would have assiduously followed Vatican if he had knowledge of the March 28/29 declarations.

Assuming that on April 12 none of the Philippine bishops who signed their ruling was aware of the March 28/29 Vatican decision, why where they NOT INFORMED of it days or weeks later. Surely, Vagnozzi would have been aware or have been told of those Vatican rulings. And if he was told of it, he would have immediately called the attention of Santos immediately after that April 12, 1951 decree. Or at least a few days later or months later, he would have “reprimanded” Santos for the glaring “mistake”. Had Santos been notified by Vagnozzi, Santos would have also immediately corrected himself and made an immediate announcement. 

In comparison, when Arguelles received the signed copy of PROT. N. 226 on May 30, 2016, the very next day, he issued a Communique bowing to the Decrees of CDF.  

Hearing none of the Apostolic Nuncio’s “correction” of Santos and knowing nothing of any amendment to the Santos’ Decree from CBCP or Vatican can make us conclude that there was no March 28/29 ruling.  

No Lipa Prelate Ever Informed of March 28/29 Ruling

There is a long line of distinguished Philippine bishops from Santos to Arguelles, who were NEVER informed of such CDF ruling or papal confirmation of such ruling. Not one of the prelates had ever seen the March 28/29, 1951 Holy Office-Holy Father verdict against Lipa. If they did, they would have refrained from encouraging any form of devotion to Mary Mediatrix of Lipa Carmel.

It is inconceivable for the archbishops who were assigned in Lipa not to have known the March 28/29 ruling: Alfredo Florentin Verzosa, September 6, 1916 to Feb 25, 1951; Alejandro Ayson Olalia, Dec 28, 1953 to Jan 2, 1973; Ricardo Jamin Vidal, Aug 22, 1973 to Apr 13, 1981; Mariano Garcés Gaviola, Apr 13, 1981 to Dec 30, 1992; Gaudencio Borbon Rosales, Dec 30, 1992 to Sept 15, 2003; Ramon Cabrera Arguelles, May 19, 2004 to Feb. 2, 2017. Lipa is an important and significant post in the Philippine Church. Including Rufino Santos, two other archbishops of Lipa – Ricardo Vidal and Gaudencio Rosales – were to become Cardinals. Three Philippine Cardinals had their roots implanted in Lipa!

In his book titled “Reflections”, former Lipa Archbishop Mariano Gaviola, who served as Archbishop of Lipa from April 13, 1981 to December 30, 1992, wrote that he came to Lipa as unbeliever, not believing any of what he had heard of the phenomena. But soon, some people came to him asking that the image of Our Lady of Lipa be again brought out for public veneration. The bishop asked for more time and prayed for discernment. In 1988, a petition signed by thousands of Lipa residents led by the Batangas Governor and Lipa City Mayor renewed the petition for public veneration of Our Lady of Lipa, with some volunteering to testify to the truthfulness of the shower of rose petals. This prompted Gaviola to do his own research by first searching for documents in the Chancery Office of Lipa. But the only document they could find were copies of the CBCP Episcopal Commission Decree of 1951.

Next Gaviola wrote Ricardo Cardinal Vidal, who was his immediate predecessor in Lipa. Cardinal Vidal could not provide him any document either.

Gaviola then wrote the Most Rev. Bruno Torpigliani, Papal Nuncio to the Philippines at that time, requesting for any record of the CBCP Episcopal Commission and of Lipa. Archbishop Torpigliano responded that the “Nunciature had no record of the investigation and decision of the same Episcopal Commission.”

Soon after, Gaviola write His Eminence, Jaime Cardinal Sin, requesting that he permit Fr. Pio Baramano, then secretary Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Lipa, to look into the archives of the Archdiocese of Manila for documents relating to the Lipa Carmel investigation. “Fr. Pio was assisted by a religious sister, the archivist of the Manila Archdiocese. But their long and arduous search was of no avail,” wrote Gaviola.

Gaviola wrote further:

“At about the same time, Ms. June Keithley, a TV producer was on her way to Rome to widen her own reserach about Lipa Carmel. She asked for a recommendation letter to the propoer authorities at the Generalate of the Carmelite Father in order to gain access to their records about Lipa Carmel. Afraid that the fathers would not feel comfortable with Ms. Keithley as a media personality, I recommended instead Rev. Fr. Cecil Arche, of whose prudence and capability I had full confidence and who was taking up doctoral studies in Canon Law. I requested him to accompany Ms. Keithley to the Carmelite Generalate. 

I was made to understand the the ranking superiors of the Carmelite Fathers in Manila had initiated the Lipa Carmel investigation. 

But as if to compound my perplexity, Fr. Arce and Ms. Keithley came back empty-handed except for a few papers that were of practically no relevance to our purpose.”

Archbishop Gaviola commenting on the April 12, 1951 Decree of Santos wrote: “If I recall rightly, the postscript states that the provisions of the Decree were to be strictly enforced and observed until such time when the Holy See comes out with its own verdict. Whereas to the best of my knowledge I do not think that the Holy See has ever come out with such a verdict.”  

After finding no record on Lipa except for the April 12, 1951 decree, Gaviola lifted the ban imposed by the April 12 ruling of Santos, openly expressing his belief in the authenticity of the 1948 Marian apparitions, even declaring the said miracles it as “worthy of belief.” The phrase “worthy of belief” is the Catholic Church’s byword for an authentic apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 

Bishops Alfredo Obviar, Dency Rosales Have Never Heard of March 28/29 Ruling 

In the biography of Bishop Alfredo Obviar written by His Eminence, Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales (writing under the familiar name “Dency Rosales”), there is not a trace of the existence of the March 28/29 issuances, considering that as a writer he necessarily had to discuss the issue of authenticity of Lipa in a book that narrated the life story of Obviar. As a former Ordinary of Lipa, Archbishop Rosales should and would have known of March 28/29 verdict from Rome during his incumbency. He does not mention this March 1951 decision of the Vatican even once in the section on Lipa of his book on Bishop Obviar.

 

Then Archbishop Rosales also wrote Msgr. Charles Burns of the Vatican Secret Archives on January 28, 1995 asking “to receive materials kept at the Vatican’s Archives related to the investigation conducted in 1949 to 1950 on the …entire Lipa Carmelite Monastery Community then.” Nowhere in this letter is there any indication that then Archbishop Rosales, was aware of a March 28/29 verdict from the Holy Office as ratified by the Holy Father.

 

These documentations reinforce the statement of then Bishop Rufino Santos, who concluded his April 12, 1951 decree by stating that as of that date the Church in the Philippines was still awaiting for a verdict on Lipa from the Vatican, i.e. “until a final decision on the matter will come from the Holy See.”

 

Why then should it take Vatican 64 LONG YEARS to correct that mistake! 

In another seemingly curious matter, the CDF signed the decree on December 11, 2015 but for still unknown reasons, Arguelles saw a copy of the directive only on May 28, 2016 and officially received it on May 30, 2016 or five months after!

 

Arguelles Did Due Diligence on Lipa

Long before Archbishop Arguelles issued his September 2005 decree, he asked Vatican for any documents related to Lipa as well for guidance. CDF said it had none, which made him conclude early on, that the April 12, 1951 decree of Santos was the latest Church position on Lipa.

On October 7, 2009, Arguelles wrote to William Joseph Cardinal Levada of CDF saying, “The archives of Manila or of Lipa or of the Carmelites in Rome show no record of the said happenings. People have been waiting for the ‘final decision…from the Holy See.’” Arguelles did not get an answer. 

On September 28, 2010, Arguelles released a statement, which he says, he was allowed to be published by CDF. 

He says, in part, that the April 11, 1951 declaration of the Bishops of the Philippines “is the official communication of the final decision on the matter, as approved by the Holy See.”

What many have been asking for is now finally clarified by the Holy See. The official communication of the final decision on the matter, as approved by the Holy See (italics mine), is the April 11, 1951 declaration. Take note that in the above statement, the April 12, 1951 decree of the then Lipa Administrator Bishop Rufino Santos is not cited. Therefore, the oft referred phrase ‘until final decision on the matter will come from the Holy See’ can no longer be invoked. Obviously, the Holy See’s approval concerns the contents of the April 11, 1951. There is no mention of the April 12, 1951 decree.

In another Statement he issued on December 10, 2010, Arguelles wrote:

On September 28 before my visit to Montegiorgio, the hometown of the First Bishop of Lipa, I had a meeting with two key personalities of the Holy See’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. I asked for this meeting in my March 24, 2010 letter to the Congregation explaining why I was invited to speak in Rome on March 25, 2010, not on the Mediatrix of All Grace of Lipa but on the proposed Fifth Marian Dogma: Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. It was a very influential archbishop from the Philippines who was invited to the said meeting organized by the review INSIDE VATICAN. He passed it on to me, claiming I was the proper person speak on behalf of the many Philippine bishops supporting the proposed Marian Dogma. Indeed on that occasion I was not asked to speak on Lipa although almost all my Marian Conferences everywhere had references thereto. Nevertheless I eagerly looked forward to that meeting with the Congregation to know the real and definitive stand of the Holy See on Lipa.

Actually since I became the Archbishop of Lipa in July 16, 2004, countless people have been pressing me to do this. Truly we have for a long time been wondering whether the Holy See really concurred with the April 11, 1951 Declaration of the six Philippine (Arch)bishops who composed the commission that investigated the 1948 supposed Marian apparitions in Lipa. In 1992, the late Archbishop Mariano Gaviola lifted the ban enforced fifty years earlier by the then Lipa Apostolic Administrator Bishop Rufino Santos. That April 12, 1951 decree contained the contentious phrase ‘until final decision on the matter will come from the Holy See’. On November 12, 2009, I earned almost universal approval and praises for affirming the Gaviola declaration referring again to the phrase of the late Cardinal Santos. I did not hesitate to ask again the Holy See for the definitive statement.

Based on Bishop Arguelles’ above statements, the last official declaration of Vatican on Lipa was the April 11, 1951 report of the archbishops. Nowhere is there any mention of the March 28/29 declarations.

It is very clear that Arguelles did some due diligence, seeking guidance from CDF in Vatican before he made his move. When it became clear to him that the April 11, 1951 was the latest Church Stand on Lipa, he issued his September 15, 2015, that Lipa was “worthy of belief.”

What is clear is no one in the Roman Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines has ever heard of a March 28/29 edict in 1951. 

The Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas (BEF), the official interdiocesan bulletin of the Catholic Philippines renders a detailed account of Papal documents and of the decisions and decrees of the Roman Congregations as they relate to the Philippine Catholic Church. The Boletin started as Boletin Official de Arzobispado de Manila since 1892. 

The Boletin Eclesiastico carries the Episcopal Commission ruling in April 11, 1951 in its May 1951 issue. But nowhere could you find a March 28/29, 1951 ruling on Lipa for the whole of 1951!

It is worth mentioning that as an aftermath of the PROT. N. 226 rebuke, Bishop Arguelles, resigned as Archbishop of Lipa sometime in July 2020, after serving the Lipa archdiocese for almost 13 years.  No reason was given for Arguelles’ resignation, but the prelate resigned three years ahead of the mandatory retirement age of 75. Pope Francis appointed Daet bishop Gilbert Garcera to replace Arguelles as the new metropolitan archbishop of Lipa in Batangas. 

 

Confusion and Deception of PROT. N. 226/1949

Item No. 12 of PROT. N. 226 reads: 

“After examining its archives, and discovering the error in Archbishop Ramon Arguelles’ assumption that the matter of the phenomenon of Lipa was still open to discussion, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a letter dated 20 March 2010, responded to Archbishop Arguelles, informing him that the decision communicated by the Episcopal Commission in 1951 was, in fact, a decision approved by the Holy Father and, therefore, the matter no longer rested under the authority of the Archbishop.”

It should be remembered that the Episcopal Commission or the special Commission of Philippine bishops rendered its negative verdict on April 11, 1951. In PROT N. 226 Item 12 above, CDF declares that this April 11, 1951 “was in fact a decision approved by the Holy Father…” And herein again lies the glaring error and deception parlayed by PROT. N. 226. 

In the opening paragraph of PROT. N. 226, it says that the negative verdict on Lipa was decided by the CDF on March 28, 1951 and confirmed by the Holy Father on March 29, 1951. But now, on Item 12, PROT. N. 226 makes a surprising turnaround and says that it was the April 12, 1951 Episcopal Commission negative verdict that the Holy Father confirmed! However, how can it be possible that a March 29, 1951 affirmation by the Holy Father Pope Pius XII, as asserted by PROT. N. 226, could have approved the April 11, 1951 decision of the Episcopal Commission? How can an approval come EVEN BEFORE a decision had been rendered?

And the confusion in PROT. N. 226 continues…

Under the Decrees Section of PROT N. 226, it says:

“…Furthermore, this Congregation confirms the definitive nature of the 11 April 1951 decree by which the phenomena of Lipa were declared to lack supernatural origin. The authority on which this declaration was not that of the Bishop members of the Special Commission, but rather that of the Supreme Pontiff.”

The sentence above reiterates that the April 11, 1951 was CONFIRMED on March 20, 1951!!! 

Further, the Decree says that CDF is CONFIRMING the declaration of Pope Pius XII. In legal parlance, this is a Nono… For how could the CDF, a body lower in rank and stature, now be the one CONFIRMING a decision of the Holy Father! 

This only goes to show that even CDF is confused itself.

Conclusion

It is clear that the Vatican-claimed March 28/29 Decrees are non-existent. For why should it take Vatican, until today, show no proof of their existence. No Philippine Church authority has ever seen those documents. And even if Vatican show proof of the existence of those documents today, those Decrees would still be rendered invalid because they were never published in the Actas or the Official Acts of the Holy Father, and thus not properly promulgated, under Canon Law.  In addition, PROT. N. 226 showed its confusion and deception when towards the latter part of the Decree, it asserts that the negative verdict  of the Episcopal Commission of the Philippines on April 11, 1949 was confirmed by the Holy Father Pope Pius XII on March 29, 1951. But how can Pope Pius XII affirm and confirm a decision on March 29, 1951 when that decision of the panel of Philippine bishops didn’t come until April 11, 1951! 

Having proven the many errors of PROT. N. 226, the Decree itself then is INVALID and has no legal effect. 

Is there still hope for Lipa? (That will be tackled in the next article.)

 

Sources: 

Acta SS. Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith Decree: Assertae Beatae Mariae Virginis Apparitiones Et Revelationes in Loco Ezquiotioga, Diocese of Victoria, Spain. Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Annus XXVI – Series II – Vol. I. Feria IV, June 13, 1934

Acta SS. Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith Decree. Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Annus XXXXIII – Series II – VOL. XVI II. July 18, 1951.

Anne, Mary. Father Paul Kramer: Pius XII Never Condemned Lipa Apparitions. Retrieved from https://haurietisaquas.me/2019/12/12/father-paul-kramer-pius-xii-never-condemned-lipa-apparitions/ 

Arguelles, Ramon Archbishop. Statement: September 28, 2010. Retrieved from http://miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/statements/lipa_statement_02.html

Arguelles, Ramon Archbishop. Statement: December 10, 2010. Retrieved from http://miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/statements/lipa_statement_03.html

Communique from Archbishop Ramon Arguelles. Retrieved from http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/statements/lipa20160531.htm

Curia Diocesana: Official Statement on Reported Extraordinary Happenings at Carmel of Lipa.  Vol. XXV, Numero 275. Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas. May 1951, page 288. Arzobispado de Manila. 

Gaviola, Mariano G. April 16, 1995. ‘Reflections’ on Mary Mediatrix of All Grace in Lipa Carmel Monastery from 1948 and Subsequent Years. Manila, Philippines.

PROT. N. 226/1949 Presumed Apparitions of the BVM at the Carmelite Convent in Lipa Retrieved from https://dioceseofpasig.org/blog/vatican-issues-decree-on-lipa-apparition/

Rosales, Dency.  2005. Alfredo Aranda Obviar: Bishop from Lipa, Shepherd in Lucena. St. Pauls, Manila, Philippines.