D
Daniel_Benedict
Guest
Bayside is a true apparation, it was never truly investigated by the Bishop according to CANON LAW. You must personally as Bishop of the Diocese, investigate the Seer and also the testimonies.
- Status
1
1234
Guest
The existence of oxygen has been proven experimentally using verified and approved scientific techniques. Also, it doesn’t really matter to average people whether they believe in oxygen or not; they’ll continue to breath it. But you are asking them to believe in a religion, change their lives completely, pray to various gods and saints, stop using birth control (which, let’s face it, most people use) dish out a lot of money–on the basis of the ‘miracles’ and ‘visions’ of your religious—no, sorry. No proof.I agree.
I don’t believe in oxygen either. I have never seen it, never tasted it, smelt it or been aware of its presence. Therefore as far as I am concerned, it does not exist. It is the fanciful imaginings of a creative psych
Most medical miracles don’t even pretend to have been verified medically, especially not with new techniques from laboratory tests, pathology, CT, x-rays, MRI scans, etc. Some recent ‘miracles’ are almost embarassingly transparent.
The ‘visions’ of the 3 children of Fatima before a large charged up crowd could be easily reproduced by anyone staring at the sun—in which one sees a dimmed disc with whirling colors. Half saw something, half didn’t. Now with the press, photography and video, everyone having video capability on their cell phones with YouTube, I predict many fewer 'visions; and with the documentation of modern medicine and imaging, many fewer ‘cures’ either.
Too bad the apparition didn’t invite some amputees to the last ‘vision’ and then grow back their missing arms and legs. Now that would have been a miracle!
R
rpp
Guest
It is against forum rules to promote or post about unapproved apparitions.
Period.
P
peary
Guest
**Bayside is a CONDEMNED apparition. It was THOROUGLY investigated by the Bishop and a specially-appointed diocesan committee ACCORDING TO CANON LAW. **
D
Daniel_Benedict
Guest
can you please site your sources on the thorough investigation according to canon law. also, keep in mind that condemning a Prophet of God can lead to a sin against the holy ghost. So you might want to do the studying yourself before you back its illegal condemnation…Fatima was condemned for a time,Padre Pio,Joan of arc, and many many many more.
Quote from the New Advent-So, to sin against the Holy Ghost is to confound Him with the spirit of evil, it is to deny, from pure malice, the Divine character of works manifestly Divine. This is the sense in which St. Mark also defines the sin question; for, after reciting the words of the Master: “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost shall never have forgiveness”, he adds at once: “Because they said: He hath an unclean spirit.”
Christ be with you always.
Quote from the New Advent-So, to sin against the Holy Ghost is to confound Him with the spirit of evil, it is to deny, from pure malice, the Divine character of works manifestly Divine. This is the sense in which St. Mark also defines the sin question; for, after reciting the words of the Master: “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost shall never have forgiveness”, he adds at once: “Because they said: He hath an unclean spirit.”
Christ be with you always.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
The sin against the Holy Ghost is the sin of refusal to repent in spite of the Holy Spirit’s constant efforts to get him to repent. He’ll never get repentance from this sin because the sin is the refusal to repent.
So don’t threaten other people with it. It serves no purpose to do so, and it’s useless anyway, because whoever you’re talking to, provided he still has any willingness to repent or possibility of willingness to repent, has not committed the sin.
Not that I’m saying anyone you’re talking to is sinning anyway. I don’t think they are, simply because of not believing in an apparition. If the Church condemned the apparition, that’s also good reason to condemn it oneself.
D
Daniel_Benedict
Guest
Well if anyone thought i was judging please know i wasnt i was saying to “keep in mind” not accusing. and also I have to let you know that there are more ways then just 1 to sin against the holy ghost.
god bless
god bless
R
rpp
Guest
As has been stated already, it is against forum rules to discuss unapproved apparitions. Whether you agree with the decision or not makes no difference.
L
Lev23
Guest
St.Paul was speaking of Jesus Christ.
Verse 30-
It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
P
peary
Guest
Like the Bible says, by their fruits you shall know them…I rest my case.
P
peary
Guest
****DECLARATION CONCERNING THE “BAYSIDE MOVEMENT”
November 4, 1986 Letter of Bishop John Mugavero of Brooklyn
In recent months, doubts have been raised by members of the so-called “Bayside Movement” concerning the official position of the Diocese of Brooklyn on the alleged “apparitions” of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and other heavenly beings, to a woman by the name of Vernica Lueken.
Moreover, erroneous claims have been made by a number of followers of Mrs.Lueken concerning the legitimacy of their position, in order to justify their activities on behalf of the “Movement.” These have taken the form of statements in their publications that “since Articles 1399 and 2218 of (the 1917 Code of) Canon Law were abrogated by Pope Paul VI in 1966, no
ecclesiastical permission is required, neither can anyone incure censure, for the publication or dissemination of information dealing with revelations, visions or miracles, provided these do not endanger Faith or morals.”
As a result of the above-mentioned doubts and claims, a number of Christ’s faithful continue to attend the regularly-scheduled “vigils” held at Flushing Meadow Park, and to disseminate or receive propaganda literature on this matter.
I, the undersigned Diocesan Bishop of Brooklyn, in my role as the
legitimate shepherd of this particular Church, wish to confirm the
constant position of the Diocese of Brooklyn that a thorough investigation revealed that the alleged “visions of Bayside” completely lacked authenticity.
Moreover, in view of the confusion created by published reports of
messages and other literature by this “Movement,” I consider it my obligation to offer Christ’s faithful pastoral guidance, lest their faith be endangered by “messages” and “teachings” relayed by “visionaries,” which are contrary to the Faith of our Catholic Church.
Therefore, in consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of theFaith, I hereby declare that:
- No credibility can be given to the so-called “apparitions” reported byVeronica Lueken and her followers.
- The “messages” and other related propaganda contain statements which, among other things, are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, undermine the legitimate authority of bishops and councils and instill doubts in the minds of the faithful, for example, by claiming that, for years, an “imposter (sic) Pope” governed the Catholic Church in place of
Paul VI. - Those who persistently maintain that “no ecclesiastical permission is required for the publication or dissemination” of information concerning “revelations, visions or miracles,” are erroneously interpreting the directives of the Holy See when they attempt to justify the publication of the propaganda literature on the “Bayside Messages.”
As a result, those publishing or disseminating this propaganda literatureare acting against the judgment of legitimate Church authority.
- Because of my concern for their spiritual welfare, members of Christ’s faithful are hereby directed to refrain from participating in the “vigils” and from disseminating any propaganda related to the “Bayside apparitions.” They are also discouraged from reading any such literature.
- Anyone promoting this devotion in any way, be it by participating in the “vigils,” organizing pilgrimages, publishing or disseminating the literature related to it, is contributing to the confusion which is being created in the faith of God’s people, as well as encouraging them to act against the determinations made by the legitimate pastor of this particular Church (c.212, para. 1).
(Signed):
Bishop John Mugavero
Bishop of Brooklyn**
(notice the letter specifically states “in consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” which is Rome.)
Also, the diocesan commission is located here: J. Gordon Melton, The Encyclopedia of American Religions, (Detroit, MI: Gale Research Inc., 1989), 207.**
R
Roy5
Guest
ST. PAUL AND MARY
Code:
I am doubtful of the apparitions of Mary. In fact, I have trouble with the way in which some Catholics seem to put Mary before Christ. Even the Rosary appears to do that, with so many more 'Hail Marys!' than 'Our Fathers'.
Why, if Mary should be so central in Christianity - why is it that St. Paul, in all of his letters to early churches, instructing them in theology and such, doesn't once even mention Mary?
L
Lilyflower
Guest
Then you misunderstand the Rosary. The prayer ‘Hail Mary’ has nothing to do with ‘putting Mary before Christ’.
When we meditate it is easy for our fertile mind to create and our fertile attention to become distracted. The praying engages the senses liberating them from becoming distractions, freeing the mind to meditate more deeply on the profoundness of the respective mystery. I suggest you try it
Blessings and peace.
L
Lilyflower
Guest
Are you suggesting that Our Lord Jesus Christ was foolish?
L
LilyM
Guest
I’d say our friend Roy hasn’t actually looked at the words of the ‘Hail Mary’. Every single Hail Mary mentions God THREE times - ‘The Lord’, who is with Mary, ‘Jesus’, whose mother she is, ‘God’ (in the person of Jesus), again referring to her as His mother. And it names Mary only twice! So if it’s just a numbers game, God comes out on top.Then you misunderstand the Rosary. The prayer ‘Hail Mary’ has nothing to do with ‘putting Mary before Christ’.
When we meditate it is easy for our fertile mind to create and our fertile attention to become distracted. The praying engages the senses liberating them from becoming distractions, freeing the mind to meditate more deeply on the profoundness of the respective mystery. I suggest you try it
Blessings and peace.
Even if it isn’t a numbers game - the Rosary is really about those episodes from the Gospels that we think about while we pray it, that we call ‘mysteries’ - you know, the the incarnation, birth and childhood of Jesus, His passion and death, His resurrection, ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit. To say that meditating on God’s word in the Gospels in this way, as we do, puts Mary ahead of God is plain wrong.
And there are some very simple reasons Paul doesn’t mention Mary. She was still alive while He was writing, remember. Even you, I don’t doubt, would’ve been fine asking her prayers while she was on Earth, so it’s beyond doubt that Paul was too.
As to why he didn’t mention her? Firstly she would have been mobbed by Christians who would doubtless be keen to meet her - remember the woman in the Gospels who was praising Mary loudly because of her connection to Christ? She would’ve been hounded unreasonably by the idle curious.
Secondly, she certainly would’ve been a very particular target for persecution, and it would’ve been a real coup for the Romans to be rid of her, so it is understandable if Paul may’ve been reticent to mention her out of unwillingness to expose her.
1
1234
Guest
hear hear!
Why don’t other saints apparate? what about St. Benedict, The Patron Saint of Europe? What about St. Paul, for that matter?! Or St. Luke, Matthew, Mark and/or John, to expound on stuff they left out?
L
LilyM
Guest
Short answer - they do
Well, they appear. Apparate isn’t a real word. St Joan of Arc heard voices from St Michael the Archangel, St Catherine of Alexandria and St Margaret (not sure which St Margaret though).
At the apparitions of Knock in Ireland, St Joseph the foster-father of Jesus and St John the Evangelist also appeared. St Joseph also appeared in the last of the Fatima apparitions if I remember correctly.
L
Lilyflower
Guest
So you are asking me to believe that 'nothing begets something?
Please show me one iota of scientfic proof that anywhere in nature non-existence gives birth to existence? That which does not exist creates that which does
No, that is what you are asking folk to do. I am not asking them to do anything much less praying to ‘various gods’ since the Bible forbids it.
What you believe matters to me not, but I would suggest that as you like experiments, you open your heart and mind to Almighty God and find out the truth for yourself.
I do not know of any practicing Catholics who use birth control. I am not saying they don’t only that I am not aware of any.
Dish out money on the basis of miracles and visions?
Where on earth did you get such a preposterous idea from? I suggest it is the product of your world not mine.
Visions cannot by definition be varified. They are unique gifts to whom they are given.
My mystical encounter with the Holy Spirit was between Him and I. It matters me not one iota whether or not you believe me. In fact your belief/disbelief means absolutly nothing to my encounter.
My encounter could not have been observed by you even if you had been present as I was not alone but the only potential witness present was cast into a deep sleep and did not see/witness anything. So cannot varify what happened.
quote ‘some recent miracles’ please quote your evidence seeings evidence is fundamental to your criteria
Then let us wait for your evidence
Too bad your world has not one shred of evidence of a miracle. I suggest that is because there is something fundamentally wrong with your world not with the reality and experience of mysticsm.
You are waiting for a sign but Christ Himself told you that this Godless generation would not be given a sign except for the sign of Jonah. 'It is a wicked, godless generation that asks for a sign, and the only sign that will be given it is the sign of the prophet Jonah. … Mat 16:4
AT the end of the day, you cannot hide behind science and sicentific experiment, you have to decide for yourself, whether or not you are going to take Jesus Christ seriously or not. It is your choice. If you do, you will find no scientific evidence to support you.
Likewise if you do not, it will be no good on judgement day appealing to a scientific criteria. Either you accept Christ as your Lord and Saviour or you are lost. It is YOUR choice. Good luck
Blessings and peace.
1
1234
Guest
No one is accusing Bernadette of lying. She was just mistaken, that’s all. I am not going to believe that a spirit claiming to be immaculately conceived appeared to her just to save her skin.
1
1234
Guest
Why doesn’t Jesus appear to men? Why only women and virgin nuns at that? Why doesn’t Mary appear to grown men? Did she ever? Why doesn’t Mary appear in Boston, or Manhattan or Los Angeles or Paris, Rome or London these days? On the metro in Paris or in the tube in London? Why only in out-of-the-way places?
- Status