I add to praying for the specific consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart, pray for graces to come down to help the world understand, to accept the 5th and Final Marian Dogma when it is proclaimed. And pray, the Holy Father will proclaim at long last, a feast day for God the Father, the Father of all Mankind.
Does anyone believe there was a Sister Lucia impostor? I thought Bayside was condemned because it revealed early on, the scandal in the hierarchy, the destruction of the Church.
Of course! After lots of research anyone knows a part of the 3rd secret or "the words of the Virgin" were completely left out. And numerous Marian apparitions say the same thing - the secret has not been fully revealed. As for Bayside - It could be authentic, it could be diabolical. Bayside is very controversial and I would recommend reading the messages to try to understand the current crisis in the church. I am currently 'one the fence' with Bayside because it teaches the beliefs of the church before Vatican II but at the same time predicts the end. The 'ball of redemption' or 'fireball' sounds very similar to Akita's third message and the chastisement prophesied at Garabandal. Yet at the same time numerous things are considered 'wrong' with bayside. I'm gradually starting to believe the apparitions but at the same time - I'm very cautious.
Its been a long time since I looked at Bayside. It has been condemned , and I think it has enough failed prophecy to safely say, we should not recommend others read its messages.
Only the Vatican can actually condemn an apparition. Bishops can only discourage and warn us about apparitions because with Medjugorje for example - if approved than that's a great example of how the Vatican and the Pope (Francis) always have the final say. I am not promoting Bayside, I am just simply saying we all need to read up on all reported apparitions and as Catholics all come to a conclusion about the apparition in question.
Hi Alex I can see how you have reached your conclusion but strongly disagree with it on Bayside. As you know the local ordinary is authorised by canon law to rule on private revelation within his diocese. Unless there is good grounds to reject his ruling most Catholics would concur with his findings. For instance in Garabandal the initial verdict was so faulty in its process that even the pope overruled local authority. Even then the local ordinary never condemned Garabandal. Bayside was however quite categorically condemned after thorough and proper investigation to be totally lacking in authenticity, to be full of error and to endanger the Faithful. There is therefore no benefit to the faithful in reading up on it although of course you are free to disagree. There is so much overwhelming and well presented evidence that this is not from God. By reading up on this type of material we may be exposing ourselves and others to Satanic influence. But of course in the end that is only my opinion. You are entitled to yours. We have been warned that the world will be subjected to many false apparitions so perhaps it's not a good idea to read up on them all especially if they have been strongly and positively refuted as to their authenticity. This was not a verdict simply of not proven. It was proclaimed to be totally unreliable and misleading and restrictions were imposed on its dissemination.
For the sake of objectivity, I re-visited some of the early material of Veronica Lueken in an attempt to work out exactly when things went awry (which, let me stress, they most certainly did, the most obvious evidence being the preposterous declaration that Paul VI was replaced by an impostor..., a notion cited in Bishop Francis Mugavero's 1986 condemnation). What is very difficult if not impossible to evaluate is whether Veronica L.'s very first alleged spiritual experiences, i.e. supposed supernatural messages from St Thérèse of Lisieux, had any authentic basis. An interesting and sensitive treatment of the case is provided by Joseph P. Laycock's 2014 Oxford University Press study The Seer of Bayside: Veronica Lueken and the Struggle to Define Catholicism; I have only been able to look at a few pages, but from what I can see, Laycock's account is characterized by an admirable neutrality. His tone is far from the sneeringly dismissive approach of some other sociological commentators on purported mystical phenomena such as Fordham's Michael Cuneo, for whom 'Baysiders' are emblematic of anyone who takes Marian apparitions seriously. which is clearly a gross distortion. Laycock raises the possibility that things might have turned out very differently had Veronica Lueken been provided with proper spiritual direction right at the outset, which would certainly seem to be a possibility. Nonetheless, the fact remains that Bayside as it eventually played out in history stands as one of the most clearly condemned apparitions of recent times, and reading Veronika Lueken's 'messages' was discouraged in Bishop Mugavero's 1986 statement. https://www.ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/MUGABAY.TXT
It is wrong. The local bishop have authority to condemn or aprove an apparition. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_19780225_norme-apparizioni_en.html
From my research (and understanding) a lot of conflict has been going in in Bayside with the "two shrines" - The conflict between St. Michaels World Apostolate (smwa.org) and the Our Lady of The Roses Shrine (ourladyoftheroses.org). As for the messages, the first few years seem authentic - but then it goes downhill into you average run-of-the-mill Apocalyptic apparition. As for the condemnation - Obedience is above all to the church but numerous apparitions have been condemned and are approved (example: Amsterdam) and an apparition commonly discussed on this website is Naju (which was incorrectly judged out of disobedience) And even San Damiano has been condemned. Most reported apparitions claim the investigation was incorrect (or never done). The messages at one point were hijacked and edited by SMWA.
Oh well, Too bad. Heaven will understand why Catholics stay away from messages, even those in favour of ,admit have been compromised by the devil. Which I see may even include Rwanda. The problem now being , if a Bishop can overturn a previous Bishops decision to condemn a Message, What trust can now be in the new decision?
Take Amsterdam for instance. Condemned 3 times. Last time in 1972. How can a Bishop 20years later decide it is fine with no explanation?
Very true! Kibeho started with 3 visionaries before years down the line, lots of kibeho "visionaries" randomly appeared out of nowhere. Very true about a bishops position on an apparition, because one bishop may be in favour e.g Amsterdam or be completely against - A great example of a bishop against an apparition is Medjugorje, because when asked if he believed in Lourdes and Fatima - he punched his fist on the table condemning them!
So you deny that Mary walked every step with Jesus and was intimately involved in His passion and that she can mediate for us us and plead for us with her Son? You deny that she is the Mother of All Peoples, that she is the Lady of All Nations? I hear the ice cracking.
I have done some more investigation into this, having examined the video showing Luz de Maria being translated by Giorgio Bongiovanni on September 2, 2012 in a hotel in Catania, Italy. What can be said for certain is that: a) she believed in the authenticity of his stigmata - which was definitely a mistake in discernment b) she also made a theologically bizarre remark when she claimed to report the Virgin Mary as saying that she suffered much at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (implying pre-existence on Our Lady's part). However, it should be added that this did not make it into her published messages (I went back to those from 2012 and checked), meaning that either she or someone in her discernment team at least had the good sense to catch this error prior to written publication. What cannot be concluded - as some have done - is that Luz de Maria's messages themselves bear any relation to those of Bongiovanni, which as we have already noted on this thread are characterized by New Age doctrine. It is true that he had been promoting her messages prior to this conference, so it seems quite plausible that he would have invited her ... and that she fell into the trap. All I can say is that this episode demonstrates that private revelations can only be read on a case-by-case basis in the awareness that human error and the workings of the imagination (however sincere) can always intervene. That doesn't necessarily make the messenger a false prophet, but it may mean that they are a wrong prophet in such instances. 'Hold lightly', as they say ... there may be chaff mixed in with the wheat.
Good points, but still great discernment is needed when reading messages from Luz de Maria. When reading Pedro Regis, instead, I have the same feeling as reading the Bible .
I believe Katya (Catalina) Rivas is a contemporary stigmatic. It has been some years since I read The Passion given to Katya. I sat down and read it again on Good Friday (23 pages printed off). Our Lord describing His physical and mental suffering makes you weep. Two things I noticed this time, one of them mentioned is the Divine Will. When I first read The Passion, I did not know about the gift of the Divine Will. ..."Chosen souls, your happiness and perfection does not consist in following the tastes and inclinations of nature, in being known or unknown by creatures, in using or hiding the talent you have, but rather in uniting and conforming yourselves through love and with total submission to the Will of God to what is asked of you for His Glory and your own sanctification." The second, I use to wonder and would ask in prayer, why the separation for so long, the Blessed Mother's time on earth after Your Resurrection Lord? Obvious, Jesus' mother's most holy presence was needed. She is the mother of Christ's new founded Church. One answer maybe, is in the Blessed Mother's words, the last couple of sentences, especially, the last sentence in the The Passion revelation (pg 24 and 25 at the link). http://www.loveandmercy.org/Eng-TP-Reg.pdf
