Thursday, June 21, 2012

Are the Bayside Apparitions False? Yes.

I have been having a lot of discussions with a friend of mine lately about the alleged "Bayside Apparitions" of Veronica Lueken (for the background of the Bayside apparitions, see here). I have not done nearly as much research on Bayside as I have on Medjugorje, but from what I have been reading it has some of the same problems - disobedience to the local bishop when he does not condone the visions of the seer, bizarre "warnings" foretold, miracles the whole world will see, and thousands upon thousands of banal messages - in fact, the Bayside messages are even more awkward and banal than those at Medjugorje, if that were possible.

Bayside also has some unique elements to it, such as the insistence that Pope Paul VI was murdered or kidnapped in 1972 and replaced by an actor who had plastic surgery and a coming "Ball of Redemption", a comet that will strike New York City, and belief in the Rapture.

After spending several days mired in these messages, I cannot but conclude that they are complete hogwash. The Bayside Apparitions are a hoax. Here are some reasons why I have come to this conclusion:

All religions have a place in heaven?


"For My Father's House, My Son has repeated over and over: remember always that My Father's House-there are many rooms in the Mansion, signifying faiths and creeds. However, the Eternal Father, the Beatific Vision, is reserved for the Roman Catholic following. This it has been deemed by the Eternal Father since the beginning of time." - (Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), the “messages” of Bayside, published by Apostles of Our Lady, Inc. Lansing, MI, 1993, p. 81.)

Here the visions clearly state that, although Catholics have a special place in heaven, other "faiths and creeds" also go to heaven. This is clearly heretical.

False prophecy about the Ball of Redemption


“Our Lady” of Bayside, June 18, 1988: “Do not be affrighted, My child; you must see this, for it is important. Within this century this Ball will be sent upon mankind… It is almost too late… a Ball that is fast hurtling towards earth! It will be here within this century, if not sooner.” (Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), p. 108.)

Note the Ball is said to be sent "within this century." This prophecy was given in 1988. Therefore, the fact that by 2000 this had not yet happened proves conclusively that this is false. We should always remember Deuteronomy 18: "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing follows not, nor comes to pass, that is, the thing which the LORD has not spoken, but the prophet has spoken it presumptuously: you shall not be afraid of him...a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death" (Deut. 18:22, 20).

Televisions are sinful?

“Our Lady” of Bayside, Sept. 27, 1975: “I have, many times, cautioned you, and all My children, against the use of the diabolical machine, your television. There will be no excuses for having these in your presence.” (Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), the “messages” of Bayside, published by Apostles of Our Lady, Inc. Lansing, MI, 1993, p. 86.)

This is absurd. Obviously televisions can be used in sinful ways - but are they really diabolical? According to Bayside, we can have absolutely no televisions. There is "no excuse", not even watching pious or faith building movies or programs? Clearly the Bayside people themselves don't believe it since the Our Lady or the Roses website sells Bayside DVDs. This teaching directly contradicts the teaching of the Second Vatican Council document Inter Mirifica on social communication, which states:
"Among the wonderful technological discoveries which men of talent, especially in the present era, have made with God's help, the Church welcomes and promotes with special interest those which have a most direct relation to men's minds and which have uncovered new avenues of communicating most readily news, views and teachings of every sort. The most important of these inventions are those media which, such as the press, movies, radio, television and the like, can, of their very nature, reach and influence, not only individuals, but the very masses and the whole of human society, and thus can rightly be called the media of social communication. The Church recognizes that these media, if properly utilized, can be of great service to mankind, since they greatly contribute to men's entertainment and instruction as well as to the spread and support of the Kingdom of God... support should be given to good radio and television programs, above all those that are suitable for families. Catholic programs should be promoted" (Inter Mirifica, 1-2, 14).

Maybe our Lady did not mean to condemn television absolutely; if not, the words are sloppy and imprecise, as it says there is "no excuse" for ever having a television. Mary here says the television is of diabolical origin; the Church says they were made "with God's help." The messages conflict at worst and are ambiguous at best.

Falsehoods about Paul VI


"Your Father, in the eternal city of Rome, Pope Paul VI, your Holy Father, is a blessed man, for he carries his cross. Your Holy Father is a blessed man, for he shall be martyred." - Our Lady, June 18, 1977

Paul VI was not martyred; he died naturally in 1978. Another false prophecy. This seems to contradict a prophecy made two years earlier which stated that Paul VI had already been replaced by an "impostor" look alike, one of Bayside's most notable and bizarre aspects:

"He is not able to do his mission. They have laid him low, My child. He is ill, he is very ill. Now there is one who is ruling in his place, an impostor, created from the minds of the agents of satan. Plastic surgery, My child--the best of surgeons were used to create this impostor." - Our Lady, September 27, 1975

"The appearance in public is not Paul VI; it is the impostor pope. Medication of evil has dulled the brain of the true pope, Pope Paul VI. They send into his veins poison to dull his reasoning and paralyze his legs. What evil creature have you opened the doors to the Eternal City and admitted?"- Our Lady, September 27, 1975

"In the city of Rome there will be great confusion and trial. Satan, Lucifer in human form, entered into Rome in the year 1972. He cut off the rule, the role of the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI."- Our Lady, September 7, 1978

So was or was not Paul VI replaced by an impostor in 1975? The 1975 apparitions say so, but the 1977 apparition speaks of him as still in power and warns of his impending martyrdom, which did not happen. They could perhaps say that he was secretly murdered or poisoned to get him out of the way, but that would not be a martyrdom. Regardless, this stuff about Paul VI being replaced with an impostor is, in my opinion, nonsense.

Falsehoods about John Paul II

“Our Lady” of Bayside, June 18, 1988: “Please, My children, pray for your Holy Father, the Pope. You must not lose him, for the one who comes after him will destroy if he can – he will attempt to destroy Pope John Paul II.” (Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), p. 108.)

Pope Benedict XVI has come after John Paul II. Benedict has not tried to destroy John Paul; on the contrary, he has beatified him and is pressing for his canonization. This prophecy was clearly false.

"Pray for your Vicar (Pope John Paul II). There will be another attempt upon his life. Pray for your Vicar. Do not judge him by the medias, for he is a good man, with a heart that is soft, and often he can be misled. However, he is a good man, and he is one who I keep now under My mantle for his protection. But We need your prayers, My children, your Masses and your sacrifices, if you want him to remain among you." - Our Lady of the Roses, June,30, 1984

In 1984 it was predicted that there would be another assassination attempt on John Paul II. But there wasn't. Nobody every tried to kill John Paul II again after the first 1981 attempt. This is another false, unfulfilled prophecy. Granted, there were other alleged conspiracies to kill John Paul II, but nothing like a real attempt. One could always say that the attempt was thwarted by the prayers of the faithful - but then again, one can always allege that a purported judgment or calamity did not happen because the prayers of the people forestalled it. It is a perpetual out for these people whenever a prophesyed judgment does not materialize.

"When Pope John Paul II is removed, the Church shall be divided among itself. United it will stand, divided it will fall." - Our Lady, March 18, 1983

This simply has not happened. The Church is more united now under Benedict XVI than it was in the 80's under John Paul II. The 80's were the nadir of the Church's unity - things have gotten much better, not worse, since the death of John Paul II.

False rapture doctrine

Most troubling is that the Bayside apparitions promote the false Protestant "rapture" doctrine, which is clearly a heretical teaching that no Catholic ought to hold.

"Remember, without prayers and atonement, the world will become devastated. The Third World War will leave no earth upon the land. There will be no earth, there will be no human beings; but a grouping would have been taken up into Heaven, My child and My children, to await the terrible devastation that falls upon mankind." - Jesus, May 28, 1983

""I give you great grace of heart, My children, to know that many shall be taken from your earth before the great Chastisement.... Many of your news medias shall state that they have been carried off by flying saucers. Oh no, My children! They were carried off into a supernatural realm of the Eternal Father to await the return of My Son upon earth." - Our Lady of the Roses, December 7, 1976

This is the Protestant rapture theory plain and simple - a group of elect taken away from the earth prior to the second coming. And by the way, someone should tell the Virgin Mary that the plural of media is media, not "medias."

Communion in the hand errors

I have to be clear here: I totally am against communion in the hand and have written about this many times. It is a practice that dissolves the boundary between the laity and the clergy and opens th door to too many potential abuses. But it is not an absolute evil. The apparitions say some things about this that cannot be true:

"Pastors, no hands other than those consecrated by a legally-ordained priest shall give the Host to others." Our Lady, August 21, 1975

Okay, first, it is bishops, not priests, who ordain other priests, so Mary really needs to get her ecclesiology straight, but anyhow-

"Communion in the hand has not been, and will not be accepted by Heaven. This is a sacrilege in the eyes of the Eternal Father, and must not be continued, for you only add to your punishment when you continue on in the ways that have been found to be unpleasing to the Eternal Father." - Our Lady, June 30, 1984

Communion in the hand has not been accepted by heaven? That is funny, since it was practiced for centuries in the Early Church. While communion in the hand might not be prudent, it is too much to say it is not accepted by heaven. In the Early Church and for the firsts several centuries of Christianity communion was given in the hand. This was the practice of all the great saints of the Early Church, including the apostles. Over time, the church in the Middle Ages changed the discipline to prevent certain abuses and safeguard the dignity of the sacrament, as it was their right to do. This was the discipline until the modern Church restored the practice.

Now, we might rightfully debate whether or not this was a good idea, but how can our Lady say communion in the hand cannot be accepted by heaven when it was the practice in the universal Church for the first six or seven centuries? We even have a saint, St. Tarcisius, who was layman that was martyred while trying to take communion to someone else - i.e., while holding Holy Communion in his hand.

Also, although restoring communion in the hand in the modern age may not be prudent, none of the accepted rites or disciplines or the Church can be positively harmful or diabolical in and of themselves. They might be bad ideas; they might lend themselves to abuses, but in themselves they cannot be harmful if they are authorized by the Church. Otherwise, the Church would be promoting something that was sinful through its rites, which can never be the case. Otherwise, the role of the Church as the dispenser of God's graces is nullified.


"Loss" of baptismal identity?

Bayside seems to teach that one can lose one's baptismal character and identity as a Roman Catholic:

"I ask you all not to abandon My Church. Do not judge My Church by the priest, for in his human nature he can err. But I assure you I am using him, as a legally ordained priest, to bring you My Body and Blood. Do not go seeking elsewhere, for you will lose your baptismal right, and you will no longer be accepted as a Roman Catholic, and you will not enter into the highest place of Heaven, the Kingdom of Paradise." - Jesus, October 6, 1980

Now, this is kind of ambiguous, I grant. Perhaps it means that by leaving the Church you lose sanctifying grace, and that would be acceptable. But it does not say that. It says leaving the Church causes one to lose their "baptismal right" and no longer be viewed as a Roman Catholic. If taken literally, this would be problematic.

The teaching of the Church is that baptism confers and indelible mark or character that can never be effaced, no matter what sin or apostasy the person commits. Grace may be lost, but the character of baptism may never be lost. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic - perhaps a bad Catholic, perhaps a fallen away Catholic, but always a Catholic. This is another example of the imprecise language rampant in the Bayside apparitions that detracts from their credibility.

Antichrist Pope

In many places, the apparitions suggest that the antichrist will be a pope:

"The Rock has always withstood the test of time. But one will be entered into the House of God, and woe to man when he places him upon the Seat of Peter, for then the Great Day of the Lord shall be at hand." - Our Lady, March 18, 1974

Now I know this is contested and I am not 100% certain on this, but it seems to me that most reputable theologians do not believe the antichrist will be a Pope. It would mean that the promise given to Peter that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church would be compromised; how could it not be if the source of the Church's unity was the antichrist? The antichrist as Christ's vicar? The Fathers of the Church do not ever suggest that this is possible; the antichrist is seen as a false prophet, as a political leader, but never as the pope himself. I would say this teaching is very troubling and will cause the faithful the mistrust and suspect the papacy rather than listen and be taught by it.

Bayside also teaches that the antichrist is currently living and walking around. One of Veronica's messages delivered by our Lady:

There is not much time left, My child, to gather the sheep. Know that the Antichrist, the Antichrist, My child, is walking upon your earth. He goes and follows wherever there is darkness." -Our Lady to Veronica, Dec. 28th, 1974

He must be getting old - this prophesy was delivered in 1974, thirty-four years ago. So according to Bayside, the antichrist will take the Seat of Peter and was alive and walking around in 1974.

Names of Guardian Angels

In Catholic spirituality, it has traditionally been seen as dangerous to call on the names of angels other than those specifically mentioned in the Bible; simply because our private revelations are not infallible, and you never know who or what you are calling on. Yet Bayside seems to direct Christians to call on mysterious angels that we know nothing about:

"You must ask your guardian angel to ever guide you upon your way. You will also inform Tomdarius that he must keep pure and holy thoughts in his mind. Yes, call upon Tomdarius, My child. You must keep pure and holy thoughts in your mind. My child, this will be a secret for you, Tomdarius, and the soul he guards." - Our Lady, May 15, 1976

This is not heretical as much as reckless and dangerous. No spiritual director would tell you to call out an unknown angel by name like that. Only Michael, Raphael and Gabriel should be addressed by name since they are the only names we know. Who is Tomdarius? Is he an angel? A demon? Should we call out to something when we don't know what it is? There is a good reason that the Church's cultus of saints and angels consists of those who have some sort of formal recognition of being part of the City of God.

"Back in 1970, when Our Lady started Her work here, She assigned special archangels to us.... Every one of the close workers has been given the name of his archangel. And I was assigned one of the highest archangels with Michael--Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel, and his name is Tusazeri. And we've had other archangels that were given to workers.... But we had Sactorius, and of course there's Tomdarius.... It sounds very, very strange: Sactorius, Tomdarius, Razene, Rientre, and I can't remember them all now." - Veronica's commentary, 1974

"There is no reason to fear, My child, for you have Creazuus now with you and Tuzaseri." Veronica - Oh! Creazuus? Creazuus. Oh, Creazuus is the angel guardian given to my son Raymond while he was here on earth. "Our Lady, thank you. Thank you, Blessed Mother." - Our Lady, March 18, 1974

This is all very questionable. Creazuus? Tuzaseri? Who knows what these things are. And if they were revealed to Veronica by heaven, why can't she remember their names, as she says above? I have never heard of legitimate seer or visionary forgetting part of a message from God.

Sometimes, the angels in apparitions behave frivolously:

"Yes. There's Tomdarius, Tusazeri--he is my guardian angel, but he's quite a clown. He likes to circle around. And right now he's turning and spinning again. He always does that when he sees me; he turns and spins. And now also, there's Razene, and Nadina, and many others." - Veronica, October 1, 1988

One of the judgements on whether or not an apparition is true, according to spiritual masters, is "Do we find that the dignity and seriousness which become the Divine Majesty?" What is the purpose of this frivolous description of an angel acting like a clown? When an apparition behaves like this, it suggests it is not legitimate (see here for an earlier post on criteria for judging private apparitions).

Obedience


Another question in evaluating an apparition is: "Have the sovereign pontiffs and the bishops believed this to be so, and have they assisted the progress of the work?" In other words, whether or not a bishop/bishops accept the apparitions is not just a reflection of their personal sentiment, but is actually a judgment of whether the visions are valid at all. In this both Bayside and Medjugorje share something in common, as in both cases the adherents of the vision blatantly disobey their local bishop's requests that the alleged apparitions not be promoted. Bayside's followers profess obedience, but in practice they are being disobedient:

"For to whom much is given, much is expected; and discipline and obedience means suffering and sacrifice. Unquestioning love, unquestioning obedience, that is the only way to Heaven." - Jesus, May 30, 1981

Unquestioning obedience. Yet the local bishop has directed people to stay away from Bayside prayer vigils and events and has asked the faithful not to disseminate the writings or messages of Veronica. From the bishop's directive:
"No credibility can be given to the so-called "apparitions" reported by Veronica Lueken and her followers...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)."
Bayside proponents have countered that the process the bishop has used was improper and therefore his decision is invalid. Whether or not this is the case, it does not justify disobedience. If they really have a case that their bishop acted against canon law, the Bayside proponents should appeal to Rome and in the meantime be obedient until directed otherwise. To just state, on one's own authority, that the process the bishop used was flawed and then continue in disobedience is a big warning sign.

When Our Lord said "he who hears you hears Me", He was not instructing his followers to "hear" that which "pleased them" - but to be obedient to lawful authority (even if those in lawful authority were sinners - even mighty sinners) in matters of Faith and Morals, such as alleged apparitions. Bayside is bunk. Medjugorje is bunk. Garabandal is bunk.


 

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not worth a post, Benedict. Though I appriciate the effort and to have something so well written and infomratively concise regarding it - you shouldn't have thrown away your precious time on this. I at least understand that there is some controversy regarding Medjugorje, even though it is quite obviously false as well, but anyone who even for a minute entertains the Bayside hoax is of dubious Catholicity at best.

BONIFACE said...

Thanks for the advice (and the name is Boniface, not Benedict :)

To me it is worth it when a good friend of mine is taking these apparitions seriously.

Anonymous 6:49 PM said...

Sorry, I know it's Boniface, it was just late (where I live) when I wrote it. Strange things happen then. About your friend, that's why I still appriciate having this article now to refer people to whenever someone brings it up, on the internet at least.

I also saw now that you put it under the label "Stupid, stupid, stupid." Made me chuckle. It's certainly where it fits, with all of those other articles.

Tina in Ashburn said...

Bayside taught me a LOT about how false apparitions work - many judge by the wrong criteria! We might see some very devout and pious people, we might see unexplainable occurrences, we might see new intensity of the faith in individuals, might hear some very good messages, so many things...What people think is "good fruit" is not. I came to understand that this term 'good fruit' is not understood or applied correctly at all.

And what we may think is immaterial - the MOST important thing is authority to the bishop. This is how Bayside, Medjugorje, and Garabandal are parallels - they are all condemned by the bishops of that locale, and they DO have that authority.

Years and years ago I used to visit Bayside with my mother very seriously. I was young, in high school and pretty devout.

At first when mother read the Bayside stuff she would throw it away as spurious. But as the New Mass vs. Tridentine Mass struggles continued, and she became more and more bewildered, she changed her mind. We would go up on the bus for all-night vigils, praying the rosary throughout. We met very devout people - in some cases people came back to the Faith! The 70s were very lonely for those who had loved and understood the old Mass and being in the company of devout people was very comforting.

I do remember the woman Veronica making fun of the bishop and how inadequate his condemnation was - she made excuses about the research, or 'it was some guy in a leather jacket that just came and looked around'-- Medjugorje followers take the same tack: they discredit the bishop, his methods, his person, they say he lies bla bla bla. In both cases, the bishops did tremendous, detailed research. And bottom line, it doesn't matter what you think of the bishop. He is the authority. PERIOD.

Now a devout friend of mine became part of the part of the "inner circle". These men would encircle Veronica when she came to speak and they answered the her 'friend' Michael who managed Veronica and all the money. They did the printing of brochures, and various tasks to help with the 'apostolate'.
It didn't take long for my friend to discover the egregious subterfuge and lies. My friend quit very quickly after seeing first hand the situation.

Veronica's husband told everyone there was no truth to her visions and messages, and repeated that she was in and out of mental treatment, and had been institutionalized more than once.
Also the control that her friend "Michael" had over her was whispered, by those who came to understand, as creepy and way inappropriate.

Anyway, by studying the long-winded messages, eventually the inaccurate statements of Faith or some detail became horribly evident. So along with all the other evidence, we realized that Bayside is bogus and misleading.

I cringe when I see Bayside followers in their blue berets, giving out 'blessed rose petals' stuck on their propaganda - these followers are almost always kinda weird misfit people and extremely unstable. Normal people don't stick around that group for long once they figure Bayside out.

joy said...

Wow.Lets just pray that Our Lord and Our Lady have mercy on us. True seers have been discredited and disbelieved at every now-approved apparition. I am a good fruit of Bayside. I turned from an immoral life to one of struggling daily to be pious and holy. Our Lady, through her apparitions at Bayside, saved my life-my eternal life, the only one that truly matters- at a time when I least expected it and needed it most. I am not unstable at all. I am a young,attractive, educated, cradle Catholic who had lost my way until I rediscovered the love of God through Our Lady of the Roses. Yes, the prophecies are dramatic, but time will tell ALL. Paying attention to Syria right now?(check the messages). Condemning Bayside followers for quietly living lives of piety and devotion is not good. We should realize that it is better in God's sight to believe humbly and sincerely, even if you are wrong- than to lead others away from the truth, even if outrageous, because of your pride. The messages of Garabandal and Fatima seemed ridiculous at the time and were suppressed by local clergy. I know I can't convince you- that is God's work. I will just keep praying, as Im sure you are too. As for me,whether anyone else believes it or not, by God's grace I will witness to these messages until my last breath. I am content to suffer ridicule and shame, even from "the elect", for my Queen. After all, she was gracious enough to stoop low and save me from myself.

BONIFACE said...

Good fruit, eh? Lot's of heretical sects and dubious apparitions produce alleged "good fruit." (for example, http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2009/01/tired-old-fruits-argument.html)

But I wonder, what do you do with all the false prophecies? Veronica prophesied that Paul VI would be martyred and that the great chastisement would happen before the year 2000. Even one false prophecy discredits the whole thing, in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Bayside is 100%true !!!!

Anonymous said...

All prophecy is conditional.

An excellent example of the conditional nature of prophecy is found in the Book of Jonas in the Old Testament. The Eternal Father sent Jonas to the great city of Ninive to preach the word that “yet forty days, and Ninive shall be destroyed” (Jonas 3:4). Upon hearing this the inhabitants repented, did penance, and turned away from their sins: “And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which He had said that He would do to them, and He did it not” (Jonas 3:10).

Jacinta, the child seer of Fatima, said to to Mother Godinho: "If there were souls who would do penance and make reparation for the offenses done to God, and works of reparation were instituted to make satisfaction for crimes, the chastisement would be prevented."

So, if a prophecy from Bayside does not come to pass, it could have been mitigated by the prayers and sacrifices of the faithful.

The Bayside messages are very strong, hard and urgent. I have not read messages like this since Fatima. God is love, but He is also a God of correction. We shall see in due time whether Bayside's words are true and valid. I do not pay much attention to
all approved Catholic prophecy, being that we are not obliged to do so and we are better off living a life of sacraments, prayer and example. However, we are called not to "despise" any prophecy--and I am certain there are workings (and people) in the Vatican that are not in alignment with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Even some men of the cloth. Remember what Jesus said about "wolves in sheep's clothing"? IN that case, any proclamations made by a religious concerning a prophecy would be invalidated. We should keep this in mind, however, it is said that "obedience is better than sacrifice". So for now, we should obey, as we as faithful Catholics are called to do. But that does not mean we are not permitted to keep in mind that there is much in the Vatican that is wanting, and Jesus will sift all like wheat as He has promised.

BONIFACE said...

Anon,

Correction, some prophecy is conditional. Mainly prophecies of chastisement, like the one you mentioned. "Yet thirty days an Nineveh shall be overthrown." But sometimes it is not. The prophecy God gave to Noah that He would flood the earth was not conditional. Neither was God's promises that He would send Israel into captivity in Babylon. They got to a point where he said it would happen no matter what. The frequency and certitude that we see in Bayside regarding the Ball of Redemption leads me to believe that it is of this sort - something that is supposed to be certain.

Prophecies that are not chastisements are usually not conditional. Like when Our Lady at Garabandal says she will heal a certain blind man before he dies. That is not conditional. The blind guy is now in his eighties. If he dies and is not healed, the whole prophecy is bunk.

Jeanne Hall said...

Actually there were at least 2 more attempts on John Paul II's life after 1981 that are documented: at Fatima, Portugal in May 1982, a Lefrvrite supporter, disguised as a priest, tried to attack John Paul with a machete. He was immediately arrested.

At World Youth Day 1995 in Manila, Philippines, police & firefighters were alerted to smoke coming out of a hotel room while John Paul was traveling down the street past it. Upon arrival in the room, guns and ammunition aimed directly at the Pope were discovered. They belonged to a branch of Al Qaida, whose leader had married a Filipina. The source of the smoke however, was never discovered.

Banmeagain said...

I have just happened across this blog and see you have declared Bayside stupid stupid stupid. Apparently you have read the messages for a few days and now feel at liberty to publicly condemn it with a sneer.
I would really really love to make a point by point refutation of your quotes, comments and conclusions but alas time does not currently allow. I also wonder if i should bother as it seems as though such an heroic effort might not make it through your moderation.
Given your other blog topics i would naturally put some confidence in a fellow trad but your general sloppy approach to Bayside, sprinkled with an unedifying contempt, gives me cause for caution.
Let me test therefore the spirits and see if this comment makes it through moderation. If so, i will happily attempt to shed and little more light and depth on the Bayside apparitions. Godspeed.

Banmeagain said...

I see you failed to post my follow up comment. Given you have posted and replied in other major articles and it has now been a few weeks i take it you have no intention of publishing my comment. Is that because i pointed out a few glaring errors? Because i offered to challenge your ENTIRE article piece by piece? It is very hard to take you seriously as a Catholic if you have no appetite for debate, truth or correcting your obvious errors....i will pray for your soul, that you will recognise your errors and that you have the courage to swallow your apparently epic pride.

BONIFACE said...

It's just because Bayside is very very low on my priority list. But when I post something (which I am working on) I'll let you know.

Banmeagain said...

So where is my second comment then? You STILL have not published it weeks later. If someone makes the effort to make a lengthy reply it should not just be ignored or deleted. Why not just publish it and reply when you have time? How long does it take to read it and click accept and post? Oh, you want to wait until you have lined up a new set of smarmy answers first and thus control the frame, and belittle people that disagree with you again apparently?
If i get censored for pointing out just a few of the errors in your original article why on earth would i bother wasting any more time on your blog?

BONIFACE said...

I don't know what you're talking about...I did not intentionally delete any comments of yours.

That being said, this is my blog, and I reserve the right to not publish comments for a variety of reasons, or for no reason at all, as I see fit. It is really no skin off my back whether you waste time on my blog or not.

I spent an hour working on the Bayside article I am putting together yesterday, but it is taking me awhile because I am reading every single one of the messages. I have written elsewhere on Bayside and its false prophecies, however:

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2012/09/canards-of-bayside-hoax.html

Banmeagain said...

"I don't know what you're talking about...I did not intentionally delete any comments of yours."

I was talking about a rather lengthy response i made to your article where amongst other things i pointed out regarding Bayside that there were not "thousands upon thousands of banal messages" as you falsely stated but rather, about 300 messages. Furthermore they most certainly are not banal but very serious.
Clearly then, it would seem you have deleted it by mistake? By way of apology you then state
"this is my blog, and I reserve the right to not publish comments for a variety of reasons, or for no reason at all, as I see fit."
While this is of course factually correct, i had naturally assumed that as you claim to be a practising Catholic and have a comments box you would give people a fair right of response and NOT delete comments "for no reason at all, as I see fit."
Part of the reason i keep coming back to challenge you Boniface, is because your whole tone and attitude is just wrong. You go on the state
"It is really no skin off my back whether you waste time on my blog or not."
Well OK, you state you don't care, but why then do you put so much time and effort into the Bayside articles? Is it just to showcase how smart you think you are?

You say you are writing yet another (hit-piece?)Bayside article but "it is taking me awhile because I am reading every single one of the messages".

Um, well that's great you are going to read all the Bayside messages this time but don't you think you should have done that BEFORE you wrote the first article? It seems obvious to me that you had already decided Bayside was "Bunk" and "stupid, stupid, stupid" before you really knew anything about it. Then you simply skimmed the messages looking for what you believed were the GOTCHA moments. While i applaud the mammoth effort to read ALL the messages (your aware ALL the message would fill a very large book right?) i doubt your sincerity in doing this. I suspect you are just trolling for more "evidence" to fit your predisposition. A sincere truth seeking effort would require some time to absorb all the messages and their CONTEXT, and an effort to learn the pre-message story, the post message story and the life of the seer herself (for example she suffered terribly both physically and spiritually).
To be honest i could go on all night seemingly rebuking you as you give so much cause for concern and im barely scratched to surface of all you have written. But i will leave it at that(for now). I genuinely hope you will publish my post this time and not delete it again by mistake or "for no reason at all (as you see fit)". I feel we can both learn a lot from further interaction if only we care to. I shall certainly pray for you and i hope you will do the same for me. Godspeed.

BONIFACE said...

Are you suggesting one cannot comment on Bayside unless one has read every single message? Have you?

I have read enough of them, and I know a few people involved in it.

Banmeagain said...

"Are you suggesting one cannot comment on Bayside unless one has read every single message? Have you?"

No and yes. I am suggesting you at least get familiar with the messages before you write about them (oops, too late) and publicise such a withering conclusion. You only mislead people and make yourself look foolish when you make erroneous statements like "thousands upon thousands of banal messages" for one example amongst a multitude.

But my biggest issue with your handling of Bayside is not your factual inaccuracy's, or your shallow interpretations of individual messages, and certainly not your conclusion that you find the messages "highly dubious". Its how you, in your follow up article, go after people that respectfully disagree with you. For example your response to a rather kindly comment which stated in part "I know I can't convince you- that is God's work. I will just keep praying, as I'm sure you are too."

Your response "Okay, again, more with the persecution complex. Nobody is ridiculing you, lady." Its just unnecessarily condescending and insulting. Just because some one disagrees with your (clearly shallow) research and conclusion on Bayside does not mean they have a mild mental illness (persecution complex). Furthermore you contradict yourself in the very next sentence "Nobody is ridiculing you, lady." Really?? Labelling someone with a persecution complex is not a form of ridicule in your world? If you call Bayside stupid stupid stupid, anyone that follows Bayside must be pretty stupid too no? You can't see how insulting that is?? You can't see how unnecessary it is to talk to people that way and use such crass and provocative language?
I absolutely don't believe Medjugorje is legitimate. It's a slam dunk, but never in a million years would i talk to devotees with such contempt as you do, because my experience is they are are sincere and well intentioned people. I would state my opinion and why i have reached my conclusions. I would ask questions of them, but certainly not engage in crass language like "bunk" and "stupid" and ABSOLUTELY not get personal and accuse people of having mental health issues if they disagree. That fact that you can't seem to even recognise your own pride at work, and what i am saying troubles me enough to keep responding to you. I hope you will reflect on my points this time before you reply.....

Anonymous said...

Bayside is 100% true. I owe my cure from God and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Nothing can take that truth from me as long as I live here on earth. One day, when I meet my Creator and the Blessed Mother, I will eternally say Thank You.

Elizabeth Rose said...

Excellent article. I remember as a child, my mother dealing with friends who became obsessed with what was (or wasn't) happening in Bayside. I don't understand why people are so determined to chase after "signs & wonders". It's so unnecessary & we have been warned against it as it's a distraction from what we need to be doing (practicing our Faith, prayer, sacrifice, rosary, sacraments etc.) I only understand those who were so hurt & confused by all of the abuses instigated by Vatican 2. I remember those years as a child & feel deep compassion for people feeling lost & rejected by their own Church & getting caught up in Bayside, Medjugore etc. God Bless

Anonymous said...

It took me 2 years to find out that Bayside had been condemned by the local Bishop and as to the respect to any disciplinary precepts the bishop makes concerning the apparition and its site, they should be followed faithfully (e.g. what sacraments, if any, may be celebrated there). No Catholic should ever violate the practical norms laid down by the local bishop with respect to an alleged apparition, even if intellectually they disagree with his conclusion regarding the alleged apparition. Such disobedience would be sinful, and if it characterized the attitude of the followers of the alleged apparition it would be a sign of its inauthenticity, i.e. by producing bad fruit.

Joseph said...

I'm happy to have found this article; however, I find it rather frustrating that I was unable to find other articles as well researched. Is anyone out there aware of other reasonable critiques of Bayside that go perhaps into more depth?

Boniface said...

Joseph,

I have been working on a massive one for months...it is a ton of research, don't know when it will be done, but subscribe to this comment thread and I will post it here when it is complete.

Margaret said...

Boniface,

Thank you for writing this article. I recently met a Bayside follower whose excuse for disobedience to the bishop was that the children at Fatima disobeyed their pastor and returned to the site of the apparitions (as seen in one of the movies about Fatima).

I pray that the Bayside followers see the errors of this movement.

I look forward to your follow up article.

In Christ,

Maggie

Truthseeker said...

I see the moderator has not bothered to post my comment criticising the calibre of the original article. Seems there is a pattern here. I wonder how many decent articulate comments there have been from Baysiders pointing out the mistakes in the article that have been deleted and never published. Something is very rotten in Denmark.

Boniface said...

Truthseeker:

I wonder how many decent articulate comments there have been from Baysiders pointing out the mistakes in the article that have been deleted and never published.

The answer is none.

I am working on a massive expose of Bayside that will point out the HUNDREDS of theological and historical errors in the apparitions. I will post it here when it is done.

Truthseeker said...

Dear Boniface,

I posted a comment a few weeks ago that has still not been published. Yet my more recent comment a few days ago has now been published and you have responded to it. Can you explain this anomaly and still state that no comments have been deleted?

Let me jog your memory if case you have forgotten my original comment. I started it by my being incredulous that another reader (Joseph) described your article as "well researched" when it is nothing of the sort, but rather just a handful of out of context quotes that you then apply varying degrees of personal misunderstanding and dislike to (as though you are some kind of authority on Marian apparitions). In fact some of your objections to Bayside are simply laughable. For example, Bayside must be false because you find one time, an Angels actions to be too frivolous for your tastes. Then i ended my comment/post by challenging your assertion at the end of the Bayside article, that Garabandal was "bunk", without actually producing any case against Garabandal whatsoever! Apparently you believe yourself such an authority that we are to just take your word for it then?

If your new 'massive' article on Bayside is just more of the original then don't bother wasting everyone's time. It only appeals to people that despise prophecy and already HATE Bayside before they really now anything about it.


You have so far brought nothing new to the table, but rather have just become the go to spot on the internet for the haters. They can now feel secure and safe in their lack of knowledge and contempt, by being able to link to your "investigation"- LOL. As proof Bayside is a fraud!! Except the truth is there has NEVER been an investigation of Bayside so their confidence is misplaced and their sins against justice, bearing false witness and gossip can now be squarely added to your narrow young shoulders.

If however you have actually conducted a REAL investigation into Bayside (unlike the Brooklyn chancery) and are preparing to publish, then bring on it on....if you don't continue to delete my corrections, i look forward to the battle against your false accusations.

Anonymous said...

I'm amazed that the Bayside apparition is still being discussed at all. The Bishop has issued his directive, and that should be that. Clearly, there is a troubling aspect to this whole affair, since its followers continue to DISOBEY their Bishop. Disobedience seems to be the corner stone of this sad ongoing debacle. That in itself should be reason enough to prove its falsehoods.



A senior Catholic