Against the Permenant Diaconate

"Why are you now planning to take married men, making them what you call deacons, to give the sanctity and holiness, the grace in marriage to My sheep? What right have you to change the rules and the direction?" - Jesus, May 23, 1979

Fr. James McLucas explains that "The preparation for optional celibacy began with the introduction of the permanent diaconate following the Second Vatican Council." Although it was claimed that this change was nothing more than the restoration of a classic practice, many Church leaders "remained silent, however, about the fact that there had never been a Holy ‘Order’ that was non-celibate since the mandating of celibacy in the Western Church." Fr. McLucas goes on to say that "The Vatican signaled early on its growing indifference towards celibacy within Holy Orders by permitting widowed permanent deacons to remarry. This contradicted an ancient practice that even the Eastern Church, which permits a married clergy, does not allow." ("Emasculating the Priesthood," Fr. James McLucas)

I referenced the article to open a discussion about the non-celibate lay diaconate. Naturally enough, persons like yourself had to go and push the "hot button topic" of Bayside. Ok....since you pushed the button (way too many times):

"Bishop" Mugavero is bound by Canon Law to thoroughly examine and investigate all alledged cases or apparitions, visions, locutions, miracles, within his diocese. This is to examine the situation and determine its legitimacy (if any), and to see if the matter is contrary to Church teaching.

Mugavero simply threw out a letter condemning the Bayside matter without ANY investigation, meetting with the seer (or having officials of the diocese interview her). This is clear and simple deriliction of duty. He DOES NOT have the option to be cavalier in abandoning his duty. He must follow accepted proceedure - this is his duty to his diocese, and to Rome.

His validity has everything to do with his actions, words, and pronouncments as a church office holder. His successors in office have also simply refused to properly investigate the matter.

I should be noted that both Bishop Daily and the present occupant, DeMArzio are/were also in material heresy/schism as they did and do knowingly tolerate it in their clergy and chancery offices. Neither of them has done anything to reform their clergy, the performance of the sacraments, or the teaching of Church doctrine.

Our Lady has been indicating that the present tribulations of the church were to come via the sins of the clergy. She has stated this at LaSallette, Fatima, Akita......and if one wishes to believe so, at Bayside too. She has been correct.

As to the usefullness of deacons, they do pitifully little which a lay person cannot do - or be trained to do. From personal observation in a number of of dioceses, the deacons are very poorly educated, and either do not know the faith - or teach doctrine which is not Catholic. All too many have studied in programs which teach that which one should properly call error.

"Leadership roles"????? There is no better leadership role for a young man to consider then to teach and lead the People of God as a priest.......by both his words, and personal example.

"Bishop" Mugavero

He was a licit Bishop. To say otherwise requires proof. Besides the point, and in this you are correct. OTOH, this doesn't validate Bayside. For the other comments, saying you "know" a Deacon is in a gay marriage? Please, slander is beneath a Christian. Produce the proof.

He must follow accepted proceedure - this is his duty to his diocese, and to Rome.

If I had published spurious apparitions, replete with Jesus in a bunny suit, would this require a full investigation? Even at that, the apparition isn't binding on none but the seer. Look at Conyers, how long did it take to see the "windows" to heaven were a function of a camera defect, and in addition, how long should it take to condemn a vision that validates a lie that these are windows to heaven and not a defect of optical physics.

From personal observation in a number of of dioceses, the deacons are very poorly educated, and either do not know the faith - or teach doctrine which is not Catholic. All too many have studied in programs which teach that which one should properly call error.

In my diocese they have the same coursework that undergraduate Priests do, at a Catholic college. Easy to make the charge, but it isn't possible to make it stick.

There is no better leadership role for a young man to consider then to teach and lead the People of God as a priest.......by both his words, and personal example.

Sure thing. Are we all called to be Priests? Why not all called to be Bishops? Are we all called to the same exalted vocation?

You should know that a Deacon should be the other person at a Mass to distribute our Lord, and by an extraordinary permission, Rome permits lay people to distribute His Body. Any person can Baptize a Baby, but this isn't the norm, but a Deacon is often called when a Priest isn't available, and this can happen without extraordinary circumstance. Your statement is half right, but incomplete. Belittling the education a Deacon pursues, often as a second career, and you may as well belittle the Priests you purport to exalt.

Lets also clear one other issue, a Deacon, like a Married Priest, may not remarry. A man called to Holy Orders, who is Married, and then Widowed often takes up his Cross and follows the Priesthood. In my experience, they are often very talented at tasks they are charged with, as they have experiences in business, lay life, and the Church to draw upon.

"Bishop" Mugavero was a licit officeholder, but had ceased to be a valid bishop by virtue of material heresy & schism. That is sufficient to render him self-excommunicated.....ergo not a Catholic.....seperated from Holy Mother Church, and thus moot.

As stated before, this would render his actions null & void. It would also invalidate any ordinations he performed, as well as episcopal consecrations.

Since you do not take heavenly apparition seriously, there is no real point in discussing that subject with you. However, a local ordinary has the obligation to seriously and thoroughly examine all purported apparitions, visions, locutions, and miracles in his diocese.

As to the course work necessary to be a deacon - I have seen the course of studies.....and that given to priests as well. I also have seen the half baked products of the local seminaries here. They are ill taught, and on the whole spiritually unprepared for thier work.

"Bishop" Mugavero was a licit officeholder, but had ceased to be a valid bishop by virtue of material heresy & schism.

No proof? This is a weak argument. Perhaps it was because a double was in his place, if they can do that to a Pope, a Bishop should be easy.

Since you do not take heavenly apparition seriously, there is no real point in discussing that subject with you.

Even weaker argument, the wounded king does not suit you. I certainly do, but I have no time for condemned ones, especially when it is abundantly obvious why it was condemned.

You suggested this wasn't about Bayside but the Diaconate. No comments on the Church?

I also have seen the half baked products of the local seminaries here. They are ill taught, and on the whole spiritually unprepared for thier work.

The truth comes out. You simply have nothing but contempt for Catholicism. Is there any point in talking about fidelity to the Church Law to a sede any more than than there is in talking to a Buddhist about the Eucharist?

"Bishop" Mugavero was a licit officeholder, but had ceased to be a valid bishop by virtue of material heresy & schism.
No proof?"

The proof is abundantly found in the liturgical abuses - resulting in muyltitides of blashpemous & invalid masses in his diocese, the heresy and error freely preaching from pulpits under the guise of being Catholic, and the toleration of homosexuals in the priesthood. There is more then enough proof of this.

"it is abundantly obvious why it was condemned."

OK - kindly explain for me - in your own words, if you wish, why you think its was "obvious" why Bayside was condemned.

I really wanna hear this one.........

"Were I a single layman with a vocation I would never, ever consider the diaconate. To me this would be a halfway measure.....becoming a wannabe priest. It would be far better for one to persue the priesthood, rather then settle for halfway measures."

Were I a single layman with a vocation, I would offer myself for the priesthood as well.

However, if your theology of Holy Orders is correct, why would you only consider the priesthood?

Surely priests are just wannabe bishops and bishops are just wannabe popes? Why set your sights so low as the priesthood - why not aim for the top?

You have no proof about anything on the Bishop, except the same weak statement. Liturgical abuse in a Diocese are not a grounds for removal as a Bishop. His condemnation is valid, and slandering his name does not remove it, but lets look for a few seconds at some things she said.

What is so spurious about Bayside:
In his place they installed an Imposter Pope, a priest who was a fine actor. By means of skilful plastic surgery he was made to appear very like the true Pope and taught to imitate his voice and mannerisms.

Pope Paul VI was given poisonous injections, which weakened and paralyzed him. They censored and changed his documents and letters, and thus perverted and falsified the teaching of the whole Church.

Bayside is a movement of sedes. Wouldn't an impostor in the seat mean the seat is empty?

Another thing Luekin said was that Satan and his demons were released from the underworld prison of Hell beginning in the year 1940. Upon rising to the surface and atmosphere of Earth, their transport vehicles "the UFOs" have often been seen traversing the atmosphere of the earth.

My own observations are also important in my discernment. OK ET is Satan. Seriously. We have UFOs all over the world, I see them all the time when designing Radar systems. They are unidentified, if you know a Demon was in them then they would be IFOs. It is semantic I know, but another irritating inconsistency.

Other things she said are not possible from physics. Large masses are indeed detectable out to a few tenths of a light year. Not undetectable as she claims "Jesus" to say. Christ has an excellent knowledge of physics. An object out that far with that mass would either be traveling fast and easily detected, or accelerated at the last minute, and the force to accelerate it would be detected.

I also know first hand, about LINEAR and NEAT programs that take sky surveys, and while a 3-5km asteroid would do great damage, we would know it is coming decades in advance. A larger body is easier to detect. Lay people to space kinematics don't know this, and I would submit it is easy for a fraud to play on those fears. Christ is an excellent physicist, and his miracles, such as the Sun at Fatima, need no mundane explanation.

This is far afield,if you look at the sum of things, like Communion in the Hand making the Body of Christ "invalid", the impostor pope, the UFO demons, and her own mental state, they add to a slam dunk in the condemnation. It also makes anything that would be said about the Diaconate spurious at the least.

Knowledgeable tolerance of liturgical abuses - which result in public blashphemy and invalid masses is an excellant ground for the removal of a Bishop. His ordination of open homosexuals (which are invalid on the face of it) are also grounds, as well as the toleration of active gay clerics. Mugavero was also known to be a homosexual, personally, who promopted homosexuals to high Chancery positions.

Some 20 years ago the Chancellor of the Diocese of Brooklyn was murdered in his car by a male prostitute, under the Brooklyn & Manhattan bridges, in a desolate location. The Msgr.s body was found by police, and the male prostitute arrested. It made all the papers at the time. The name of the dead priest escapes me, but I think I can look it up.

Bayside is NOT a movement of sedes - as the messages most definately confirm that JPII is a valid pope - and so was Paul VI. If you actually READ the messages, you would know this. They were both referred to as the annointed of God, as as being "beloved sons of Jesus". Much sorrow was expressed over their trials, and the disobedience of the clergy toward them.

So your "sede" accusation is nonesense.

Even assuming that Paul Vi was replaced by an imposter - yet kept alive - he was still Pope, and still very much a licit and valid office holder, despite any alledged subterfuge.

I do not for one minute pretend to understand your rant about physics. But I do know this: there are many things which man cannot see - things in the spiritual world as well as the physical. Such things are also beyond the reach of man's puny so-called "scientific instruments".

Man cannot see angels - unless permitted by God. The same is true of demons, who are fallen angels.

I believe that what Mary is purported to say about so-called UFOs is repeated in other 20th century apparitions, but I have no readily available text of such messages.

Anyway, all of this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

," and her own mental state"

How would you know anything about the mental state of the late Veronica Leuken? Are you a liscenced psychiatrist who examined her?

She was NOT examined by any physciatrist employed by the Diocese of Brooklyn. My understanding is that she was not under the care of one, had never been in a mental hospital. She did willing submit to exampination - of her own free will, but not under church auspisces, She was pronounced sane.

But I repeat: the Church never examined/interviewed her.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.