Replies

Rather is is the late homosexual apostate Bishops of Brooklyn, Francis Mugavero who should have been condemned for what he did to the faith of the laity in his diocese.

The fact that Mugavero was in material heresy & schism (an may well have been personally guilty of those sins as well) left him self excommunicated. Thus he was a licit holder of the office of Ordinary of the See of Brooklyn.......but an invalid one. So any order like what you quoted has all the importance of a piece of toilet paper, as its author was moot.

Moreover, Mugavero never did his duty under Canon Law: namely, to throughly investigate the seer, witnesses, purported messages, any alledged miracles. The seer herself should have been interviewed, and determine3d to be sane.

NONE of that was ever done - neither by Mugavero, nor by his two successors.

His so called "condemnation" is based upon.......nothing. Except the fear that people might actually listen to the messages, and get mad as hell at the Bishop of Brooklyn and his overwhelmingly gay and apostate clergy. So - to his mind - he had to condemn it out of necessity.

For to follow proper proceedure and investigate it throughly would be like turning over a rock in the woods: you find some nasty things.

Regardless of whether the messages are truly from heaven, much of their content is true: of the defection of the clergy...their deriliction of duty.....the destruction of the mass.....the destruction of the personal faith of many.

I have no way of proving - or disproving - whether Paul VI was replaced by a double. Though, I would personally not be suprised to learn it was true.

However the contention that JPI was murdered....or that JPII is a virtual prisoner? There is more then enough circumstantial evidence to lend credance to those ideas.

Again, I remain neutral on hte subject of Bayside. My point in referenceing the article from this site was the content of the article, and the quotes from Spellman and others on the subject of the non celibate lay diaconate.

Rather is is the late homosexual apostate Bishops of Brooklyn, Francis Mugavero

An accusation validates the spurious Bayside apparitions?

Thus he was a licit holder of the office of Ordinary of the See of Brooklyn.......but an invalid one

Licit, therefore the one in charge of the investigation. His peccability has nothing to do with the Condemnation of Bayside, which is been confirmed by many others.

Moreover, Mugavero never did his duty under Canon Law: namely, to throughly investigate the seer, witnesses, purported messages, any alledged miracles. The seer herself should have been interviewed, and determine3d to be sane

Many times some of this is needed, and many times it is not required, the person to make that call is the Bishop.

whether Paul VI was replaced by a double

I am neutral on that topic.

Again, I remain neutral on hte subject of Bayside.

It doesn't sound like it.

My point in referenceing the article from this site was the content of the article, and the quotes from Spellman and others on the subject of the non celibate lay diaconate.

Even if Bayside were a real apparition, the Church is not at all ruled by them. The Church teaches that apparitions are binging only on the seer. Spellman also isn't in charge, he may have had concerns but the men at the reins made the call. I think it has worked well, in getting men who are trained, and educated, to take leadership roles to assist Priests in a Parish where those positions would go unfilled.