Bayside condemned by the pope?

Hello folks, sorry for bringing this one up again.

Could someone please point me to a link which shows that Bayside was condemned by the Pope?

Is something automatically condemned by the Holy See if it’s condemned by a bishop? Do people really believe that there are no corrupt bishops in the Church?

I’d also be interested in hearing people views on Bayside. I’ve read lots of the directives and to me they have a ring of truth about them. Are people so blind that they can’t see that the Church is in decline? Why have all the old traditions gone?

God bless you all and God bless Pope Benedict!

here is the answer:


Here is another answer from “Catholic Doors” website at

Scroll down the left-hand index and click on to “Is it Catholic”; click on “Veronica Lueken” to find the following:

The private messages of

**Veronica Lueken **

KNOWN AS: “Our Lady of the Roses”; “The prophecies of Bayside”; “Veronica Lueken.”

SEER: Veronica Lueken

LOCATION: Bayside, New York

YEARS: 1968 - 1995

STATUS: On November 4, 1986, Bishop John Mugavero of Brooklyn made a public declaration regarding the “Bayside Movement.” In part, this proclamation consist of:

[indent]1) “No credibility can be given to the so-called ‘apparitions’ reported by Veronica Lueken and her followers.”

  1. “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…”

  2. “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 material.” 4) “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 againsy the determinations made by the legitimate pastor of this particular Church (c. 212, para. 1).”


ALLEGED REVELATIONS: Among many deceptions and doctrinal errors that are found in the “alleged” private messages of Veronica Lueken are:

  1. For years, an ‘imposter (sic) Pope’ governed the Catholic Church in place of Paul VI.

  2. Pope John Paul I was poisoned.

  3. The current Pope is a prisoner.

  4. Vatican II was a false Council.

  5. The New Order Mass is not valid (sacramental).

  6. Those receiving communion in the hand are sinning.

  7. The false prophecy of a “miraculous fountain.”

  8. The false prophecy of "miraculous healings. The only thing, if it can be called ‘unusual’ is the number of photos that contain strange lights.

  9. The Rapture, the taking away of the saints (elect) to Heaven before the physical return of Christ to rule on earth for a thousand years. (Millenarianism) Etc…

REVIEW The alleged messages of Veronica Lueken are totally absent of Divine manifestation. This conclusion is based on the following findings:

  1. A total lack of respect for the Popes as spiritual leaders of the Church. Her messages alleged an imposter leader the Church, one Pope being murdered by poison and the current Pope being a prisoner.

  2. In a tradionalist style, her messages have resisted and condemned Vatican II and its Spirit guided work as a false Council, including the rejection of the New Order Mass (not being a valid sacramental) and that receiving communion in the hand involves sinning.

To be continued:


continued -

  1. None of her false prophecies have come to pass, this including a “miraculous fountain,” “miraculous healings,” “a comet,” etc… The only thing, if it can be called ‘unusual’ is the number of photos that contain strange lights. Such may have resulted by an scientific error in technology which has yet to be explained, OR by supernatural manifestations that are not of God. Therefore, if there are no scientific explanation, it is the work of Satan and/or the fallen angels.

  2. Mrs Lueken has continuously promoted the “Rapture,” (Protestant belief) the taking away of the saints (elect) to Heaven before the physical return of Christ to rule on earth for a thousand years. The Catholic Church has always condemned the teachings of a secular messianism. On this subject, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

675 “Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.”

676 “The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.”

  1. To this date, the Bayside Movement has been disobedient to the proclamation of the local Bishop John Mugavero of Brooklyn who on November 4, 1986, proclaimed that the faithful were to refrain from participating in the ‘vigils’ of the Bayside Movement and to disseminate any propaganda related to the ‘Bayside apparitions.’ Also, they were discouraged from reading any such material."

The disobedience in itself is a clear sign that this work is not of God. Had the manifestation been of God and the Bayside Movement would have obeyed the proclamation of the Bishop, the Almighty Lord God would have found another mean to clearly manifest that these activities were of Heaven. As we all know, God does not walk with or through disobedient children.

In the Holy Bible, St. John cautions us,

“Test the spirits to see whether they are from God.” [1 Jn. 4:1]

And St. Paul cautions us,

“For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” [2 Cor. 11:13-4]

As to the position of the pastors of the Church, St. John tells us,

“We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” [1 Jn. 4:6]

  1. As a general rule there is no prophet who really wants to be a prophet. In this case of the Bayside Movement, those involved are over-zealous to obtain fame and publicity, contrary to the Church Declaration to cease their work that is not heavenly inspired.

END RESULT IF BELIEVED Those who associate themselves with the Bayside Movement, or even read its deceptive material, are in opposition to the official Proclamation of the Pastor (Bishop) of the Catholic Church. By continuing to do so, they are endangering their faith by embracing false doctrines, prophecies and manifestation that are not of Heaven. Through their disobedience, they are withdrawing themselves as faithful Catholics and disqualifying themselves from the Sacraments of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

One cannot disobey the local Bishop, be in mortal sin by rejecting the truth and then receive the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, the Bread of Life that is absolutely necessary to lead to salvation. This disobedience leads to eternal damnation.

Yes and this thread will be killed pretty soon b/c it goes against rules but yeah stay away from it.

The facts are that:

  1. The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff, Law-maker and Law Interpreter and Vicar of Christ.

  2. The Bishops are also Vicars of Christ in their own individual dioceses on matters of Faith and Morals. The pope is, of course, also Bishop of of his diocese, that of Rome.

  3. Each individual bishop has the fullness of power in his own diocese over judgements of matters such as alleged preternatural matters and is the first to exercise such power.

  4. It would be not be normal for the Vatican to get involved when the individual bishop declares negatively on such a matter - but there have been instances, such as the Divine Mercy, when the Vatican has intervened positively in overturning its own prior negative decision.

  5. The Vatican does not intervene when the local Ordinary has declared positively, but it may further promote the positive declaration by elevating the matter in the universal Church. For example, the apparitions at La Salette were approved by the Bishop of Grenoble and the Vatican not only approved a Basilica there but also approved a Feast in the Universal Church.

However, it is also worth noting that the so-called “Secret of La Salette” was NOT approved by the local Ordinary, but the Vatican also reacted by placing the writings of one of the seers, Melanie Calvat and those of her Spiritual Advisor, the Abbé Combe, on the Index of Forbidden Books - from which they were never withdrawn.

  1. When one speaks of “The Vatican” or The Holy See" - this means, in practice, “The Pope”, for the directives of the Dicasteries of the the Vatican follow authority granted to them by the pope.

  2. 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.

[quote=nkelly]Is something automatically condemned by the Holy See if it’s condemned by a bishop? Do people really believe that there are no corrupt bishops in the Church?

There are corrupt popes, too. But that’s not relevant. Sean has provided the ultimate answer, but just to echo the very critical point: it is inconceivable that a Pope would overrule a local Bishop about something occurring within his own Diocese. Once the local Bishop has spoken against it, it will *never *be considered at a more universal level (unless that Bishop or his successor recants). It must be accepted locally to be considered globally.

It’s not automatically *condemned *by the Holy See. Rather, it is automatically ignored.

Thanks for the replies Sean and David.

So is Bayside a deliberate and elaborate attempt to split the Church between the liberals and the traditionalists?

Is Satan trying to deny Christ’s message that the ‘Gates of Hell shall not prevail againt it’ by saying that all manner of heresies and corruption have entered the Church even going so far as to say that Satan entered the Vatican in human form in 1972 and that Pope Paul VI was replaced by an impostor?


Not all said apparitions are true

Garabandal and Medjugorje do not have Rome approval too because local bishops don’t acknowledge them. The visionaries of these have immoral acts too. Conchita of Garabandal married a divorced man

Just stick to Fatima which is really true

[quote=nkelly]…So is Bayside a deliberate and elaborate attempt to split the Church between the liberals and the traditionalists?..

Possibly, but not necessarily. Some proponents of false alleged apparitions may be deliberately pushing an agenda, but others may just be… confused is probably the most charitible way to put it. They may sincerely believe that what they think they are experiencing is from God.

[quote=nkelly]So is Bayside a deliberate and elaborate attempt to split the Church between the liberals and the traditionalists?

I don’t think the folks involved are doing this deliberately. But, if I were the devil, I would certinaly do all I could to promote false and misleading apparitions (to undermine and discredit the real ones and sow disunity in the Church).

This is from the Website of TLDM’'Frequently asked question:
Is the Bayside Apparition condemned?

Answer: The unfavorable decision by the late Bishop Mugavero on Bayside Apparition was illicit and invalid as it was not based on an inquiry required by Canon Law…

Bishop Mugavero of Brooklyn before his death issued a statement saying that he found no supernatural activities at Bayside and prohibited the faithful to come to the alleged apparition grounds.

However, the Bishop erred in his decision. The following shows the reasons why.
First, he violated Canon 50 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law which states: “Before issuing an individual decree an authority should seek out the necessary information and proofs, and also hear those who rights can be injured, insofar as this is possible.”
The Bishop (or his investigating committee, if any) did not interview Veronica or any of her associates before writing the condemnation. Even now, there is no report whatsoever. Just ask the Chancery Office of the Brooklyn diocese (now under Bishop Daily) for any report by any investigating committee on the Bayside Apparition. You will receive the answer that there is none.

In any organization or society, there are some accepted procedures that the authorities or supervisors must follow while making major administrative decisions concerning their subordinates. The purpose is to ensure fairness, unbiasedness, and to prevent the abuse of power on the part of the former.

In the case of apparitions, under the law of the Church, every Bishop is required to have an ecclesiastical investigation by a committee or commission of priests, with at least one canon lawyer, and also several lay people with scientific expertise. And every person involved in the apparition is to be interviewed. Alleged seers and witnesses who are among the sources of information and proofs must be interviewed. But no such procedure in the case of Bayside was followed. No effort of gathering information was made. No proof was provided. No hearing or interview was organized. Yet he “found” the apparition to be of non-supernatural character. If he did not inquire about it, how could he find it to be non-supernatural, or anything else, for that matter? The judgment by Bishop Mugavero on the Bayside apparitions is thus both illicit and invalid.

Second, he contradicted the Sacred Scriptures which provides the norm for making any judgment: “Before thou inquire, blame no man: and when thou hast inquired, reprove justly.” (Ecclesiasticus 11:7).
Here there was no inquiry, yet Bishop Mugavero issued the negative statement on Veronica Lueken and her associates.

It can be concluded that the Bishop’s action is contrary to reason, to the Sacred Scriptures, and to Canon Law of the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica defines “sin is an inordinate act.” (Pt. I-II, Q. 72, Art.4). An act is inordinate if it is contrary to the rule of reason, the rule of Divine Law, or the rule of the social order. Since the rule of Divine Law contains the rule of reason, Bishop Mugavero’s action sinned against both reason and God. He also sinned against the Church as he acted contrarily to the Church’s Law.

Needless to say this is one of the worse, if not the worst, cases of abuse of power in the Catholic Church. To support Bishop Mugavero’s statement is to support abuse of authority and destruction of the law of the Church. Since one cannot obey a sinful command of men, it is better to follow St. Peter who said: “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29).

On the question of obedience, should people obey a Priest or a Bishop just because he says this or he says that, regardless of what he says being right or wrong? In the case of Bayside, we cannot obey an illicit, invalid, and sinful order, even if that order came from a Bishop. In the matter of apparitions, the Church history provides some interesting precedence. The Bishop of the Diocese of Fatima, including all the Priests told the children and the people that they were not to go to the apparition site. On the 13th of October, 1917 the Bishop again told the children not to go to Fatima. The children disobeyed the Bishop and also the Priests, and so did all the people. God confirmed their disobedience by forming a great miracle, confirming that their disobedience to the Bishop was correct, because they had to obey God, which is the foremost obedience. We received similar confirmation by the Holy Ghost on Christmas Eve December 24, 1986 at the Apparition ground, The Vatican Pavilion, in Flushing Meadows Park, Queens, New York, after Bishop Mugavero issued the statement on November 4. On that night, at approximately 8:30 PM, about 500 people including this author, while praying the Rosary, saw the three luminous doves (not the natural doves, but light formed in the clear shape of doves) coming from nowhere flying from left to right 20 feet above our heads and then flying back from right to left, then disappeared.’’

PART 2 of text from TLDM website: ‘’
March 19, 1987

Dear Friends of Our Lady of the Roses: Concerning Bishop Francis J. Mugavero’s official statement of November 4, 1986, reiterating the Brooklyn Chancery’s negative judgment on the Apparitions of Our Lady and Our Lord to Veronica Lueken, we wish to state that this new declaration mandates no change in policy vis-à-vis the promotion and dissemination of the Bayside Message throughout the world. This latest pronouncement of the Diocese of Brooklyn on the Virgin Mary’s Appearances at Bayside remains completely null and void (as were all the previous ones), as far as Our Lady of the Roses Shrine is concerned, for the following reasons:

  1. Veronica and the Shrine have never been approached in truth and justice by the local Bishop or by any representative of his, in person or even by telephone. Therefore, there could not have been any investigation, as the principal witness, the seer herself, was not allowed to even defend herself. Being tried, in absentia, without a hearing would not hold up in any court of law, and can only be termed an utter travesty of justice. None of Veronica’s workers, not even her personal secretary, Ann Ferguson, has ever been questioned or interrogated. No written document has even been produced factually showing that even the most rudimentary form of an investigation was conducted. It is impossible to obtain the names of the investigative committee, or even an accurate date when the said inquiry occurred; even the year of this event has not been established. Was it 1973? 1975? Or perhaps some other date? What is an objective onlooker to conclude when presented with slovenly-concocted and self-contradictory evidence? Or shall we say such a lack of evidence? How difficult it is to maintain the appearance of truth when one peddles the wares of deception and falsehood!

  2. The fact that the Bishop of Brooklyn has personally affixed his name to the declaration on the Apparition (the first time in sixteen years!) does not bind Catholics under obedience to disbelieve in or remain away from the Prayer Vigils or the Apparition Site. The diocesan statement maintains that it is issuing the said letter in consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine and the Faith, that the said Congregation confirms that the publication of religious materials still governed by principles that “maintain authoritative moral value prohibiting the endangering of faith and morals.” If the prohibition has only “authoritative moral value”, then the Diocesan authorities do not have legal and disciplinary powers over the offender. Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the local Ordinary to point out where we have done violence to the teachings of the Church. If we have undermined, as they say, the legitimate authority of Bishops and councils (i.e. Vatican II) by Jesus’ statement in the June 18, 1986 Message that “Satan sat in on Vatican II and maneuvered all the outsiders to come in and distort My doctrines and distort the truth”, then what is Pope Paul VI guilty of when he stated on June 29, 1972, in his weekly General Audience, that “the smoke of Satan had entered the Church”? He, moreover, confessed his disillusionment with the outcome of Vatican II: “We thought that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church; instead we found new storms. . . An adverse power, the Devil . . . came to suffocate the fruits of the Vatican Council.” Therefore, Pope Paul VI, the Bayside revelations, and the Third Secret of Fatima are in basic agreement that Satan has breached the walls of the Church (and Sister Lucy, and John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger can confirm this – as the latter two have read the Secret), and is now using Cardinals in the highest places in Rome to command obedience to a new church, that is slowly evolving, gradually severing its ties with Tradition, a church based on the worship of man instead of the one true God. Obedience is always first and foremost to God in Heaven. One cannot obey directives that offend God, even when they are from the highest authorities. Our mission is to help keep the Barque of Peter afloat: to patch the cracks and bail out the water (to contain and repel the forces of modernism and their flood of destructive changes). We remain firm in our parish churches, giving a good example of piety, fighting to retain and restore the traditional Catholic beliefs and practices. As a last word, the Message of Bayside has stated that we have to give an account to no one for our mission, for it is directly from the Eternal Father in Heaven. And so we continue our work, serene and unperturbed by the waves and the roaring of the sea (i.e. persecutions), ever more determined to shout the Message from the rooftops, in obedience to the commands of Heaven. In filial submission to His Holiness John Paul II, we rest our case.’’

Reported to moderator on each of your agenda-promoting posts!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit