FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The Consecration of Russia
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The below is my response to a sort-of challenge issued to me here by Sirach2.

...

Introduction

Why should we care if the Consecration of Russia was actually ever performed as requested by Our Lady of Fatima to Sr. Lucia in 1929, or whether the Third Secret was ever fully revealed, as two Cardinal Secretaries of State have alleged (in the year 2,000, 40 years after the date requested by the Blessed Virgin)?  Believe it or not, there are those who ask such questions - why should we care about these events of the highest import to the Church and the world?

It does seem that those who pose such queries are those who have been in the habit of defending what they see, incorrectly, as the Church's positions and are aware, at some level, that things do not really add up.

To answer the rhetorical question, firstly, as Catholics, we should always be concerned with truth regarding all things.  Jesus Christ is truth and those who love Him love the truth.  Furthermore, these things are much more than some thing - they are, again, things of enormous important for the Catholic Church and the entire world as well.  Things of not only temporal but eternal consequence.

To understand the truth about Fatima is to understand this current crisis in the Church - indeed, to understand one is to almost simultaneously understand the other.  And to understand this crisis is to help one save one's soul.

It is true that, like a great many good things, there are potential spiritual dangers here: fixating on the negative, engaging in subjective judgement of individuals, pride due to intellectual sophistication.  As always, the path to be sought-after embraces the spiritual fruits and sidesteps the temptations and dangers.

Ultimately, as Catholics, we must care about the truth and the search for it above all things: above human respect, above the comforts of being "mainstream", and above some false understanding of ecclesiastical fidelity.

The sources for most of the material below are The Consecration of Russia by John Salza and Robert Sungenis as well as The Secret Still Hidden and False Friends of Fatima by Christopher Ferrara.


Fatima is a Public Prophecy

Those who wish to downplay the relevance of the Fatima apparitions (which are, of course, Church-approved apparitions of the Mother of God) will often dismiss it with the phrase "private revelation" - the implicit assertion being "you needn't worry anything about it".  But is either part of that really accurate?

If the apparitions at Fatima are "private revelation", they are:

- The only "private revelation" that contained the one of the greatest public miracles in the history of humanity, witnessed directly by at least 70,000 people.  This was also the only pre-announced public miracle in the history of the world!  Such a miracle would only be granted by God for a critically important, public message.  Indeed, it seems sensible to conclude that, given the uniqueness and incredible nature of this public miracle, the associated message must be very important indeed.

- A "private revelation" whose messages concern the entire world and were commanded to be revealed to the entire world by Our Lady Herself.

- A "private revelation" whose pre-announced "great sign in the sky" regarding the beginning of World War II was witnessed by millions of people.

Since the Blessed Virgin entrusted the seers with a message about the world and directed them to share it with the world (including the Third Secret, which Our Lady did direct to be revealed by the Church hierarchy by 1960), to call it "private" is not accurate.  Of course there are no new revelations of the Faith itself here, for such concluded with death of the last Apostle, John.  But from that it does not at all follow that these events can be safely or morally ignored by Catholics.  Scripture teaches us to value true public prophecies, which will occur until the Second Coming.  The Angelic Doctor confirms this teaching.

The popes agree that Fatima is a public prophecy.  In the encyclical Signum Magnum (Great Sign), written to commemorate the supernatural events at Fatima, Pope Paul VI made the connection of Fatima to the "great sign in the Heavens" of Revelation. 

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_v...um_en.html

Pope John Paul II made the same connection in his homily on the beautification of Francisco and Jacinta, quoting Revelation 12:4 in relation to Fatima.

Finally, Our Lady of Fatima has a feast day - even if it be optional - making her veneration clearly part of the universal Church.


A Brief History of the Consecration Request

Our Lady requested the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart in 1929, directly to Sr. Lucy, as She had previously stated She would, with these words:

"The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to make, and to order that in union with him and at the same time all the bishops of the world make, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to convert it because of this day of prayer and worldwide reparation" (emphasis is, of course, mine).

It is very interesting to note that only two years after this event Christ Himself appeared to Lucy regarding this consecration request, still not completed: "Make it known to My ministers that given they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My request, that they will follow him into misfortune."

Our Lord here refers to the fate of King Louis XVI, who, in 1789, 100 years after his predecessor had been ordered to consecrate France to His Sacred Heart, was deposed and later executed by Masonic revolutionaries.

Christ went further in His words to Sr. Lucy, foretelling how these events would play out: "They did not wish to heed My request.  Like the King of France, they will repent and do it, but it will be late.  Russia will have already spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecutions of the Church; the Holy Father will have much to suffer" (Fatima in Lucia's Own Words: Sr. Lucia's Memoirs).

The first papal consecration that was apparently intended to attempt to satisfy the Virgin's request was performed by Pope Pius XII in 1942.  However, this consecration was of "the world", not the nation of Russia.

In 1952, after Sister Lucia reported that the Mother of God had again visited her to again request the consecration, Pius XII again performed a consecration.  However, he consecrated the people, not the nation, of Russia, and he did not have the participation of the world's bishops.

There is a great deal of detail in The Consecration of Russia concerning these "modified" consecrations of Pius XII and Paul VI, which subsequent Popes apparently agreed did not meet the simple requirements of the request.

And there are a couple of interesting points apparent already.  First, this consecration, though certainly not of the form requested, is closer to it than that of 1984, which also did not have the participation of the bishops but made no mention of Russia whatsoever.  Yet, it is the 1984 consecration that Vatican spokesmen (but no pope!) have insisted was valid.

In 1957, Fr. Augustin Fuentes conducted his famous interview of Sr. Lucy.  In this interview, among many other things, Sr. Lucy stated that the lack of a proper consecration of Russia would result in "many nations disappearing... and many souls going to Hell" (Fatima Findings newspaper, 1958).  She also commented that "many times the Blessed Virgin told me and my cousins that.. Russia is the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation."

Pope Paul VI had his consecration attempt as well, in 1964, again of the world, not of Russia.  That this consecration was related to Fatima is made clear by the fact that it was performed there, at the celebrations for the 47th anniversary of the apparitions. 

Pope Paul VI became the second pope to decide that the Third Secret would not be revealed during his pontificate, despite Our Lady's words commanding its release in 1960.  Paul VI also publicly dismissed Sr. Lucia pleading request for a meeting with him.

In 1982, John Paul II performed a consecration of "the world" to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with no participation of the world's bishops.

A week after that event, on May 19th, L'Osservatore published a short commentary from the pope in which he stated that he purposefully did not consecrate Russia, but that he had "tried to do everything possibly in the concrete circumstances".  The statement seems intentionally vague, but it is apparent that the pope was aware that he did not do what the Mother of God had requested.

John Paul II performed another consecration on March 25, 1984, and again failed to mention Russia at all.  It was reported that he was following the advice of Cardinal Casaroli who cited "diplomatic reasons".  Cardinal Casaroli was one of the main architects of the policy of Ostpolitik, the Vatican diplomatic policy towards the Soviet Union that forbid denouncing the evils of atheism and communism.  (An interesting tidbit in this tale of rather incredible intrigue is that John Paul II's would-be assassin, Mehmet Ali Agca, has alleged that Cardinal Casaroli gave the order for John Paul II to be murdered.  Of course, the credibility of the source here is at issue, but this requires a mention.)

However, John Paul II did add this sentence to his consecration, according to L 'Osservatore: "Enlighten especially the peoples of which You Yourself are awaiting our consecration and confiding."

If the entire world were being consecrated by the pope, how could there be any peoples still awaiting consecration to Mary?

It is very important to note that not only did Pope John Paul II himself never state that his 1984 consecration was a valid consecration of Russia as requested by Our Lady of Fatima, his own words during the consecration clearly indicate he was aware that it was not.  It is only Vatican bureaucrats that have ever insisted otherwise.

There is yet more.  On October 8, 2000, there was yet another type of consecration of the world - an "entrustment" as it was called.  1400 bishops were present at the Vatican, and it was reported that most of them actually thought they were there for a consecration of Russia (why would any of them think that if that consecration had been performed 16 years before?).  Inside the Vatican magazine reported in its November 30, 2000 edition that "one of the pope's closest advisors" counseled John Paul II to make no mention of Russia to avoid offending the Russian Orthodox - an enthusiastic target of the Vatican's "ecumenical" efforts.


Sr. Lucy's Testimony

Sr. Lucy throughout her entire life - at least, until, the disputed, clearly not-written-by-her letters began to appear very late in her life - always asserted that the Mother of God had requested specifically the consecration of Russia, and of nothing else.  In this section I will collect some of the many quotes and references to this effect that exist. 

One needn't ever wonder why Sr. Lucy insisted that the Virgin asked specifically for the consecration of Russia; we need only look at some of Her words ourselves:

"When you see a night illuminated by an unknown list, know that it is the great sign that God gives you that He is going to punish the world by means of war, hunger, and persecution of the Church and the Holy Father.  To prevent this I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the first Saturdays.

If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and the world will have peace.  If not, Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, fomenting wars and persecutions against the Church.  The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated.

In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph.  The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and it will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world."

[The errors of Russia - atheism and communism (directly or indirectly), and even specific evils such as abortion (Russia was the first nation to practice legal abortion on a large scale) have indeed spread throughout the world, and continue quite unabated three decades after the 1984 consecration of the world.]

Take note especially of this first one, for it was published in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's own newspaper, on May 12th, 1982.  A Fr. Umberto Pasquale regarding an interview with & letter from Sr. Lucy.  This priest was a confidant of Sr. Lucy's who received more than 150 personal letters from her over the decades.  Here is what he had to say in L'Osservatore:

"I wanted to clarify the question of the Consecration of Russia, in having recourse to the source.  On August 5, 1978, in the Carmel of Coimbra, I had a lengthly interview with the seer of Fatima, Sister Lucy.  At a certain moment I said to her: 'Sister, I should like to ask you a question.  If you cannot answer me, let it be!  But if you can answer it, I would be most grateful to you, for you to clear up a point for me which does not appear clear to many people... Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about the consecration of the world to her Immaculate Heart?'  'No, Father Umberto!  Never!  At the Cova da Iria in 1917, Our Lady had promised: I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia... to prevent the spreading of her errors throughout the world, wars among several nations, persecutions against the Church... In 1929, at Tuy, as She had promised, Our Lady came back to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the consecration of that country [Russia].'"

Fr. Pasquale also requested and received from Sr. Lucy a letter stating the above (a photograph & translation are present in The Consecration of Russia).

Paul John Paul II performed his first consecration of "the world" the very next day!

On March 21, 1982, Sr. Lucy met with Archbishop Portlupi and Bishop do Amaral of her diocese of Leiria.  At this meeting the latter conveyed to Sr. Lucy the position that the consecration of Russia had already been completed, in 1952 by Pius XII.  The good Sister's reply, recorded in Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph, was that for a consecration of Russia to meet the requirements of Our Lady's request, "the pope would either have to convoke all the bishops at Rome or in another place... or order the bishops of the entire world to organize, each one in his own cathedral, a public and solemn ceremony of reparation and of Consecration of Russia."  The same book also records private correspondence of Sr. Lucy with family & friends in which she repeatedly emphasized that the upcoming consecration would not satisfy the requirements.  Sr. Lucy even met with John Paul II the morning of the consecration and handed him a handwritten note outlining Our Lady's specific instructions for a consecration of Russia. 

There is more evidence provided in The Consecration of Russia of Lucy's repeated, clear statements that any consecration of "the world" or any other specific object other than Russia, and any consecration that did not involve the direct participation of all the world's Catholic bishops, would not be a valid Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as requested by Heaven.

On March 19, 1983, by request of Pope John Paul II, Sr. Lucia met again with papal nuncio Archbishop Portalupi.  At this meeting, she reiterated that the 1982 consecration was not valid: "In the act of offering on May 13, 1982, Russia did not appear as being the object of the consecration.  And each bishop did not organize in his own diocese a public and solemn ceremony of reparation and consecration of Russia.  Pope John Paul II simply renewed the consecration of the world executed by Pius XII on October 31, 1942.  From this consecration we can expect some benefits, but not the conversion of Russia.  The Consecration of Russia has not been done as Our Lady demanded it.  I was not able to say it because I did not have the permission of the Holy See" (Fidelite Catholique).

After the 1984 consecration of the world, Sr. Lucy again let it be known that this consecration was not a valid consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as requested by the Blessed Virgin.  Fr. Messias Coelho, who interviewed Sr. Lucy along with the papal nuncio the year before, had this to say, as quoted by the magazine Mensagem de Fatima: "The consecration of Russia - it will not be done at this time.  It is certain the more contains the less [that is, 'the world' contains 'Russia'].  Apparently, therefore, the consecration of the world will perhaps give the impression of having the power to take the place of consecrating specifically Russia.  However, the problem cannot be resolved in logical terms, nor even in the light of systematic theology."

This priest was quite aware that insisting that a consecration of the world a "consecration of Russia" - most especially when the mention of Russia is deliberately avoided for 'political' reasons - is nonsensical.  Strangely, however, in the summer of 1989 Fr. Coelho rather suddenly changed his mind regarding this consecration, right around the time that Sr. Lucy seemed to change hers as well!

Sr. Lucy reiterated the same yet again in an interview in the September 1985 edition of Sol de Fatima magazine: "There was no participation of all the bishops, and there was no mention of Russia."  Journalist Enrico Romero published his interview of Sr. Lucy on July 20, 1987 during which she yet again reiterated her unwavering, completely consistent testimony that the consecrations of 1982 and 1984 were not valid.  Cardinal Mayer and Cardinal Stickler both independently confirmed this conclusion in front of witnesses later that year, as reported by The Fatima Crusader.


The Suppression Begins

And now the Vatican would step in to put a stop to what was clearly becoming an intolerable nuisance.  Fr. Caillon stated publicly that "An order came from Rome, obliging everyone to say and think: the Consecration is done.  The pope, having done all that he can, Heaven has deigned to agree to this gesture."  (Make no mistake about it: this is a case of Vatican bureaucrats issuing a tacit command to Heaven itself to adopt the Party Line.)  This was confirmed publicly by Fr. Coelho as well, as reported in Devil's Final Battle.  And then, the New Letters started: letters addressed from Sr. Lucy but containing, consistently, a number of anomalies as described in The Consecration of Russia:

- They directly contradict Lucy's repeated, public statements from the past decade that neither of the consecrations to "the world" in 1982 and 1984 were valid consecrations of Russia as requested by Our Lady.

- They are typewritten.  While it may seem presumptuous to declare that Lucy did not type with the assumption that it's not possible she simply learned at some point, the fact is that books about her have collected or referenced hundreds of letters, none of which were typewritten before these very odd letters began to appear in 1989.

- The letters refer to a consecration of the world performed by Pope Paul VI on May 13, 1967, at Fatima - a consecration that never occurred.  Sr. Lucy was present at Fatima with the pope on that date, she had never before referred to this non-existent consecration, and she would never have made such an inexplicable error.

- The letters state that the consecrations of 1942, 1964, and 1982 were not valid because they did not include the world's bishops, yet at the same time insist that the 1984 consecration, which contained the same defect, was "accepted".

- The letters do not refer to Pius XII's consecration of 1952.  Why?  That consecration did mention Russia, though it was still not a consecration of the nation of Russia and only that nation.  Someone who wanted to assert that a consecration (that of 1984) that did not mention Russia at all was, in fact, a consecration of Russia, would not want the waters muddied by discussion of another consecration that was closer to the goal than that one.

- The letters take on an "ecumenical" tone that could not be farther from the pure Catholicism that Sr. Lucy always professed, in every respect.  For example: "This Consecration is a call for unity of all Christians - the Mystical Body of Christ... and on this union depends the faith in the world and the charity which is the bond that must unite all of us in Christ..."  That is completely different from the actual reason for the Consecration as delineated by Our Lady and always echoed by Sr. Lucy: that Russia was a nation of evil that would spread its errors throughout the world and be the instrument of chastisement chosen by God to punish an apostate world.

Another example is the statement that  "the most important thing about this consecration is the union of all God's people".  Rather than "nations being annihilated" and, of far more import even than that, souls being eternally lost - both of these things being consequences of failing to heed the Fatima message according to the Mother of God - the most important thing is some sort of man-centered secular humanism!  The author of one of the letters also exhorts her (or his) readers to have "faith in the world".  One must groan.

This is, as Salza & Sungenis note, modernist drivel.

- There are several consistent mistakes or oddities with regard to language, which suggest the author was not a native speaker of Portuguese and/or not familiar with Portuguese idioms in writing (many details in the referenced source).  They also contradict previous habits of Sr. Lucy's written correspondence, such as the intro "J. + M." instead of the "J.M.J." she used.

- The signature on some of the letters was judged a forgery by an accredited Canadian forensic scientist.

- The letters seem "canned" in the sense that they always follow a similar structure regardless of what the letter is sent in response to! 

- They sometimes seem to take an arrogant, dismissive tone that seems very much like Sr. Lucy, who was a model of holy humility her entire life.

- When asked a very specific question, such as whether or not any consecration was in complete conformity to Our Lady's request, the question is ignored

There are many, many specific details on all of these letters in The Consecration. 

One of these letters, to a Walter Noelker, was the one used by Secretary of State Bertone to "verify" that the 1984 consecration was, in fact, a valid Consecration of Russia as specified by Our Lady.  It is tragic beyond words that the Catholic faithful are deceived in such a manner, but one must keep in mind that the Vatican website is not the Magisterium.

There is much more regarding the deception worked against the true Fatima message in The Consecration, including the sad, scandalous machinations of the late Fr. Robert Fox.

Of course, a great many Catholics will have an extremely difficult time believing that any clergyman anywhere could do something as low, as vile, as to forge letters from a saintly nun for the purpose of covering up the failure or refusal of churchmen to acquiesce to a direct command from Heaven.  I can relate to those who will simply recoil from pondering such things, as this was once a difficulty for me.

There are two responses to this sentiment. 

The first is that to fail to understand that there could be churchmen who could do such things is to fail to understand the crisis of faith the Church is living through.  Is it worse to molest boys for decades, and/or to protect and cover for those who did, or to forge a letter?  The answer to this question will be left to the reader.  (And I doubt anyone personally familiar with one of these cases would call that a cheap shot.)

Regarding a possible forger, an interesting occurrence is described in The Consecration of Russia, which I will quote here: "In regards to discovering who wrote the forged letters, on October 12, 1992, at the end of the closing session of the First International Pastoral Conference in Fatima Brother Francois de Marie des Anges publicly confronted Father Luciano Guerra, the rector of the Fatima Sanctuary, asking him in front of witnesses to swear on the Bible that he did not write the alleged letters from Sister Lucia.  This was a most critical confrontation.  In Catholic theology, as both Brother Francois and Father Guerra well know, a Catholic may swear an oath on the Bible about grave matters, and should do so in order to defend the truth in a case of necessity (where those present could otherwise be scandalized and led into error and sin).  They also know that people who hold important ecclesiastical offices are morally obligated to not give the public a false impression... How did Father Guerra reply to Brother Francois' invitation to defend the truth?  He said: 'No, I do not want to.  I cannot do it now in these conditions... I will not discuss with you.'"

Brother Francois issued a similar public challenge to Father Kondor and Father Fox as well, both of whom gave no reply.

Any of these men could have, if they were innocent, cleared their name and removed all doubt about their position by accepting this challenge.


Understanding the Modern Vatican - Understanding the Failure

When Pope John Paul II was urged by Bishop Hnilica to make a proper consecration of Russia the immediate most important task of his pontificate, his reply was that "such a consecration would be considered by the Russians to be meddling into their internal affairs, and that it would have political consequences" (Fatima, Tragedy and Triumph).  Likewise, after his 1981 "entrustment" of "the human family", the pontiff reportedly told the same bishop that "there are still some theologians who doubt that we can make a consecration to anyone other than God Himself" (Ibid).

These statements are, frankly, shocking.  They reveal the following:

- The supreme pontiff really believes that the Mother of God asked for the consecration of Russia - else he would not even have considered performing it.

- Despite this, he is more concerned with human appearances and respect that with obeying the will of the Mother of God!

- In the same vein, he doubts that doing what She requested is even possible.

Cardinal Ratzinger once displayed a similar mindset, declaring that he was "too much of a rationalist" to believe that a rapid conversion of Russia would ensue directly following a consecration.  This despite the fact that that is exactly what the Mother of God said would occur, and the fact that we have direct examples of analogous events in history.

We have already seen the modernist, "ecumenical" nonsense in the letter from the New, Improved Sister Lucy.  Thus is the conflict between the Vatican's new orientation and that of traditional Catholicism - including the authentic Fatima message - made quite clear.

A Consecration of Russia following Our Lady's formula followed by the mass-conversion of Russia (which is certainly exactly what would occur, because that is exactly what has been promised) would be great testimony that the Catholic Church is indeed the one, true Church: the specific, visible, hierarchical Church founded by Christ, with Peter as its head.  The pope consecrating Russia in union with all the Catholic bishops of the world and only those bishops would be a tremendously un-ecumenical action.  There is absolutely no doubt that such an action, such a spirit, runs contrary to the Vatican II "new orientation" of the Church.

For a representative example of said orientation, we have this: Carinal Walter Kasper, president Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, has stated publicly numerous times that conversion to Catholicism is no longer a "goal" of ecumenism - even for non-Christians.  This is, of course, no less than a denial of the Great Commission of Our Lord Himself.  (But, those ensnared by the "diabolical disorientation" of modernism do not see things that way, of course.  Things are much more complex.)

But, unfortunately, "conversion" does mean to Catholicism.  Sr. Lucy did teach exactly this:  The renowned Fatima expert Fr. Joaquin Alonso wrote in 1976: "We should affirm that Lucia always thought that the 'conversion' of Russia is not to be limited to the return of the Russian People to the Orthodox Christian religions, rejecting the Marxist atheism of the Soviets, but rather, it refers purely, plainly and simply to the total, integral conversion of Russia to the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church."

Beyond general false ecumenism, there are yet further reasons why the Vatican bureaucracy - that is, the fiefdom of the Secretary of State (Casaroli, Sodano, Bertone - they were all of the same mind) - could not allow a consecration of the nation of Russia.  The notorious Metz Pact was an agreement signed between Pope John XXIII's Vatican and the Russian Orthodox (which included the KGB elements within) specifying that the Church would refrain from condemning atheistic Communism or Russia itself at its upcoming council.  In "return" - for such a "gift" is not something the Church would have ever thought to request at any other time, for any other ecumenical (which refers to the unity of Catholic bishops) coucil - the Orthodox would provide two "observer" prelates to this council.

At the time this agreement was signed, the Soviet Union was actively persecuting Catholics in large numbers.  The agreement stands in shameful contrast to Pope Pius XI's teachings on Communism: "This all too imminent danger... is Bolshevistic and atheistic Communism which aims at upsetting the social order and undermining the very foundations of Christian civilization.  In the face of such a threat the Catholic Church could not and does not remain silent.  This Apostolic See above all has not refrained from raising its voice for it knows that its proper and special mission is to defend truth, justice and all those eternal values which Communism ignores or attacks" (Divini Redemptoris).

The very day after the text of the vision of the Third Secret was released by the Vatican on June 26, 2000, Mikhail Gorbachev, committed atheist, Marxist, and pro-abortionist, was a guest at the Vatican, seated next to Cardinal Secretary of State Sodano.

The Pact of Metz has never been concluded or abrogated; it is still in effect.

People sometimes cannot even comprehend why elements inside of the Curia could possibly be opposed to a holy action such as honoring Our Lady of Fatima's request to consecrate Russia, and that is one reason they are unable to accept that it was not actually done.  But to examine the history and the facts in detail is to see quite clearly that there are forces and motivations here of another sort.


The Effects of a Consecration to Mary

In one wishes to know what a miraculous conversion wrought by the Mother of God looks like, the best example is that of the 16th century Aztec Indians.  Within a few years of Her miraculous appearance at Guadalupe, including Her simple commands being performed, some nine million natives - out of population of ten million - had converted to the Catholic faith!

Here is one first-hand account of the events:

"It is true that immediately after the conquest (of Cortes), some apostolic men, some zealous missionaries, mild, gentle conquerors who were disposed to shed no blood but their own, ardently devoted themselves to the conversion of the Indians. However, these valiant men, because of their fewness, because of the difficulty of learning various languages, and of the vast extent of our territory, obtained, in spite of their heroic efforts, but few and limited results.

But scarcely had the Most Holy Virgin of Guadalupe appeared and taken possession of this her inheritance, when the Catholic Faith spread with the rapidity of light from the rising sun, through the wide extent and beyond the bounds of the ancient empire of Mexico. Innumerable multitudes from every tribe, every district, every race, in this immense country... who were grossly superstitious, who were ruled by the instincts of cruelty, oppressed by every form of violence, and utterly degraded, returned upon themselves at the credible announcement of the admirably portentous apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe, recognized their natural dignity, forgot their misfortunes, put off their instinctive ferocity, and, unable to resist such sweet and tender invitations, came in crowds to cast their grateful hearts at the feet of so loving a Mother, and to mingle their tears of emotion with the regeneration of the waters of Baptism."

When one considers just how deeply sunk into the most demonic paganism were these people - engaging in mass human sacrifice, even of children - this is even more remarkable. 

We have another example from the last century - not as stunning, but still a clear example of Heavenly favor.  On 5/13/1931, the bishops of Portugal consecrated that nation to Immaculate Heart of Mary.  What began immediately could only be terms a transformation:  A good Catholic leader, Salazar, was elected the next year defeating the entrenched masonic powers there (such as the masonic major that had threatened the Fatima seers with torture and death), divorce was outlawed, and vocations increased by a staggering 400% over the next decade. 

The country was spared any serious effects of the Spanish Civil War and Communist infiltration there, and those of mention World War II.  Lest anyone doubt the cause of these effects, the seer herself, Sr. Lucy, wrote to her bishop that "Portugal will be spared [from WW II] because of the national consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary made by the bishops" (The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol II).

This caused the nation's Catholic bishops to declare that "anybody who would have closed his eyes 25 years ago and opened them now would no longer recognize Portugal, so vast is the transformation worked by the modest and invisible factor of the apparition of the Blessed Virgin at Fatima".

We will not examine the state of Russia now nearly 30 years after the alleged valid consecration of 1984.

First, there is the moral decay.  Russia is known as the child-pornagraphy capital of the world.  Hard-core pornography is shown on Russian television.  The average Russian woman has as many as nine abortions in her lifetime!  Many sources are available to verify these things.

Next, religion: Have the people of Russia experienced mass-conversion to the Catholic faith?  The question is laughable - it seems there are fewer Catholics in modern-day Russia than there were at the Czar's death!

The Catholic Church, as a matter of fact, is persecuted by the state as an unwelcome adversary to the entrenched Orthodox church.  Priests are granted three-month visas and sometimes expelled from the country with no cause.  This prevents any serious evangelization - which actually is outlawed anyway.  Catholicism is not even the second-largest Russian religion today: that honor goes to Islam.

Ironically, the fact that there is essentially no Catholic presence in Russia at all is not a problem for the neo-Catholic mindset accepting that 1984 consecration as valid: this 'ecumenical' mindset!  One will find again and again neo-Catholic apologists asserting that a return to the Orthodox church is the promised conversion of Russia.  Such are the times we live in.  Of course, Sr. Lucy dealt with this question specifically and called that thesis pure bunk.

There is much more in False Friends of Fatima regarding the preposterous assertion that Russia, in fact, was consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and is now three decades into the supernatural conversion of that nation that She promised.

Is Russia no longer a threat to the United States?  Is the notion that she could some day be the instrument of a material chastisement (that is, war) unrealistic?  Such is a very naive few.  It is somewhat odd that Americans no longer think much of the tens of thousands of Russian nuclear warheads trained on the United States, but they still exist.  Rotting old hulks?  Hardly:

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/...issiles-0/

The nation that has the creep audacity to name one of its instruments of mass destruction "satan" is continually developing new ICBM.  Each of these missiles, containing many warheads, has the ability to kill tens of millions of people.

Furthermore, Russia and Communist China have entered into a military pact.  The combined military prowess and increasing animosity towards the United States contained there ought to make any thinking person take notice.


The Relationship to the Third Secret

The Consecration of Russia and the Third Secret of Fatima are two sides of the same coin; they are naturally intertwined.  And the truth regarding both has been suppressed.

But there is a specific relationship of the Third Secret to the suppression of the failure to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  To make it clear, let's look at some of the comments made about the Secret by those who have either read it or conversed with those who have read it through the decades (emphasis mine in all cases):

- Cardinal Luigi Ciappi was papal theologian to several popes and had read the Third Secret.  He was quoted as stating the following: "In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top."

- Cardinal Silvio Oddi, a confidant of Pope John XXIII, stated, in regards to the Third Secret, that "The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against the apostasy in the Church".  Oddi also stated in an 1990 interview with the Italian magazine Il Sabato, the following:

"I would not be surprised if the Secret had something to do with the convocation of Vatican II.  I would not be surprised if the Third Secret alluded to dark times for the Church; grave confusions and troubling apostasies within Catholicism itself... If we consider the grave crisis we have lived through since the Council, the signs that this prophecy has been fulfilled do not seem to be lacking."

- Cardinal Albino Luciani, the future Pope John Paul I, said the following to his spiritual advisor after a trip to Fatima that included a long meeting with Sr. Lucy: "It is something that has troubled me this whole year.  It has robbed me of my spiritual peace and tranquility.  Ever since that pilgrimage, I have never forgotten Fatima.  What Sister Lucy told me has become a weight on my heart.  I sought to convince myself that it was all an illusion."  (Does this sound like a man who had just been told that a future Pope would be assassinated by multiple gunmen (or, er, shot by a single gunman and recover completely)?  Or something perhaps quite a bit more serious?)

- The Secret concerns a 'divine warning' about 'suicidal' alterations in the liturgy and theology of the Church (the future Pope Pius XII, 1931).

- A prediction that after 1960, 'the devil will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithfulabandoned by their leaders' by causing 'religious and priests to fall away from their beautiful vocation... dragging numerous souls to Hell' and that 'nations will disappear from the face of the earth' (Sr. Lucia to Fr. Fuentes in 1957).

- Contents 'so delicate' that they cannot be allowed 'for whatever reason, even fortuitous, to fall into alien hands' (Cardinal Ottaviani, 1967).

- A text 'diplomatically' withheld because of the 'seriousness of its contents' and which predicts, after 1980, 'great trials' and 'tribulation' for the Church which 'it is no longer possible to avert' and the destruction of 'whole areas of the earth' so that 'from one moment to the next millions of people will perish' (John Paul II at Fulda, 1980).

- A 'religious prophecy' of 'dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian and therefore of the world' (Cardinal Ratzinger, 1984).

- A predication of apostasy in the Church that 'begins at the top' (Cardinal Ciappi, 1995).

- A warning of a material chastisement of the world which accompanies the great apostasy in the Church, like that predicted in the Church-approved apparition of Our Lady of Akita in 1973, whose message is 'essentially the same' as the message of Our Lady of Fatima (Ratzinger to Howard Dee, Phillipine ambassodor to the Vatican, 1998).

- A warning to avoid the 'tail of the dragon' referred to in Revelation (12:3-4), which sweeps one-third of 'the stars' from Heaven (Pope John Paul II, May 2000, sermon at Fatima when he beatified Jacinta and Francisco).  (Many believe the Pontiff was here revealing the Secret in a subtle manner here.)

- Concerns an event in which "the oceans will flood whole areas of the Earth, and that from one moment to the next millions of people will perish" (Pope John Paul II, Fulda, Germany, 1980, as published in Stimme des Glaubens).

These quotes demonstrate the numerous ways in which the 'interpretation' offered by Cardinal Sodano in 2000 differs substantially (actually radically) from the image painted about the Secret by every other knowledgeable party who's commented on it.

Note this well, those who accuse anyone who seeks the truth regarding the Third Secret: In 2010, Pope Benedict XVI himself stated that those who believe the fulfillment of the Third Secret to be in the past "deceive themselves" - that is about as direct a contradiction of the "official" year 2000 commentary as good be imagined, for the one overriding theme of that entire commentary was that the fulfillment of the Secret was indeed entirely in the past.

Because of this, I am not going to spend any time here shooting the barrel full of fish that is Cardinal Sodano's 2000 "commentary" on the Third Secret.  The supreme pontiff has categorized those who produced it as deceivers.

[The quote from John Paul I is very interesting and not often encountered.  According to several sources (see The Consecration of Russia), Pope John Paul I quickly encountered some of "the smoke of satan" Paul VI had spoken of, including information that over one hundred members of the Curia were masons, mass laicizing of priests by Paul VI (over ten per week - why?), and large-scale Vatican financial corruption.  Of course, he did not live long enough to do anything about these things: he did order the resignation or transfer of many documented masons but his orders were not carried out.  John Paul I's death was followed six months later by the murder of Italian journalist Carmine Pecorelli, the man who had published of high-level Freemasons in the Vatican.  This list included Villot (current Vatican Secretary of State), Bugnini (creator of the Novus Ordo liturgy, whom Pope Paul VI had already banished to Iran after learning of his masonic membership), and Casaroli. 

Though I refrain here from declaring that John Paul I was, in fact, murdered as well, investigative journalist David Yallop reached that sure conclusion after three years of research into the matter.  However, since Yallop is not a faithful Catholic, dissenting from Church teaching on [at least] the issue of contraception, I do believe some reservation is in order.  I have not read his book.]

We come (finally) to the point: according to the large amount of testimony we have, it is extremely likely that part of the Third Secret - the part hidden in that well-documented second envelope, the part that follows the "etc." of the Second Secret, the part that gives "the words of the Virgin" referred to by Vatican officials - predicts some kind of 'apostasy' in the Church - in the upper hierarchy itself.

Any objective, thinking person, when taking into account the vast evidence (see especially The Secret Still Hidden), must acknowledge that there is another part to the Third Secret, and must further acknowledge that it is all but certain that it is somehow, directly or indirectly, an indictment of the Council and of the modern Church.  And if this is true - and we really have no doubt that it is - than it is easy to understand why this same upper hierarchy has made the Consecration of Russia difficult and suppressed the resulting failure.


Cardinal Sodano's Credibility on Fatima

One can explore the credibility of a source without falling into the ad hominem fallacy - credibility is relevant if facts or the framework of a narrative are largely the work of a single individual or a small number of people.  Thus, I believe the behavior of Cardinal Sodano with respect to protecting, for years, the pedophile/pederast Fr. Marcial Maciel despite the strongest evidence from nearly two-dozen witnesses against him should be taken into account.

Briefly, Wikipedia notes "Jason Berry writes that Sodano, as John Paul II's secretary of state, 'pressured Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict, in two notorious cases,' the Hans Hermann Groër case and the Marcial Maciel case, to stop investigations into abuse.'"

The Washington Post had this to say not long ago:

"It was also Sodano who so energetically protected Father Marcial Maciel, the late, prolifically abusive founder of the Legionnaires of Christ, long after he’d been credibly accused. There may have even been a quid pro quo involved, since as Berry - who all Catholics who want a cleaner church owe a a big grazie - has also reported in NCR, Sodano took at least $15,000 in cash gifts from the Legionnaires, as personally arranged by Maciel.

Even when Benedict finally moved to ban Maciel from public ministry in 2006, Sodano managed to soften the wording of the announcement, and allowed his followers to spin his “acceptance” of a life of penance as selfless and Christ-like. Within weeks of Maciel’s departure, Sodano himself was replaced — but by another cardinal who’d strongly supported Marcial Maciel."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-...ut-reform/

If one can stomach the reading, there is much more detail here:

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability...ce-vatican

(One doesn't need to respect NCR as a source in general here, since, to my knowledge, none of the facts are in dispute.  As reporter in the article, Sodano has long declined to comment.)

...

I want to reiterate that I am aware that, at first blush, it is very difficult for faithful, orthodox Catholics (not previously educated in the facts of the conciliar crisis) to accept that Vatican prelates could engage in a suppression of the message of Fatima.

Beyond being difficult to accept, contemplating this cover-up is also simply frightening.  As Salza & Sungenis note, "It is horrifying.  One of the more horrifying aspects to contemplate is what kind of ecclesiastical-political machinery it would take to orchestrate a cover-up the size needed for Fatima."  Indeed.

However difficult to accept or horrifying it may be, however, it is true.  It is a certainty that Russia has never been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and an equal certainty that there exists a part of the Third Secret never revealed.

It is damning enough (no pun intended) that even by the Vatican's reckoning it took 55 years to fulfill Our Lady's command to consecrate Russia - 1929 to 1984.  That is a startling fact in itself.

There are those critics that will focus on minutia of engaging in skepticism of this or that source for a quote.  This is not at all a viable strategy because there are so many different quotes from Sr. Lucy or those who knew or interviewed her making it clear that no valid consecration of Russia has been performed.  If even one of these quotes is legitimate it is a certainty, for those with faith, that the consecration was never performed, because Sr. Lucy is the seer that spoke to the Mother of God - and that by an infallible declaration of the Church.

- those who believe seduced by Orwellian doublespeak, too naive to see pro liars, unable to comprehend a Church with bad apples, etc.  blind leading blind!  There those innocently deceived and those who "allow themselves to be deceived".

The root error of the neo-Catholic position is the failure to grasp that these are not normative times - that is, to understand the nature and scope of the criss of the faith that exists.  It is very true that for the vast majority of the Church's history, the upper hierarchy could be implicitly trusted.  But that is not the case today.  Either one sees the crisis or one does not. 

(The very existence of the power of the Vatican Secretary of State is itself a novelty.  The position still carries absolutely no real power over the faithful, however - no protection from error from the Holy Spirit, and no juridical power either apart from the Pope.)

We see today faithful deceived by a kind of Orwellian doublespeak from Vatican authorities.  That in & of itself is the spiritual chastisement we are living in - a chastisement that was foretold.

Though many people are deceived by no fault of their own, it seems there are plenty others who are not willing to consider any position that will put them out of the "mainstream".  They care more for the approval of man than the approval of God: they care more for temporal concerns than for truth, no matter where it leads.

EDIT: Typos.
I guess none of the formatting was preserved when I pasted my text into the editor.  You can also read it here:

http://www.acatholicthinker.net/the-cons...of-russia/
(12-02-2013, 12:22 AM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]I guess none of the formatting was preserved when I pasted my text into the editor.  You can also read it here:

http://www.acatholicthinker.net/the-cons...of-russia/

Thank you for this post.
(12-02-2013, 12:20 AM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]If the apparitions at Fatima are "private revelation",...

I'm about as big a "Fatimista' and 'Grunerite' as you'll find on this forum or in real life, but I assume and sincerely hope that you are simply confused as to the difference between 'public' and 'private' revelation. It is a matter of Dogma that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Anything since then is, by definition, private revelation. The Church, may indeed, say that a private revelation is worthy of belief, but that does not change the fact that it is private revelation no matter how publicly it was revealed.

As I wrote a few months ago:

(08-17-2013, 04:00 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]The Church is quite clear that public revelation ended with the closing of the Canon of Scripture and that anything after is private, whether it is worthy of belief or not.

From the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation:

Dei verbum, Para. 4 Wrote:The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13).

While I've heard several of the Documents of V II attacked (and I join in some of those attacks, as you know) I've never seen DV attacked. It is quite orthodox in its teaching on the sources of Revelation.

Further, the Catechism says:

CCC Wrote:67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Again, I've read several works questioning the Catechism, but never attacking its teaching on Revelation.
(12-02-2013, 12:22 AM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]I guess none of the formatting was preserved when I pasted my text into the editor.  You can also read it here:

http://www.acatholicthinker.net/the-cons...of-russia/


Thank you for this.
Condemned: "Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles." (Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, 21: Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3421)

C.
It may be private revelation but I would think, if we do personally accept the legitimacy of that private revelation, we would take it seriously as the OP is recommending we do.

To do otherwise would be like saying "I'm personally pro-Fatima, but..."
I... really don't care about Fatima.  :((
It's not adding to Revelation as Jovan has pointed out But it is "public" in the other sense of the word, meaning for all to hear. Both of the envelopes, the one with the explanation and the other with the vision, had written on each to be revealed in 1960 by Our Lady's request. The real deal here is Our Lady is Queen of Heaven and Earth, which means the Pope is farther down the corporate structure, and Pope John XXIII disobeyed by not releasing both envelops then.

tim
When it comes to Fatima, unlike most traditional-leaning Catholics I know, I really don't care all that much. Much of that has to do with it being private revelation. I think that the Consecration and all that stuff has already happened, but I don't worry all that much about it. I see many people who act like it's not only public revelation but they react like it's part of the Bible itself or something. Kind of drives me nuts to be perfectly honest. I look at many of the apparitions with a mindset reminiscent of the East, which looks at any apparition extremely skeptically.

Also, I study medieval and Byzantine history for my degree. Marian apparition approval was extraordinarily rare (Barely a handful being publicly acknowledged and recognized) until relatively recently too, I saw one graph that talked about the number of supposed Marian apparitions in the Middle Ages, there were hundreds, but how many of those do we know of today? They couldn't have been all that important in the grand scheme of things. The only one that is commonly remembered is what gave St. Dominic the rosary to begin with, but  In medieval times, the most popular pilgrimage places were in the Holy Land or Rome, followed by the saints of the local regions. These days, more people go to the shrine at Guadeloupe on pilgrimage than they go to the Holy Land (granted, the Holy Land isn't exactly a source of stability today, but then again, it wasn't all that stable back in medieval times either). Wouldn't you rather go to where Mary actually lived and walked and interacted instead of where an apparition supposedly appeared?

I get the vibe that many people these days want more of some sort of emotional experience. Might explain the popularity of Medjugorje, something that I will not touch with a 100 foot pole by the way. The fact of the matter is that Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadeloupe are all private revelation and no Catholic is REQUIRED to believe in them nor anything of them. This is not my declaration that I don't, but rather my insistence on why I am wary and think people have blown things, especially in terms of Fatima, out of proportion.

Also, when it comes to Fatima being "public" in the sense for all to hear, one could make that SAME argument about Medjugorje or a whole large number of unapproved and/or dangerous supposed Marian apparitions. That doesn't change the fact that it is ultimately private revelation and our faith is not dependent on it. If it has gotten to the point where your faith is dependent on Fatima, you should probably re-evaluate what you are doing.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7