Pope Pius XII and the Consecration of Russia
#1
Another Inadequate Consecration

In mid-1952, with the Korean War raging, Pope Pius XII performed another consecration. In this case, he specifically mentioned Russia, but did not ask any of the world’s Catholic bishops to join him in the ceremony. Without their participation, the consecration still failed to satisfy Our Lady’s request.


Does anybody know why Our Lady didn't accept this consecration? How must the Pope do it then? Ask every bishop in his own Cathedral to do it at the same time?

Reply
#2
(05-23-2017, 06:54 PM)salus Wrote: Another Inadequate Consecration

In mid-1952, with the Korean War raging, Pope Pius XII performed another consecration. In this case, he specifically mentioned Russia, but did not ask any of the world’s Catholic bishops to join him in the ceremony. Without their participation, the consecration still failed to satisfy Our Lady’s request.


Does anybody know why Our Lady didn't accept this consecration? How must the Pope do it then? Ask every bishop in his own Cathedral to do it at the same time?

On the mandate of the pope, every bishop would perform the consecration at the assigned time, with a penalty of excommunication 'Latae sententiae' for all who willfully choose to ignore the order or who do not follow the order to the sentence. 

Could such an order be upheld by  the code of canon law?
Reply
#3
I find it interesting how these consecrations, even if they actually were defective, resulted in great events nevertheless: the death of Stalin and the collapse of the USSR.
Reply
#4
(05-23-2017, 11:29 PM)Estevao Wrote: I find it interesting how these consecrations, even if they actually were defective, resulted in great events nevertheless: the death of Stalin and the collapse of the USSR.

As the devils advocate... Stalin died in 53 at the age of 74.  The average lifespan for an American male in 1953 was 66.  Its somewhat of a tough case to make that the consecration 'resulted in' Stalins death. That is something that only heaven knows.  As far as  the 'fall of communism',  I beleive its far more elusive and subversive than that.  The masons are the money men, they make things happen and are the upper echelon of backroom power.  They knew the communist model could not economically sustain itself as globalization and international trade changed the way business is done and made the world a lot smaller.  It wasn't supposed to - Ronald Reagan brought down the Iron Curtain by spending the Soviets out of the game, at which point the inevitable occurred and the errors of communism permeated throughout the wests core institutions. Nature abhors a vacuum; Everything went as it was supposed to - that is the mystery of iniquity... Europe is lost, the church is in eclipse, the spread between rich and poor is exponentially greater, Islam has free reign to grow and flourish in large part through liberal enablers, abortion, the new age movement, global terrorism.. etc etc etc.  When we step back and look carefully... if I am the devils advocate, I see no fruits of consecration. And why would there be? Even Christs vicar on earth had no confidence in our blessed mothers message from heaven.  That's why we must pray for the holy father - only the pope can fix this mess ( I'm just not sure it's this pope that will do it). 
Reply
#5
(05-24-2017, 12:59 AM)The Tax Collector Wrote:
(05-23-2017, 11:29 PM)Estevao Wrote: I find it interesting how these consecrations, even if they actually were defective, resulted in great events nevertheless: the death of Stalin and the collapse of the USSR.

As the devils advocate... Stalin died in 53 at the age of 74.  The average lifespan for an American male in 1953 was 66.  Its somewhat of a tough case to make that the consecration 'resulted in' Stalins death. That is something that only heaven knows.  As far as  the 'fall of communism',  I beleive its far more elusive and subversive than that.  The masons are the money men, they make things happen and are the upper echelon of backroom power.  They knew the communist model could not economically sustain itself as globalization and international trade changed the way business is done and made the world a lot smaller.  It wasn't supposed to - Ronald Reagan brought down the Iron Curtain by spending the Soviets out of the game, at which point the inevitable occurred and the errors of communism permeated throughout the wests core institutions. Nature abhors a vacuum; Everything went as it was supposed to - that is the mystery of iniquity... Europe is lost, the church is in eclipse, the spread between rich and poor is exponentially greater, Islam has free reign to grow and flourish in large part through liberal enablers, abortion, the new age movement, global terrorism.. etc etc etc.  When we step back and look carefully... if I am the devils advocate, I see no fruits of consecration. And why would there be? Even Christs vicar on earth had no confidence in our blessed mothers message from heaven.  That's why we must pray for the holy father - only the pope can fix this mess ( I'm just not sure it's this pope that will do it).


I find it hard not to notice fruits of the consecrations, even if they were not perfectly carried out. Perhaps that is why you only have partial fruits and not a "period of peace" and the conversion of Russia, merely partial peace and a large liberation of the Orthodox Church from Soviet era repression. Perhaps I should have also mentioned destalinzation as a fruit of the 1st (partial) consecration. You have millions of people being freed from the Gulag, the end of forced confessions, show trials, torture chambers and the rest, and the first stirring of liberation from the communist yoke.

Historians can make up post hoc explanations for what caused what, but these are not usually predictive. Like with the collapse of the Soviet Union, virtually nobody saw it coming, not even the experts that filled the numerous Soviet studies departments of western universities. So I ask why is a post-hoc economic or political explanation legitimate, but not a theological explanation? One can dispute a political explanation on why the Stalin clone Beria lost and the less tyrannical Khrushchev won to enact destalinzation, just as one can dispute a theological explanation concerning our Lady of Fatima for why the Soviet Union fell after the consecration.

As for another fruit of the second consecration, I will quote this recent article by Bishop Barron:

Quote:In our own time, no one played the Augustinian role of theological interpreter of history more effectively than St. John Paul II. Having personally experienced the tyranny of two of the worst and most abusive dictatorships in human history, Karol Wojtyla could nevertheless, upon assuming the papal office, tell the world “to be not afraid.” If we were reading things through purely economic or political lenses, such a recommendation would appear foolish at best, delusional at worst. But because John Paul read things theologically, he knew that mercy and love finally triumph, and he understood that any proposal for human flourishing that did not include God would necessarily fall victim to its own internal contradictions. This latter conviction sustained his non-violent but massively effective assault upon Communism from 1979 to 1989.

And his theological reading of history enabled him to grasp that Our Lady of Fatima’s summons to pray for the conversion of Russia was far from a pious fantasy, that in point of fact, it provides the interpretive key for understanding perhaps the pivotal event in the history of the late twentieth century.

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/art...tory/5475/

Given the history of that time, 79 to 89, I also find your assertion, if you are referring to Pope St. John Paul II, that "Even Christs vicar on earth had no confidence in our blessed mothers message from heaven" ridiculous. Even if it was not a perfect consecration, he was devoted to Our Lady of Fatima.

Then again I am not a cat guy! (I'm allergic) so it could be the reason why I don't see it like you say. :D



Reply
#6
Estevao,

A few things, your arguments are invalid..

1.  Its sounds like your holding up the election of Khrushchev as a fruit of consecration.  Khrushchev' s anti religious fervor and his campaign against the church is well documented.  I don't need to add anything.

2.  I am not sure what sources you are referencing, there is no economic think tank I can ever recall as having held ANY OTHER OPINION other than that communism would collapse under its own weight!  Especially under globalization - US policy under  Ronald Reagan was to SPEED UP this inevitable collapse.

3. I am not disputing Pope JPIi 's Marian devotion. But His holiness was first and foremost known as the geopolitical
Pope.  Positive motivations identified by Bishop Barron Concerning the holy fathers messages at the time are not a defense -Actions are.  If Pope JPll has confidence that our lady's immaculate heart would triumph, why did he not read the message until the waning days of his pontificate, nor did he perform the consecration as identified by the blessed virgin? It's like Benedict's fleeing for fear of the wolves...

My opinion only, I hear often about the collapse of The Soviet Union as a fruit of consecration - just like Bishop Barron's blather and all of the other post conciliar church blather by faithless churchmen  I am challenged to see how people point to this proof when ALL of the attributes tied to the collapse of communism have been to the detriment of the catholic faith.  My vision of the truiph of the immaculate heart has far greater splendor for the catholic church and the faithful.

4. Get a cat, its indifference to you keeps a person humble.
Reply
#7
(05-24-2017, 06:54 AM)The Tax Collector Wrote: 4. Get a cat, its indifference to you keeps a person humble.
:LOL:
Reply
#8
I guess one could say that a dog's humility either makes you arrogant or makes you humble if you take it for a positive influence!
Reply
#9
(05-24-2017, 07:54 AM)GangGreen Wrote: I guess one could say that a dog's humility either makes you arrogant or makes you humble if you take it for a positive influence!

Everything is about perspective GangGreen
Reply
#10
if there are benefits to consecrations in general, why doesn't the church do it on a more frequent basis? Say, yearly.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)