Rosary; Scapular; Consecration of Russia to Immaculate Heart.

[nordskoven]

The “only” means to a period of peace given at Fatima by Our Lady of the Rosary was the collegial consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart; and her promised conversion of Russia. Today, that means five million Muslims embracing Jesus of Nazareth as God incarnate. Our Lady urged us to “repent” and to pray the daily Rosary for peace; and wear her Scapular of Mt. Carmel, the site of the miraculous OT ignition of the sacrifice to God vs. Baal, and the last monastic refuge of Christendom before the Muslim takeover of the Middle East. Russia, having instigated World War II by signing a non-aggression pact with rabidly bellicose Germany and Japan, is still spreading her errors leading to the “annihilation” of nations. The errors of Russia don’t just include the genocidal slaughter of atheistic communism. Russia’s errors include selling nuclear materials to Iran in May 2004.

Rather than quibble over the consecration being done as requested, note that there have been multiple attempts, so there is no impediment to further consecrations of Russia. Pray for devotion to the Immaculate Heart to clarify the actions of all. Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words,Sister Lucia’s memoir, states that the consecration is to be by Peter in union with all bishops in their respective cathedrals; at one solemn, public occasion; for the conversion of Russia. I know of no such simultaneous consecration in the world’s cathedrals so another consecration is in order as this is the “only” way to attain a time of peace. Here is one time line of the disputed “consecrations.” Please, dear souls, let’s not quibble. Many attempts have been made, including Pius XII’s lone consecration absent the bishops. Let’s pray for this to be done as requested.

*The evidence shows that on three separate occasions in the 1980’s, Sister Lucia indicated, in no uncertain terms, that the consecration of Russia had not yet been performed. First, on March 19, 1983, she stated to the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Sante Portalupi: “The consecration of Russia has not been made as Our Lady has determined.” At this meeting, she then set forth the requirements to accomplish the consecration of Russia: (1) Russia must be clearly indicated as the object of the consecration; (2) each bishop must make a public and solemn ceremony in his own church simultaneous with the Pope. These requirements are clearly listed in the text of the Second Secret.
*

*Second, in an interview which appeared in Sol de Fatima (September 1985), Sister Lucia was asked if the Pope fulfilled the request made by Our Lady at Tuy, Spain, when he consecrated the world on March 25, 1984. Sister Lucia answered: “There was no participation of all the bishops, and there was no mention of Russia.” The interviewer then asked, “So the consecration was not done as requested by Our Lady?” Sister Lucia answered: “No. Many bishops attached no importance to this act.” [This coincides with the previous statement cited from John Paul II that he did not consecrate Russia though he “tried to do everything possible in the concrete circumstances”]. On March 22, 1984, Sister Lucia was celebrating her seventy-seventh birthday at the Carmel of Coimbra. Her long-time friend, Eugenia Pestana, visited her, as was her annual custom. Eugenia asked her: “Lucia, Sunday is the Consecration?” referring to the March 25 date. Having already read the text of the Pope’s speech, Sister Lucia answered: “That consecration cannot have a decisive character because Russia does not appear in it as the sole object of consecration.” During this time, Cardinal Gagnon, in an interview with Fr. Caillon, states that the consecration of Russia has not been accomplished. In 1986, Maria do Fetal, cousin to Sister Lucia, publicly quotes Sister Lucia as saying that the consecration of Russia has not been performed.
*

*Third, after interviewing Sister Lucia outside her convent, Enrico Romero publishes the contents on July 20, 1987. He reports that Sister Lucia again stated that the consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady of Fatima had not been accomplished. This is followed on October 25, 1987 with an acknowledgment by Cardinal Mayer, in front of an audience of a dozen Catholic leaders, that the consecration of Russia had not been accomplished. Fourth, prior to July 1989, Cardinal Law of Boston is reported to have visited Sister Lucia to ask her about the consecration of Russia. Sister Lucia remarked: “Has it been done on the narrow road of collegial consecration that Our Lady demanded and has been wanting? No, that has not been done.” *

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Sr Lucia later stated that the last consecration done by Pope John Paul II was “accepted by Heaven”.

Also this is a private revelation and not part of the Deposit of Faith.

This is another topic that seems to keep rearing its head here.

Try using the search function and see what has been said in the past.

 

[nordskoven]

Why not repeat the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart? I want to go. It’s been done in various [flawed] forms numerous times. Why not one or two or three more? Why not annually? Sure, it’s a private revelation. Non-binding…I bring the topic up because my enlightened self-interest tells me that if the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart–and her promised conversion–is the “ONLY” means to a period of peace, I want that.

Rearing…Rampant donkey here. Raising my head and braying a warning like Baalam’s donkey. Why not repeat the consecration? Because if this private revelation is good enough for the saintly Pius XII, it’s good enough for me. How many more millions have to die? Don’t forget the 3.5 million Catholic Ukranians who, under Stalin, and only a few short years after the Virgin Mary’s timely 1929 request for the consecration, were starved off in the first wave of the Russian holocaust. “How long, O Lord?”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The “only” means to a period of peace given at Fatima by Our Lady of the Rosary was the collegial consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart; and her promised conversion of Russia. Today, that means five million Muslims embracing Jesus of Nazareth as God incarnate.

This happened on March 25, 1984, when Pope John Paul II consecrated Russia in a public ceremony. Then the communist regime fell a few years later. It’s all history now.

 

[Hesychios]

I think people who persistently raise this issue of the consecration are the unwitting agents of schism. They are sowing doubts and confusion among the faithful, they are inspiring friction and conflict between Christians. They are undermining the reputation and legitimate authority of the church, which alone is always the judge over such matters.

They are collectively listening to the dark voice of the Trickster, and doing it’s bidding.

Michael

 

[JaMc]

This happened on March 25, 1984, when Pope John Paul II consecrated Russia in a public ceremony. Then the communist regime fell a few years later. It’s all history now.

True, but JPII had to stick “the whole world” in there as well, when Our Lady specifically said Russia. Is consecrating the whole world a good thing? Of course. But by deviating from/modifying Her instructions, it cast a cloud of suspicion on the whole thing, especially among those who aren’t particularly enamored of the post Vatican II Popes in the first place.

Does the failure to consecrate only and specifically Russia perhaps have something to do with relations with the Orthodox?

 

[JReducation]

If we read the book Light of the World The topic of Fatima comes up and the Holy Father states *“This statement was not intended --I may be too rationalistic for that–to express any expectation on my part that there is going to be any huge turnarond and that history will suddenly take a different course.The point was rather that the power of evil is restrained again and again, that again and again the power of God is shown in the Mother’s power and keeps it alive. The triumphs of God, the triumphs of Mary are quiet, but they are real nonetheless.” *

The way that the Holy Father epxlains the expectation or the outcome of this consecration is not the same as how many posters are saying it here.

He makes a distinction between two things. He said that on the one hand you have the particular event (the apparition) “in form of typical visionary experience” and then there is “the fundamental significance of the event.” It is to the second that the Church pays much closer attention. He refers to this as the necessary transformation of the heart through faith, hope, love and penance.

Then he goes on to add that there is nothing new here. Nor is the message a thing of the past either, because the world, not just Russia, has to embrace faith, hope, love and penance. He says that this is the indication, as he calls it, that Mary gives us through Fatima.

As we can see in his own words, which he stated, then edited himself, the Church is seeing the Fatima event in its ecclesial and universal meaning. There is more to it than following a specific prescription for a consecration. Though he does not deny the request of Our Lady, he is comfortable with what the Chuch has done and now places the burden on us to respond with this embrace of faith, hope, love and penance to make the triumph of the Immaculate Heart a reality. In other words, it’s not going to happen through a ritual alone. There has to be a concerted effort toward conversion. He supports his position by referencing the apparition of Our Lady in Mexico.

I think that we need to get more in line with the Holy Father’s thinking and work toward our own conversion and focus less on some extraordinary event that will suddenly change the course of history, which he believes is not going to happen that way.

He goes on to explain why the third secret was not revealed until the year 2000. Because the Church did not wantt to call attention to one event, but to the call to conversion, which is the universal vocation to holiness.

In many respects, we may be narrowing this down too much, when in fact Heaven has a larger picture in mind, the conversion of the whole world through faith, hope, love and penance. This is very powerful and worthy of reflection. I, for one, agree with his opinion, that history is not going to take a sudden turn. But Jesus will triumph quietly, but steadily.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[numealinesimpet]

True, but JPII had to stick “the whole world” in there as well, when Our Lady specifically said Russia. Is consecrating the whole world a good thing? Of course. But by deviating from/modifying Her instructions, it cast a cloud of suspicion on the whole thing, especially among those who aren’t particularly enamored of the post Vatican II Popes in the first place.

Actually, he did not say the word “Russia”.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I think people who persistently raise this issue of the consecration are the unwitting agents of schism. They are sowing doubts and confusion among the faithful, they are inspiring friction and conflict between Christians. They are undermining the reputation and legitimate authority of the church, which alone is always the judge over such matters.

They are collectively listening to the dark voice of the Trickster, and doing its bidding.

Michael

I would have to disagree here. Our Lady appeared with a very direct and specific message, gave very simple and direct instructions, and gave a very precise set of predictions about what would happen if her requests were not acted upon. The entire thing was backed up by a stupendous miracle predicted to the minute months beforehand, witnessed by 50,000 to 100,000 people.
Would it not appear that Heaven is trying to tell us something important?
There have been very serious omissions in the following of Our Lady’s words. Her warnings about the consequences of such neglect have in fact come to pass. The statements of some of the highest Vatican officials on the matter are self-contradictory. Since they made these comments in the public forum, and are readily available, it is not mischief-making but a public service to point these things out before we see one of the so-far unfulfilled prophecies: “various nations will be annihilated”.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I would have to disagree here. Our Lady appeared with a very direct and specific message, gave very simple and direct instructions, and gave a very precise set of predictions about what would happen if her requests were not acted upon. The entire thing was backed up by a stupendous miracle predicted to the minute months beforehand, witnessed by 50,000 to 100,000 people.
Would it not appear that Heaven is trying to tell us something important?
There have been very serious omissions in the following of Our Lady’s words. Her warnings about the consequences of such neglect have in fact come to pass. The statements of some of the highest Vatican officials on the matter are self-contradictory. Since they made these comments in the public forum, and are readily available, it is not mischief-making but a public service to point these things out before we see one of the so-far unfulfilled prophecies: “various nations will be annihilated”.

And yet none of this is binding up on the Church or the Fatithful other than the visionary who received the message.

I would like to ask when Russia ceased to be part of “the world”?

 

[numealinesimpet]

This happened on March 25, 1984, when Pope John Paul II consecrated Russia in a public ceremony. Then the communist regime fell a few years later. It’s all history now.

Hmmm.
In 1997 Russia enacted legislation which discriminates against the Catholic Church and in favor of Russian Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism.
Catholic parishes are required to apply for an annual “registration” which can be revoked at will by any local bureaucrat, while priests and nuns are given only three-month visas which cannot be renewed. The Vatican condemned this new law as a great setback for the Church in Russia.
In all of Russia today there are fewer Catholics than there were in 1917, the year of the Apparitions.
Muslims currently outnumber Catholics ten-to-one in Russia.

When Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared in Mexico in the 16th Century: within nine years some 9 million Aztecs turned from devil-worship and human sacrifice and were converted and baptized as Catholics – during the same period that 9 million Catholics apostasised during the Protestant Rebellion (also known as the Reformation). Now that’s what Our Lady can do to convert a nation. Let us face the facts – Russia has produced a few local initiatives towards individual conversion, but there has been nothing remotely like the conversion of the nation.

 

[numealinesimpet]

And yet none of this is binding up on the Church or the Fatithful other than the visionary who received the message.

Was it also binding on the 50,000 – 100,000 who saw the Miracle?

I would like to ask when Russia ceased to be part of “the world”?

I would like to ask why, when Our Lady asked for the consecration of Russia, we have effectively said, “Thanks for the tip, Queen of Heaven, but we can see how we can improve on your idea. So we’ll do it our way, not your way”.

 

[numealinesimpet]

And yet none of this is binding up on the Church or the Fatithful other than the visionary who received the message.

I’m not sure what you mean by “binding”.

Our Lady at Fatima did not give us any new dogma, or add to the deposit of Faith. (E.g. she didn’t say, “Actually, there’s a fourth place you can go besides Heaven, Hell or Purgatory” – or anything like that.) What she did was to admonish us that we were offending Our Lord grievously, she told us what to do to make reparation, she promised what would happen when we did so, and she warned us what would happen if we neglected it.

If a County Fire Officer told the audience in a theatre, “There has been a gas leak. The whole place is going to catch fire unless you put out all cigarettes”, could each person say, “that isn’t “binding” on me?”

Or do you mean that we are free to believe that the whole thing was imagination? 50,000 – 100,000 witnesses would contradict that.

Or do you believe that it was a false apparition? But Pope John Paul II said, “The time for doubting Fatima is past”.

I don’t see any way that a Catholic can choose to ignore Our Lady of Fatima, or try to explain away her words.

 

[JReducation]

Did anyone here read what Pope Benedict said about all of this in Light of the World? Did those who read it understand it? Or is it that we feel that we can just bypass what a pope said on the matter as if an apparition supersedes the authority of the pope?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[century153]

I just finished reading on the Vatican website the informaiton posted about the third secret of Fatima. I was so amazed to find out that the third secret was a vision showing a person dressed in white and various priests and laity going up a mountain to a rugged cross and being murdered and their blood mixed with the blood of the cross covering sinners. That is briefly describing the vision – you can read it on the Vatican website in its entirety. But, my feeling was that I could not understand what all the hullaballoo was. Then I read that Sr. Lucia said that she was the one who set the date for the secret to be opened – because she thought people would not understand it. Then as the years went by, each individual Pope decided not to reveal it. I thought it was quite amazing that they let it drag on for so long without revealing it. But, sometimes, I beleive that everything is revealed in its own time – its own God-ordained time. If you would like to know more about it – go to the Vatican website and search for the information of the secret of Fatima. I’m sorry I do not have the link available to me right now.

 

[JReducation]

I just finished reading on the Vatican website the informaiton posted about the third secret of Fatima. I was so amazed to find out that the third secret was a vision showing a person dressed in white and various priests and laity going up a mountain to a rugged cross and being murdered and their blood mixed with the blood of the cross covering sinners. That is briefly describing the vision – you can read it on the Vatican website in its entirety. But, my feeling was that I could not understand what all the hullaballoo was. Then I read that Sr. Lucia said that she was the one who set the date for the secret to be opened – because she thought people would not understand it. Then as the years went by, each individual Pope decided not to reveal it. I thought it was quite amazing that they let it drag on for so long without revealing it. But, sometimes, I beleive that everything is revealed in its own time – its own God-ordained time. If you would like to know more about it – go to the Vatican website and search for the information of the secret of Fatima. I’m sorry I do not have the link available to me right now.

In Light of the World Pope Benedict explains why the delay. He was part of the decision making body on that delay, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. He also explains the part of that vision that the Church considered relevant and the part that it simply let’s go as “typical visonary experience” as he calls it. Then he goes on to explain the full significance of the message of the third secret, which he believes has a much more rational meaning and a much more powerful meaning, than specific events.

It’s really well done the way that he explains it. I would like to see him develop that into another book.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[century153]

In Light of the World Pope Benedict explains why the delay. He was part of the decision making body on that delay, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. He also explains the part of that vision that the Church considered relevant and the part that it simply let’s go as “typical visonary experience” as he calls it. Then he goes on to explain the full significance of the message of the third secret, which he believes has a much more rational meaning and a much more powerful meaning, than specific events.

It’s really well done the way that he explains it. I would like to see him develop that into another book.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I believe I read that also. Yes, I read where he explains the vision and the meaning. Even though, I trust the Pope and bishops to do the will of God through the help of the Holy Spirit – I was just kind of disappointed in the revelation of the secret – as Cardinal Ratzinger said he expected people to be. I probably need to re-read the entire thing – especially since I am a little slow in understanding things I read – I usually need to re-read especially something with such importance.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Did anyone here read what Pope Benedict said about all of this in Light of the World? Did those who read it understand it? Or is it that we feel that we can just bypass what a pope said on the matter as if an apparition supersedes the authority of the pope?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I will comment on specific points later.
But here is a general principle: A pope can be wrong. This has happened in the past, unless he invokes the charism of infallibility. For example, Cdl Ratzinger refused to comply with Pope John Paul’s wish that he attend the second Assisi Interfaith Prayer Meeting. I for one fully support the stand that the then Cdl Ratzinger took.
Our Lady prophesied “Various nations will be annihilated.” In what is called the Third Secret she showed the children a vision of the Pope being assassinated. Not nearly, but completely – and with many clerics and lay. This could be Pope Benedict XI and us (if we have the endurance), dear Forum Readers. She also told us quite clearly – not in convuluted language, but in simple phrases a child can understand – how to prevent it.
To show she was not joking, Heaven granted the most spectacular miracle in the history of the world.
We need to consider all statements on their merits, and not be dazzled by the status of the speaker. Dear Bro JR, this is not *“An apparition” *but the Queen of Heaven come to bring us an urgent admonition, programme of prayer, penance and amendment, promise, and warning. Let us beware of attempts to explain it away.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Was it also binding on the 50,000 – 100,000 who saw the Miracle?

No.

I would like to ask why, when Our Lady asked for the consecration of Russia, we have effectively said, “Thanks for the tip, Queen of Heaven, but we can see how we can improve on your idea. So we’ll do it our way, not your way”.

I am not going to get into another argument on this. Just do a search on the topic. Br JR covered it very well in stating, in short, that the Church is the authority.

But I would add, the Church did not say they would improve on the idea, they just did it in a different way than you expected of them.

As Sr Lucia said that Heaven has accepted the consectation, it seems that it is ok.

 

[numealinesimpet]

fatima.org/essentials/message/genmsg. (Slightly abridged)…
When Sister Lucy questioned Our Lord why He would not convert Russia without the solemn public consecration of that nation specifically, Jesus answered:

Because I want My whole Church to acknowledge that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so that it may extend its homage later on, and put the devotion to This Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart.

The conversion of Russia cannot take place unless and until the Pope and bishops consecrate specifically Russia, because God has reserved this grace – this special grace – to this special act of honor and reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Jesus does this because He wants to establish throughout the world, in the hearts and minds of the faithful, the importance of devotion to His Mother’s Immaculate Heart.

I am not going to get into another argument on this.

Well, if you make a statement in the forum, presumably it is available for discussion. This would be the purpose of the exercise, especially for newcomers to the topic. It is still a highly contentious issue, and the stakes are very high.

Just do a search on the topic.

I recommend especially www.fatima.org

Br JR covered it very well in stating, in short, that the Church is the authority.

Very true – when it is exercised. But not every statement by the pope, or any other person, is of the same level of authority – otherwise every shopping list of the pope would be an infallible pronouncement. Bro. JR has quoted the then personal opinion of the Pope. But Benedict XVI, like any other reasonable human being, has changed his mind on particular topics as more information became available, and on weighing matters in maturity. There are many such examples in Fr Ratzinger/Cdl Ratzinger/Pope Benedict’s writings. What has been changed once can be changed again. Therefore, on such an issue as this, we would be wise to consider every statement, and item of evidence, on its merits.