Rosary; Scapular; Consecration of Russia to Immaculate Heart.

[numealinesimpet]

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

Actually, she said the opposite, and so did Pope John Paul II. Consider the following. All quotes are in the public forum.

March 25, 1984 The Holy Father at Rome, before 250,000 people, again consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Immediately afterwards, Pope John Paul Ii departed from his prepared text and prayed “Enlighten especially the peoples of which You Yourself are awaiting our consecration and confiding.”

March 27, 1984 The Italian Catholic bishops’ newspaper Avvenire reported that the Holy Father, on March 25 at 4:00 in the afternoon, three hours after he consecrated the world, prays at St. Peter’s, asking Our Lady to bless “those peoples for whom You Yourself are awaiting our act of consecration and entrusting,” thus again demonstrating that the Consecration of Russia has remained unfulfilled.

**September 1985 ** In an interview in Sol de Fatima magazine (a publication of friends of the Spanish Blue Army), Sister Lucy affirmed that the Consecration of Russia still has not been done because, yet again, Russia was not the clear object of the 1984 consecration and the world’s episcopate did not participate.

**1985 **Cardinal Gagnon, in an interview with Father Caillon, acknowledged that the Consecration of Russia has still not been done.

1986 Maria do Fetal, cousin to Sr Lucy, publicly quoted her as saying that the Consecration of Russia still has not been done. Maria do Fetal consistently maintained that Sister Lucy told her this until July 1989 (See below).

July 20, 1987 Interviewed quickly outside her convent while voting, Sister Lucy confirmed to journalist Enrico Romero that the Consecration of Russia has not been done.

October 25, 1987 In an audience with a dozen Catholic leaders, Cardinal Mayer publicly acknowledged that the Consecration has not been done according to Our Lady’s specific request.

November 26, 1987 In a private meeting, Cardinal Stickler confirmed that the Consecration has not been done because the Pope lacks the support of the bishops. “They do not obey him,” said Cardinal Stickler.

1988 Cardinal Gagnon attacked Father Gruner for publishing the Caillon report of his 1985 statement that the Consecration has not yet been done. Cardinal Gagnon admitted speaking to Father Caillon, and did not deny the truth of his report, but sid it was not meant for publication.

**July 1989 ** In the presence of three witnesses at the Hotel Solar da Marta in Fatima, Father Messias Coelho reveals that Sister Lucy has just received an anonymous “instruction” from unidentified persons in the Vatican bureaucracy. The “instruction” states that Sister Lucy and her fellow religious must now say that the Consecration of Russia was accomplished in the ceremony of March 25, 1984, even though Russia was never mentioned and the world’s bishops did not participate.
After this development, various witnesses including, it is claimed, Sister Lucy herself, begin to repudiate their own prior statements that the Consecration has not been done. These witnesses previously clearly stated that Russia could not possibly have been consecrated as requested in the Fatima Message because of the failure to mention Russia and the failure to obtain the participation of the world’s bishops. Thus begins a process of “revising” Our Lady’s request from the Consecration of Russia to the consecration of the world.

**July 1989 ** The Papal Nuncio to Portugal was replaced. In keeping with the anonymous “instruction” from within the Vatican bureaucracy, shortly afterwards Maria do Fetal suddenly reversed herself, contradicting all her prior statements to the effect that her cousin, Sister Lucy, did not think the Consecration had been accomplished; Maria do Fetal now claimed that Sister Lucy believed the 1984 consecration of the world satisfied Our Lady of Fatima’s request.

August 1989 – November 1989 Computer generated and typewritten notes and letters supposedly signed by Sister Lucy suddenly appear, flatly contradicting all prior statements she has made for more than 60 years about the Consecration. These notes contain factual errors Sister Lucy could not have made (e.g. the false statement that Pope Paul VI consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart during his 1967 visit to Fatima) and phraseology she had never used before. Until now, “Sister Lucy” has never conducted correspondence with typewriters or word processors, and she still continues to write everything else, including her lengthy memoirs, by hand.

**January 29, 1990 ** At about 8:30 a.m., Maria do Fetal, at Fatima, stated to Father Pierre Caillon that she “was inventing” when she earlier reported Sister Lucy’s statement that the 1984 consecration of the world was not in conformity with Our Lady’s request for the consecration of Russia.

October 11, 1990 Sister Lucy’s own blood sister, Carolina, told Father Gruner, in Fatima, that little or no trust can be put in any typewritten letter from Sister Lucy, “as* she does not even know how to type.”*

 

[JReducation]

We have to be gentler creatures. At this point, the Holy Father sees on need to revisit the issue of the consecration of Russia. To get ourselves worked up over it does no one any good.

The Holy Father uses a phrase that I had never heard before, but I find rather interesting. He’s talking about the whole Fatima event. He uses the term “pure visionary style.” Then he follows with “I’m more rational than that”. He’s not calling Sr. Lucia or the Blessed Mother irrational. He’s saying that in matters such as visions, he as the pope has the right to employ his reason. This cannot be denied.

Visions do not strip the Vicar of Christ of his authority and they do not bind him. I believe (I can be wrong here), that this is what he means when he says “visionary style.” I thought about this phrase, because I too have a strong devotion to Our Lady under the title of Fatima. It suddently came to me that what he may be saying is something like this.

Our Lady communicates with the most humble of people: Lourdes, Fatima, and Guadalupe are the examples that he gives. In her communication she is going to deliver the message in a language that the vionaries can repeat. Otherwise, the message is useless, if they can’t repeat it However, Our Lady knows that the papacy is guided by the Holy Spirit and is given the wisdom to read between the lines and extrapolate her message, while setting aside the tangents that she may use to make herself comprehensible to very simple people.

In this regard, what Pope Benedict is doing is just that. If you read what he said about Fatima in Portugal and what he says that he said, you come away with a different understanding. He quotes his own words. But he also says, that those words did not mean what people think they meant. Then he goes on to explain.

He explains that the two great evils that threatened the world are gone: Communist Russia and Nazi Germany. Therefore, he Church has fulfilled her obligation and Jesus and Mary are gradually triumphing. He goes on to say even further. There is not going to be a radical conversion in history. It’s going to come slowly as men and women embrace faith, hope, charity and penance. The death of the Nazi and Communist regimes is the product of faith, hope, love and penance. But the Blessed Mother is not finished. She will do more, according to what her Son will allow. He places the rest of the story, if you will, in the hands of Jesus, Mary and the faithful.

When I stopped and thought about it, I realized that he is being very rational. It’s almost too easy to say that you consecrate Russia and the world events will turn. God does not operate that way. He works through the conversion of hearts. Unfortunately, God has an opponent that is much more fierce than Satan himself. That opponent is human will. If man chooses to convert, the world will change. While God has power over Satan, he has no power over human will. This is of his own generosity toward us.

There is more to sanation of the world than a consecration of Russia. There has to be a conversion of man.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Alfonsus]

Regarding private revelations, I have my stand that the Church judges private revelations, not the other way around.
Thus, even if a saint, Our Lady or Our Lord, in many form of private revelations says one thing but the Church says other thing, I will follow the Church.

Simply because we are bound to follow the Church authority, and private revelations cannot bind any of us.
If I disbelieve Fatima or Lourdes, that does not make me less Catholic or impairing my communion with the Church or make my faith less perfect.
I can refer to our Lady with the title Fatima or Lourdes because the Church put the matter liturgically, with or without any reference to the apparition.

If I receive the message, such as Sacred Heart devotion, it is because the Church settled the theological reasoning and enshrine the spirituality liturgically. I don’t need to believe the apparition, promises or anything beyond what the Church said.

I always remember one scene in saint Faustina’s diary. Jesus appear to her and ask her to do something. Her confessor forbid her to do that, and in obedience she did as her confessor say. The next time Jesus appear to her again, she said she was sorry cannot do what Jesus requested.
And Jesus was very happy, because she did what her confessor said and praised her because of that.

In another occasion, a Sister in purgatory ask for her prayers. Saint Faustina promised some penance, but her Mother Superior did not let her and ordered something else. After that the Sister in purgatory came to Faustina, saying that her obedience freed her from purgatory better than the penance Faustina promised.

I hope I have time to get the exact paragraph number for these events. I need to check the diary. Surely this is also a private revelation, that Jesus or that Sister in purgatory said this and that. But what saint Faustina did and at ease in obedience is something we should emulate.

 

[JReducation]

Regarding private revelations, I have my stand that the Church judges private revelations, not the other way around.
Thus, even if a saint, Our Lady or Our Lord, in many form of private revelations says one thing but the Church says other thing, I will follow the Church.

Simply because we are bound to follow the Church authority, and private revelations cannot bind any of us.
If I disbelieve Fatima or Lourdes, that does not make me less Catholic or impairing my communion with the Church or make my faith less perfect.
I can refer to our Lady with the title Fatima or Lourdes because the Church put the matter liturgically, with or without any reference to the apparition.

If I receive the message, such as Sacred Heart devotion, it is because the Church settled the theological reasoning and enshrine the spirituality liturgically. I don’t need to believe the apparition, promises or anything beyond what the Church said.

I always remember one scene in saint Faustina’s diary. Jesus appear to her and ask her to do something. Her confessor forbid her to do that, and in obedience she did as her confessor say. The next time Jesus appear to her again, she said she was sorry cannot do what Jesus requested.
And Jesus was very happy, because she did what her confessor said and praised her because of that.

In another occasion, a Sister in purgatory ask for her prayers. Saint Faustina promised some penance, but her Mother Superior did not let her and ordered something else. After that the Sister in purgatory came to Faustina, saying that her obedience freed her from purgatory better than the penance Faustina promised.

I hope I have time to get the exact paragraph number for these events. I need to check the diary. Surely this is also a private revelation, that Jesus or that Sister in purgatory said this and that. But what saint Faustina did and at ease in obedience is something we should emulate.

What you’re saying is correct. I always say it this way. “Our Lady is not applying for Peter’s job.”

On these matters, we go with whatever Peters ays. One of the best examples the question of the circumscision of the Gentiles. Paul was certainly right about it. However, he took it up with Peter. There are two very important details in that debate.

First, Paul acknowledges that he has to take it up with Peter. He cannot act unilaterally, even if he believes that Peter is wrong.

Second, he calls him “Rock”, not Simon. He calls him by his title, not his name. If you’re not Jewish, this may be one of those points that fails to catch your attention. I, being a Jew, cauth this right away when I first read it. For Jews, titles were very important. They were used as a recognition of authority. Equals did not call each other by titles. Paul refers to other apostles by name (i.e. Luke and Timothy). But Simon he calls Cephas.

My point is that it is the ancient tradition of the Church to submit to the authority and final disposition of the Pontiff. It has never been part of the practice of the Church to invoke private revelations and visions to trump popes. And pope have never allowed themselves to be trumped by them either. A good example is the stigmata. The only stigmata that the Church has included in her liturgical life is the stigmata of St. Francis of Assisi. There is the Feast of Stigmata of St. Francis celebrated in September. The other stigmatas, the pope acknowledge as worthy of belief, but have done nothing with them. Popes do pick and choose which miracles and apparitions they will promote and how far they will promote them. This is the pope’s right to do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[numealinesimpet]

One test of an alleged Private Revelation is that, if the apparition tries to usurp the authority of the hierarchy, we can be certain that it is false. No Private Revelation endorsed by the Church has ever tried to over-ride the parish priest or the bishop, let alone the Pope. If I am not mistaken, the false apparitions that manifested themselves straight after Our Lady appeared at Lourdes made just such claims.

[Footnote: even here, the “endorsement” of the Church does not go beyond the statement that there is nothing in the message contrary to the Faith, that it may be piously believed by Catholics, and that the message is fruitful and conducive to salvation. Never does the Church state: “The following apparition must be accepted for us to be saved” – something that is said about every defined article of the Faith. Yet there have been hundreds of apparitions in the history of the Church. Some, like the appearance of Our Lady to S. Simon Stock, when She gave him the Brown Scapular, or Our Lord as the Sacred Heart to S. Margaret Mary, or Our Lady to S. Bernadette, have been dignified by a Feast Day and Divine Office by the Church. We are expected to follow the Church’s cycle of Feasts. Hence the Church acknowledges that these “special interventions” are a part of her life.

With apologies to those readers to whom this is old hat, this footnote is to dispel any misunderstanding about what is meant by “accepted by the Church”. No Apparition after the death of the Apostles (when Revelation, we are taught, ceased) has ever been imposed as an article of Faith, neither does such “acceptance” bind us under pain of damnation. By the same token, it is not prudent to ignore these helps without just cause, if the matter is grave enough.]

At no time has Our Lady of Fatima tried to over-ride the Pope. But beware. There is a difference between issuing arbitrary instructions and giving a warning. Think about S. Margaret Mary and the devotion to the Sacred Heart. Our Lord appeared to this humble nun, and delivered this message:

“I want you to tell the Pope that I wish to have established a Feast Day and a Devotion to My Sacred Heart.”

(Note: Our Lord did not order the Pope about: he merely expressed His wishes).
There was a message to the King of France:
** It was the Will of God that he consecrate the nation of France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.**
Once again, not even the earthly ruler was coerced. He had the God-given authority to make the decision to comply with the wishes of the Most High, or not. God would not over-ride this authority that He Himself had bestowed. But the problem was, that if he made the decision to neglect the will of God, certain consequences would follow. That was precisely why he was being warned.
Adam and Eve were left free to follow the mandates of God, or not. But having exercised their free will, there were Consequences that are with us to this day.

Well, the King of France – Louis XIV, called the “Sun King” because of the splendour of his reign – did not comply with the request. One hundred years later, to the very day, the agents of the French Revolution declared the Monarchy dissolved. His grandson, Louis XVI, performed the consecration while on the run from the Revolutionary forces, and a short while later was guillotined.
The implications are crystal clear: The French Revolution would not have hapened had the King complied with the wishes of the Most High. The social and economic troubles of France would have been resolved without any Reign of Terror. But since the King did not do so, events took the course that Heaven had foreseen.

Why bring all this up on a thread about Fatima, the Rosary, the Scapular?

Firstly, because it illustrates an important feature of the Faith: that supernatural Graces are frequently tied, by the Will and Providence of God, to material things like a blessed object, or a pious exercise – as it is called. This is the way that Spiritual things “interface” with the material world. The Collegial Consecration of Russia is in this category.

And secondly, because Our Lord referred to this episode explicitly in His colloquies with Sr Lucia:
In 1929, Twelve years after Her original appearances at Fatima, and in fulfillment of Her promise at Fatima on July 13, 1917, Our Lady of Fatima appeared again to Sister Lucy at Tuy, Spain. Our Lady stood on a cloud beside Her Divine Son Jesus, on the Cross, and said:

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.

As we know, this was not done. In August 1931 Our Lord Himself spoke to Sister Lucy. Concerning the Consecration of Russia, He told her:

Make it known to My ministers: given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, like him they will follow him into misfortune.

Note that, unlike with King Louis XIV, and even Adam and Eve, at Fatima we were actually told what would happen if we did not heed the warning:

“The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated."

This is not usurping the authority of the Pope. It is giving a warning, given the present state of the world, of what will happen if we neglect to use the spiritual and “Sacramental” weapons that Heaven is providing – but on the condition that we exercise our free will to comply.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

.
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.

This topic comes up every couple of weeks at this forum. When I said do a search I meant to search this forum and you will find all the topics that discuss this and all my responses.

Basically it comes down to the fact that Fatima is a private revelation and is not binding upon any Catholic. No Catholic must believe in Fatima for their salvation.

I recommend especially www.fatima.org

I would suggest that this site not be used as it is out side of the Church. The priest who runs it is suspended and working outside of the Church.

Again, search this forum and you will find much on it.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

One Orthodox priest I know who accepts Fatima once told me that he believes Our Lady’s promises with respect to Russia have been fulfilled - the Churches there are full, the faith is vibrant and outreach efforts to the unchurched are very strong.

He also rejects the idea that Our Lady of Fatima called Russia to become Roman Catholic. She called Russia to repentance and that is exactly what has happened.

Alex

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Please make sure that if you refer posters to other sites that are not approved by the Diocesan Bishop that you inform the readers of this. An organization that is not approved by the Diocesan Bishop may not call itself Catholic. It can say that it is run by Catholics, which would be true. To use the name Catholic, the diocesan bishop must authorize it.

That would be helpful to other readers who believe that they may be viewing a page that is approved by the Church, when it may not be the case.

All organizations, apostolates and other ministries who refer to themselves as Catholic, must have the approval of the diosecan bishop of their home diocese, not another diocese.

There are organizations that have not yet been approved by the diocesan bishop and are very good. They are waiting for a pending approval. Just let people know.

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[nordskoven]

Here are EWTN-listed excerpts from “some” of the consecrations inspired by Our Lady of the Rosary’s request given at Fatima, Portugal.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/consecra.htm

I am a sheep bleating to my earthly shepherds: many consecrations have been done, more may be done; please, in the name of God, perform the collegial consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart on one solemn, public occasion, with all bishops in their respective cathedrals as led by Peter, for the conversion of that nation and the “only” means to a period of peace.

May we continue to pray the daily Rosary for peace.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, make grant all hearts your purity of intent.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Well, that’s what I said in my last post. But this consideration must not be stretched too far. See my post on this thread.

I would suggest that this site not be used as it is out side of the Church. The priest who runs it is suspended and working outside of the Church.sorry, that is incorrect. It is a legal stipulation that no organisation be styled “Catholic” without the express permission of the Local Ordinary (bishop) true: but Fr Gruner’s suspension is illegal within the laws of the Church itself. He is not excommunicated, he is in Good Standing with the bishop who incardinated him, the last cardinal who tried to bully him regretted it grievously when Fr Gruner submitted a Formal Complaint against him for exceeding his authority (which led to the Cardinal losing his job) … and especially, he is telling the truth.

 

[CatholicFireman]

Personally, I trust and am sticking with The World Apostolate of Fatima, U.S.A.

wafusa.org

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I am sorry you think so but Fr Gruner is not in good standing with the Church.

The Church has upheld his suspension and as the Church is the authority it can not be said that his suspension is illegal.

That is a fact.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I am sorry you think so but Fr Gruner is not in good standing with the Church.

The Church has upheld his suspension and as the Church is the authority it can not be said that his suspension is illegal.

That is a fact.

“The Law is an objective Reality” … this fact is one of the things that proves that the Spiritual Realm has objective reality.

I think I replied in haste there, ByzCath. Assuming you are correct there (and I do not take you for a liar) I must assume it is the fact that Fr Gruner is suspended within the law, subject to appeal. Hence let other readers take note.
I remind you that this is not the end of the story: S. Athanasius was excommunicated within the Law, yet it was he who was telling the truth at the time. The whole Fatima issue is one in which the Church is being tested tp the very limits: as we say here, “Right down to the wire”.
Just the same, on a point of fact, you are right: suspension is not a matter of opinion.
For those interested in the details of his suspension, the website I have already quoted will give you the historical facts. They do throw light on the reason why the Fatima issue is not going away. “The truth will out”.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

“The Law is an objective Reality” … this fact is one of the things that proves that the Spiritual Realm has objective reality.

I think I replied in haste there, ByzCath. Assuming you are correct there (and I do not take you for a liar) I must assume it is the fact that Fr Gruner is suspended within the law, subject to appeal. Hence let other readers take note.
I remind you that this is not the end of the story: S. Athanasius was excommunicated within the Law, yet it was he who was telling the truth at the time. The whole Fatima issue is one in which the Church is being tested tp the very limits: as we say here, “Right down to the wire”.
Just the same, on a point of fact, you are right: suspension is not a matter of opinion.
For those interested in the details of his suspension, the website I have already quoted will give you the historical facts. They do throw light on the reason why the Fatima issue is not going away. “The truth will out”.

This is a slippery slope, just because one man was excommunicated and later exonerated does not mean that all who fall under some some Church law and are suspended or excommunicated will also be later exonerated.

Just look at Martin Luther.

 

[numealinesimpet]

This is a slippery slope, just because one man was excommunicated and later exonerated does not mean that all who fall under some some Church law and are suspended or excommunicated will also be later exonerated.
Just look at Martin Luther.

Obviously. (Beware using the example of Martin Luther, who was famous for such phrases as “another fart from the pope” when he was admonished by the Pope in all charity. Let me know as soon as Fr Gruner uses such language.) But I am not saying anything as silly as that “all who fall under some some Church law and are suspended or excommunicated will also be later exonerated”; I am reminding readers that the principle has been established. The mere fact of a suspension, or other censure, does not prove in itself that the person was in the wrong. This is so because a disciplinary measure might be, and at times has been, imposed erroneously. Look behind the superficial fact, and you will see that Fr Gruner has been the victim of an age-old ploy (employed not just by the Church but by others who desire to maintain an illusion of legality): impose a penalty, refuse the legitimate appeal, and then broadcast the penalty itself as the reason for ostracising the man. I couldn’t help reflecting on this whole Wikileaks caper. Note that the instigator has had every possible brick thrown at his head, except for the real charge: he is rocking the boat.
I would be happier if I were told what actual thing Fr Gruner has done that is wrong. It is not any good simply to say he was suspended, especially when we see that the canonical process was hastily stalled when he began to win the argument. Now they will simply leave him in limbo forever. Unfortunately, many will be carried away by being told “he was suspended” without going further to discover why and how this happened, and whether he has appealed, and how that appeal has been processed by those charged with the upholding of justice.