Z
zeland
Guest
I was not sure what section to put this in.
Taking a second look at the 1984 Consecration of the "World"
Several years ago, a priest at Human Life International (HLI), in Front Royal, Virginia, said in a sermon that when God makes a request, He expects it to be carried out exactly to the letter. In the Old Testament, Moses did not carry out God’s specific command to strike the rock only once, so that water would flow from it? God punished him because of his disobedience – striking the rock twice. He (Moses) could not enter the promised land of Canaan, but would only be allowed to see it from afar.
The fate of the three kings of France is even more striking. On June 17, 1689, after receiving a message from our Lord, Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, requested the King of France (Louis XIV) to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; he refused. Both his son and grandson, Kings Louis XV & XVI also refused. After he was imprisoned, Louis XVI tried to do the consecration, but was unable to do it properly. As a result, much of France suffered the consequences of his failure (the French Revolution). Louis XVI and his wife and children were executed. So too, will we have much to suffer if the consecration is not done the way Our Lord specifically requested it. The lesson in both of these examples is that if we don’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.
In June of 1929, Our Lady appeared to Sister Lucy and asked specifically that Russia, not the world, be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart, and that this is to be a collegial consecration in union with all the bishops of the world. On March 25, 1984, Pope John Paul II consecrated “the World” to Mary’s immaculate heart. Russia was not mentioned in the text of the consecration. Now I realize that there are many who say that the consecration was done properly, but there are also many others who say that the Pope’s consecration of the “World” did not fulfill the given requirements.
Please consider the following reasons for the 1984 consecration not being valid. First, it was not done according to the specific instructions given by Mary. The World, not Russia specifically, was consecrated. Russia was not clearly and specifically named as the immediate object of the consecration. If a bishop wishes to consecrate a church, he doesn’t consecrate all the churches in his diocese. If he wants to consecrate his diocese, he doesn’t consecrate the whole country.
Secondly, all the bishops of the world were to take part in this event. Did they? If we read the Pope’s letter to the bishops, we see that they were invited, not commanded, to join him in this consecration. The following is the last paragraph of John Paul II’s letter to the bishops.
*“The most fitting date for this common witness seems to be the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord during Lent 1984. I would be grateful if on that day (March 24, on which the Marian Solemnity is liturgically anticipated, or on March 25, the Third Sunday of Lent) you would renew this Act together with me, choosing the way which each of you considers most appropriate.
In fraternal charity
John Paul II” *
So do we have any way of knowing for sure if all the bishops complied with the Pope’s request? Were all the bishops in 1984 loyal to the Pope? Perhaps history can assist us in answering this question.
Remember that in England, at the time of Henry VIII, all the bishops except St. John Fisher deserted the Church. In the time of Saint Athanasius (295-373 AD), most of the bishops were outside the Church, having fallen into the heresy of Arianism. John Henry Cardinal Newman referred to Athanasius as “a principal instrument after the Apostles by which the sacred truths of Christianity have been secured and conveyed to the world”. Newman wrote: “The body of bishops failed in their confession of the Faith… They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicea, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years. There were untrustworthy Councils, unfaithful bishops; there was weakness, fear of consequences, misguidance, delusion, hallucination, endless, hopelessness, extending into nearly every corner of the Catholic Church. The comparatively few who remained faithful were discredited and driven into exile; the rest were either deceivers or were deceived.”
Does some of this sound familiar? In our own day, look at all the confusion that entered the Church after Vatican II. We have had almost 50 years of weak and/or dissenting shepherds. If he were alive today, what would Newman have to say about these past years since the Council?
The point I am making is that the evidence for the validity of the 1984 consecration seems rather shaky. The proper form was not used (Russia), and the required participation of all the bishops could be questioned! Also, what signs do we see of Russia’s “conversion”, and where is the era of peace that Our Lady promised? The world seems to be getting closer and closer to a global conflict in the Middle East, with no peace in sight. Perhaps it is time to reconsider this issue. What would it hurt to redo the consecration? We have everything to gain, and nothing to loose.
Taking a second look at the 1984 Consecration of the "World"
Several years ago, a priest at Human Life International (HLI), in Front Royal, Virginia, said in a sermon that when God makes a request, He expects it to be carried out exactly to the letter. In the Old Testament, Moses did not carry out God’s specific command to strike the rock only once, so that water would flow from it? God punished him because of his disobedience – striking the rock twice. He (Moses) could not enter the promised land of Canaan, but would only be allowed to see it from afar.
The fate of the three kings of France is even more striking. On June 17, 1689, after receiving a message from our Lord, Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, requested the King of France (Louis XIV) to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; he refused. Both his son and grandson, Kings Louis XV & XVI also refused. After he was imprisoned, Louis XVI tried to do the consecration, but was unable to do it properly. As a result, much of France suffered the consequences of his failure (the French Revolution). Louis XVI and his wife and children were executed. So too, will we have much to suffer if the consecration is not done the way Our Lord specifically requested it. The lesson in both of these examples is that if we don’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.
In June of 1929, Our Lady appeared to Sister Lucy and asked specifically that Russia, not the world, be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart, and that this is to be a collegial consecration in union with all the bishops of the world. On March 25, 1984, Pope John Paul II consecrated “the World” to Mary’s immaculate heart. Russia was not mentioned in the text of the consecration. Now I realize that there are many who say that the consecration was done properly, but there are also many others who say that the Pope’s consecration of the “World” did not fulfill the given requirements.
Please consider the following reasons for the 1984 consecration not being valid. First, it was not done according to the specific instructions given by Mary. The World, not Russia specifically, was consecrated. Russia was not clearly and specifically named as the immediate object of the consecration. If a bishop wishes to consecrate a church, he doesn’t consecrate all the churches in his diocese. If he wants to consecrate his diocese, he doesn’t consecrate the whole country.
Secondly, all the bishops of the world were to take part in this event. Did they? If we read the Pope’s letter to the bishops, we see that they were invited, not commanded, to join him in this consecration. The following is the last paragraph of John Paul II’s letter to the bishops.
*“The most fitting date for this common witness seems to be the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord during Lent 1984. I would be grateful if on that day (March 24, on which the Marian Solemnity is liturgically anticipated, or on March 25, the Third Sunday of Lent) you would renew this Act together with me, choosing the way which each of you considers most appropriate.
In fraternal charity
John Paul II” *
So do we have any way of knowing for sure if all the bishops complied with the Pope’s request? Were all the bishops in 1984 loyal to the Pope? Perhaps history can assist us in answering this question.
Remember that in England, at the time of Henry VIII, all the bishops except St. John Fisher deserted the Church. In the time of Saint Athanasius (295-373 AD), most of the bishops were outside the Church, having fallen into the heresy of Arianism. John Henry Cardinal Newman referred to Athanasius as “a principal instrument after the Apostles by which the sacred truths of Christianity have been secured and conveyed to the world”. Newman wrote: “The body of bishops failed in their confession of the Faith… They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicea, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years. There were untrustworthy Councils, unfaithful bishops; there was weakness, fear of consequences, misguidance, delusion, hallucination, endless, hopelessness, extending into nearly every corner of the Catholic Church. The comparatively few who remained faithful were discredited and driven into exile; the rest were either deceivers or were deceived.”
Does some of this sound familiar? In our own day, look at all the confusion that entered the Church after Vatican II. We have had almost 50 years of weak and/or dissenting shepherds. If he were alive today, what would Newman have to say about these past years since the Council?
The point I am making is that the evidence for the validity of the 1984 consecration seems rather shaky. The proper form was not used (Russia), and the required participation of all the bishops could be questioned! Also, what signs do we see of Russia’s “conversion”, and where is the era of peace that Our Lady promised? The world seems to be getting closer and closer to a global conflict in the Middle East, with no peace in sight. Perhaps it is time to reconsider this issue. What would it hurt to redo the consecration? We have everything to gain, and nothing to loose.
then it has been consecrated.
