Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, former President of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, recently visited Kazakhstan as the Holy Father’s special envoy at the concluding ceremony of the Marian Congress of Kazakhstan. That ceremony took place on the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, on 13 May 2017, and was conducted in the Cathedral of “Our Lady of Fatima” in Karaganda. On that day, Cardinal Cordes was presiding over the concluding Mass and his own homily was read aloud in the Russian language. The Austrian Catholic news website Kath.net published on 15 May 2017 Cardinal Cordes’ prepared homily in full.
Cardinal Cordes, while speaking about the importance of Our Lady of Fatima with regard to the destruction of Communism in Eastern Europe, also makes a significant side remark about Pope John Paul II and about his own 1984 Marian Consecration. As Cardinal Cordes reveals from his own experience, Pope John Paul II had specifically wanted to consecrate Russia by name to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but he failed to do so due to the influence of his cautious diplomatic counselors. The German cardinal explains, as follows:
Just how important Fatima was for the holy pope [John Paul II], I was once to witness myself, [in] a personal encounter with him. Obviously, for a long time he had dealt with that significant mission which the Mother of God had given to the seer children there: to consecrate the world [sic] to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. He himself had made this act of consecration on 23 [sic – 25] March 1984, when the statue of Our Lady of Fatima had come to Rome. However, he held back to mention Russia explicitly; because the Vatican diplomats had urgently asked him not to mention this country because otherwise political conflicts might perhaps arise.
A short while later [after that 25 March 1984 event], I was invited by him for lunch. He talked in a small circle about how he felt this urge inside also to mention Russia at that Consecration, but that he then gave way to his counselors. And he then told us with a glowing face: What he renounced for himself, had nevertheless been fulfilled, he said. Through friends he heard something for him important and consoling, namely that some Orthodox Russian bishops had taken his own consecration of the world to the Mother of God as an occasion also to consecrate Russia in a special way to Mary. When he spoke about this story, I could see his joy – surely also about the fact that they had fulfilled his urgent yearning; but also because he had himself in his own intuition guessed the Will of God. [emphasis added]
Cardinal Cordes concludes this story with the words that, in light of these events: “One can only break out in praising God. It [this praise] will sound especially intimate in this place, the only cathedral in the former Soviet Union which is consecrated to Our Lady of Fatima; on this day, on which Pope Francis canonizes the two seer children Francisco and Jacinta.”
This short report as presented here by Cardinal Cordes is yet another confirmation – as previously expressed by Rome’s chief exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth himself – that Pope John Paul II had given in to outside pressures not to mention Russia explicitly by name when performing the 1984 Consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Father Amorth – who is now deceased – had told LifeSiteNews in December of 2015 the following with regard to this momentous matter:
The Consecration has not yet been made. I was there on March 25 [1984] in St. Peter’s Square, I was in the front row, practically within touching distance of the Holy Father. John Paul II wanted to consecrate Russia, but his entourage did not, fearing that the Orthodox would be antagonized, and they almost thwarted him. Therefore, when His Holiness consecrated the world on his knees, he added a sentence not included in the distributed version that instead said to consecrate “especially those nations of which you yourself have asked for their consecration.” So, indirectly, this included Russia. However, a specific consecration has not yet been made. You can always do it. Indeed, it will certainly be done … “.
Both testimonies about these incidents at the 25 March 1984 Consecration might seem so small and yet they are, truly, so significant and so consequential. To consecrate Russia by name, and explicitly so, at that moment of history would have meant to put mere human prudential considerations below Divine commands and the merciful warning message of the Mother of God. It would mean to trust God’s Providence and His love for mankind. It would have meant to trust that Our Lady’s conditioned promise to send a period peace will come true.
Perhaps John Paul ll trusted his counselors more than the Counselor; the Holy Spirit.
Such is the great responsibility of the Vicar of Christ on this earth, so many talking around him, giving advise, warning of what to say and not to say, what to do and not to do, and always worried about offenses taken by “others’. It is to be understood, and yet, I think it is another indication that those who reside in the Vatican, to the very top, have truly not put their trust in the Holy Spirit. They worry too much of things of this world.
He apparently trusted the founder of the Legionaries of Christ more than he trusted the Holy Spirit. The man was truly evil, yet totally invincible under John Paul II.
A point the Legionaries used in their own tireless PR efforts long after he was dead and buried.
I know.
Some of the most holy men I know – mystics even – have their blind spots. They make bad judgments, spiritual or otherwise. Remember that every man has his blind spots, and that every Pope makes his mistakes. The Pope is, in the end, only a man. And the frequent hysteria surrounding JP2 among traditionalists rings of the “anti vaxxer” and “flat earth” quality of hysteria; it is to our great discredit.
“Perhaps John Paul ll trusted his counselors more than the Counselor; the Holy Spirit.”
Perhaps you need to re-examine yourself. John Paul II was a man of great courage, not a man who bows to the pressure of the world but a man unafraid to convict the world of sin.
You say with such arrogance: “Such is the great responsibility of the Vicar of Christ on this earth…” Do you know what it is to carry this great responsibility like a cross, to be personally responsible to Christ for safeguarding his universal Church, to answer to the King (who reaps where he does not sow) for what you have done with the House that he has — temporarily — entrusted to you as his steward?
John Paul II cared very much about seeking reunion with our Eastern brethren; he knew that the East and the West, the Greek and the Latin heritage of the Church, are like two lungs. He also knew that the situation between the United States and the USSR was delicate in 1984, and that what hung in the balance was not only secular geo-politics but the future of the freedom to practice the Faith openly. He explicitly credited his own survival (i.e., after the assassination attempt) to Our Lady of Fatima; do you really think that he cared more about the opinion of the world than about her? Do you really think that he ignored her to please the opinions of men?
Very easy for you to sit comfortably at your laptop and armchair quarterback a decision made by man much bigger than yourself, whose apostolic burden you have not carried. Very easy for others to pile on and ‘like’ your comment. All very easy. Not so easy to navigate the waters that John Paul II had to navigate when he steered the barque.
If he made a true mistake in not saying the word ‘Russia,’ then he made that mistake for reasons he regarded as important for the Church, not because he sought to appease any worldly expectation.
No one (that I can see) is suggesting that JPII was acting out of impure motives. Even his greatest critics must admit that he led a life of holiness and achieved remarkable things.
But he is not beyond all criticism. In refusing to consecrate Russia, explicitly, to the Immaculate Heart, he no doubt believed he was acting in the best interests of the Church and of “humanity.” What’s more, it is not even clear that he was capable of getting his bishops to join him in the act of consecration–the majority of them despised him and actively worked against his papacy. I love the man. I pity him. And I am grateful for his service.
All of that said, one may charitably criticize him for failing to place his complete trust in the protection of Our Lady. He elevated his own geopolitical wisdom–which was vast–over the explicit mandate of heaven. This was, in my view, a fatal error and one which has led the Church and her children into greater suffering.
There was no charitable criticism in the comment I responded to, nor did my own comment suggest that he is beyond criticism (if you notice, I readily admit that his decision may have been a mistake). What I responded to what a blowhard who thinks that he can casually accuse someone like John Paul II of listening more to human opinion than to the Holy Spirit. That was a direct statement in the comment I replied to, not an inference.
It is not possible for a holy man to ever err, and listen more to human opinion that the Holy Spirit? Do you not think saints ever erred in this way?
Do you think less of Peter for denying our Lord three times, when he ate with him, slept with him and witnessed the countless miracles?
There is only one saintly treasure who, born without Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, always responded to the will of the Father.
I said twice (once in my initial reply and once in my second reply) that his decision to avoid the word ‘Russia’ may have very well been a mistake, an error. He made various errors; I would argue that the biggest of these was the move to allow female altar servers.
The reason I replied with anger is that the original comment (liked by 19 people already when I responded to it) had basically stated that John Paul chose the worldly geopolitical concerns of his ‘counselors’ over the words of Our Lady. This is a personal accusation that reads into the facts.
JPII inherited an extremely difficult situation vis a vis the Consecration and the Fatima message. His two immediate predecessors had disregarded it, including the “pope of 1960” who was explicitly charged with revealing it to the world. John XXIII was said to have replied “this is not for our times” upon reading the 3rd Secret, and he dismissed the little seers as “prophets of doom” at the opening of his Council.
So in a sense, the die was already cast. This, in my mind anyway, somewhat mitigates JPII’s failure to fulfill Our Lady’s command.
That being said, how else can one describe what he chose to do if not as a favoring of human judgment over divine? He exercised his own (considerable) geopolitical judgment and deemed that he could not “risk” the formal consecration of Russia. He was said to have feared the political consequences, which might have included anything from the full liquidation of the Church behind the Iron Curtain to full-scale nuclear war.
I cannot conceive of the pressures he felt in his position. He was the leader of the Church at a time when it faced a literal existential crisis. The poison of VII had weakened the Church around the world, and his own bishops were implacably opposed to him *on a personal level.* I have my theories on why he chose to do (and not do) the things he did, but this is perhaps not the right forum for them. At any rate, he was a faithful Catholic and sits now in Heaven as a Saint and an intercessor for those of us still in this “vale of tears.”
Saint JPII, pray for us.
JPII inherited an extremely difficult situation vis a vis the
Consecration and the Fatima message. His two immediate predecessors had
disregarded it, including the “pope of 1960” who was explicitly charged
with revealing it to the world. John XXIII was said to have replied
“this is not for our times” upon reading the 3rd Secret, and he
dismissed the little seers as “prophets of doom” at the opening of his
Council.
So in a sense, the die was already cast. This, in my
mind anyway, somewhat mitigates JPII’s failure to fulfill Our Lady’s
command.
That being said, how else can one describe what he chose
to do if not as a favoring of human judgment over divine? He exercised
his own (considerable) geopolitical judgment and deemed that he could
not “risk” the formal consecration of Russia. He was said to have
feared the political consequences, which might have included anything
from the full liquidation of the Church behind the Iron Curtain to
full-scale nuclear war.
I cannot conceive of the pressures he felt
in his position. He was the leader of the Church at a time when it
faced a literal existential crisis. The liturgy was in tatters.
Vocations were bottoming out. Devotional life was dying out everywhere.
The poison of VII had weakened the Church around the world, and his
own bishops were implacably opposed to him *on a personal level.* I
have my theories on why he chose to do (and not do) certain things, but
this is perhaps not the right forum for them. At any rate, he was a
faithful Catholic and sits now in Heaven as a Saint and an intercessor
for those of us still in this “vale of tears.”
If Mary requested it it should have been done
that should have been a well duh or ..ya thInk?!! but it is not with them WHY ON EARTH!
Dear Jordan Miller,
JPll had a great impact upon my faith, starting with his funeral, which led me to his wonderful writings, and his love of souls and his love of the Church. I remember remarking to my pastor once, several years ago, when this Synod nonsense started, ” How quickly they have forgotten him,” referring to Pope JP ll. So many enemies around him.
To be Pope, is the greatest responsibility, a man can attain on this earth. He carried such a burden for the Church and for the world, as popes do.
I apologize if my comment seemed harsh. I was reflecting upon the humanness of this saint, who may have truly believed that it was not prudent to openly consecrate Russia to Mary, for political reasons. Is it possible he erred and listened more to his advisors regarding this?
It would be certainly understandable. Does that make him less holy or saintly? Absolutely not.
“I apologize if my comment seemed harsh. I was reflecting upon the humanness of this saint, who may have truly believed that it was not prudent to openly consecrate Russia to Mary, for political reasons. Is it possible he erred and listened more to his advisors regarding this?”
Yes, certainly it is possible he erred in how the consecration was done (or rather, how it was not done).
One can point to other errors he made (above I mention what I would argue is one of the biggest, the decision to allow female altar servers, which blurs and renders androgynous the relationship of Christ the Groom and Church the Bride during the Mass).
I took offense at your comment because of the opening line: “Perhaps John Paul ll trusted his counselors more than the Counselor; the Holy Spirit.” This is different than saying “Perhaps he erred, and was mistaken in discerning the will of God.” Absolutely he was sometimes mistaken in discerning the will of God. It was not the will of God for him to kiss a Qur’an. It was not the will of God for him to support the head of the Legion for so long. But I would not agree, would never agree, that he trusted his human counselors more than the Holy Spirit. He was not the kind of person to consciously choose human wisdom over the wisdom of God. If he thought that God was asking something, he would simply have done it, and not looked back. If the decision about Russia was a terrible mistake, I would maintain that he would not have made such a mistake by trusting men over the Holy Spirit.
The context here on 1P5 is significant to my response. There is frequently a tendency in the comments here for people to basically accuse John Paul II of being a Modernist, to see him as more or less in league with the same forces that elected and support Francis, and to implicitly or explicitly reject the Church’s declaration that he is a saint. It seems that you did not mean your comment in this way, but I would be willing to bet that many of the people giving your comment thumbs up read the comment in that way (“Yeah, just another example of the failures of the pseudo-‘saint’ John Paul II, that Modernist fraud”)
I would try to assume better intentions about the people on this forum, Jordan.
While JPII comes in for more criticism here than just about anywhere else in Catholic media today, traditionalists have a much more nuanced take on him than you credit them with. Most of us see him as a pious, well-intentioned man fully deserving of his sainthood. Some of us even came into the Church in part because of the model life he led! I am one of them.
But we are also far too aware of his neglect of the organization, his zealous ecumenism, and his (forgive me, but there is no other way to say it) emphasis on geopolitics above theology. He was the first pope who was manifestly not a Thomist, but a European epistemologist. In attempting to make peace with the new world order, he contributed to the decline in the vitality and legitimacy of the Church. In failing to curb his bishops, he permitted the cancer of Freemasonic modernism to metastatize throughout the body of the Church.
Now….I will say this in his defense. I believe that at heart the man was a mystic. I am certain that he had an intimate relationship with Christ and Our Lady and that he sought always to do their will as best he could. It is therefore entirely possible–even likely–that he was *instructed* by Our Lord and Our Lady to allow the Church to continue its decline. Fatima, Garabandal, LaSalette, Akita, and Pope Leo XIII’s vision–all of these contained the same message: the withdrawal of divine favor, chastisement, and a war within the Church. JPII knew all of this and more. Perhaps he saw himself as a transitional Pope who could be a bridge to the world that will come after the end of St. Malachy called “these Catholic times.”
A few things:
– Zealous ecumenism is a good thing if by ‘ecumenism’ you mean what John Paul meant by it, which was drawing others into full communion with the one, holy, apostolic, Catholic Church. Though the decision to kiss the Qur’an was a bad one, for the most part his ecumenism was authentically Catholic, not religious pluralism/relativism
– “Emphasis on geopolitics above theology”? Not true at all. John Paul contributed significantly to the Church’s theology in his masterwork Man and Woman He Created Them (more often known as Theology of the Body). And all his papal writings were profoundly theological, drawn from Tradition and not merely from his background in phenomenology or personalism. Is he at fault for studying philosophy as a younger man? He would only be at fault if he allowed secular philosophy to determine his theology, but the contrary is true: i.e., he allows the Faith to determine his philosophical works. John Paul’s theological contribution is centered on the Christological anthropology expressed succinctly in Gaudium et Spes 22: i.e., it is only in the incarnation of the Logos that the human being is made known to itself; there is no understanding of the human being except through Christ. John Paul understood geopolitics through Christ, he did not allow the Gospel to be submerged in a geopolitical agenda.
– “First pope who was manifestly not a Thomist, but a European epistemologist.” Again, not true. Fides et Ratio, perhaps his most important encylical letter, is entirely concerned with a return to the unity between faith and reason, and St. Thomas is held up as the prime example and guide in this (cf. FR 43 and 44 in particular). Veritatis Splendor, another candidate for most important JPII encyclical, is also entirely about the moral clarity and wisdom of the teaching of St. Thomas, in opposition to the poisonous currents in what claims the name “moral theology.” John Paul is by no means an “epistemologist,” if by that you mean “someone who reduces philosophy to epistemology, thereby turning away from metaphysics.” John Paul is very much grounded in metaphysics, and not only metaphysics in some vague sense but the metaphysical heritage of the Fathers and Doctors.
– “Attempting to make peace with the new world order.” No. He sought peace, but not at the expense of the truth of the full message of the Gospel, and not so as to bask in worldly praise. John Paul was an enemy of the new world order (if by ‘new world order’ you mean ‘the secular relativism that increasingly takes over everything,’ which is how I assume you mean it), and was not afraid of confrontation.
– The only point I’d agree with you on is “Failing to curb his bishops.” John Paul could have done more to pull the episcopacy back from the insanity of the late 60s and 70s. He could have been much tougher on bishops openly, proudly declaring poisonous heresies both doctrinal and moral. But I would add this: that the situation was such that the ‘lay down the law’ or ‘heads will roll’ approach Traditionalists always wish for may not have yielded the hoped-for result. As I said in an earlier post, it’s easy to play armchair quarterback with the Petrine ministry. But the sheer number of heterodox bishops in the world in the 70s and 80s was such (still is such) that to just ‘law down the law’ might have led to open rebellion. Many of these bishops were/are so far gone that they don’t acknowledge the veracity of the Gospel accounts, and therefore don’t believe that Christ actually instituted the Church in any explicit way (presupposing that the authority conferred on Peter is an invention of the “Matthean community,” not something actually done by Christ), nor ordained the Apostles; hence they don’t have any serious regard for the reality of apostolic succession or the Petrine ministry. So these “bishops” are always just a slight push away from denying the authority of the Pope altogether if he doesn’t say the things they like. John Paul may have tried to take a more ‘bring them back and rehabilitate them, rather than off with their heads’ approach, so as to avoid schism. But again, I agree that this approach was not ultimately successful in curbing these bishops (because in some cases they are wolves actively seeking the destruction of the flock, not merely negligent shepherds who need to be woken to their responsibilities).
A very reasonable and convincing reply, Jordan. I admit I may be guilty of convicting JPII of being a phenomenologist (not epistemologist, as I mistakenly wrote) based on his studies as a young man. My issue with his encyclicals is that they were so often couched in the dry, Byzantine language common to the European academy at the time. Perhaps I am mistaking the form for the substance.
As for his engagement with the NWO, let me be more clear: he believed that he could win a place in it, perhaps even a leading place, for the Roman Catholic Church. Meanwhile, his bishops were actively colluding with the NWO (the EU in particular) to undermine the authority of the Church and to marginalize her within the new EU constitution. Many of us knew at the time that the EU was at its heart a Luciferian/Freemasonic monstrosity and that no compromise with it would ever be possible. At a certain point, it is lamentable that JPII held to his strategy of optimism and engagement rather than simply declaring the entire thing anathema.
All of which brings us to your final point, which is entirely valid. I do believe that JPII fully understood that the great majority of his bishops had fallen into heresy and error. He did not want to risk an open schism and so hoped that he could “outlast” them and win more to his side through his personal example. Who am I to say he wasn’t right? I am, after all, one of the lost sheep who came home to the Church in large part because of him. And just as Whittaker Chambers said when he left the Marxists, I knew that I was in all likelihood joining the losing side. The fight is worthwhile, regardless of the ultimate outcome.
I hear you.
Our Lady said that after the consecration “Russia will convert and there will be a time of peace”. So even though there was great pressure on JPII from all angles not to mention Russia for diplomatic reasons its as though JPII said “I want to do it, but you know what, I just can’t risk it”. The thing is that there was no risk! If Our Lady promised conversion and peace then she already provided the result of the consecration, a result that the enemies of Fatima couldn’t do anything about. It may very well be true that, similar to Pius XII, even if JPII would have gone ahead with naming Russia that many of the bishops would not have been in union with him. I’m wonder myself if the consecration would still be valid (full fulfillment of the request) if the bishops of the world refused even though the pope expressly commanded all bishops to do so. It would seem (humanly) impossible in our times to get every bishop on board with the pope for such a thing.
They’d do it if he commanded them under pain of excommunication latae sentiae.
Exactly. So sad.
No matter how many times I have mentioned this to people, they still insist that John Paul II consecrated Russia. I think they are afraid because they know that the chastisements are here precisely because the consecration hasn’t been done as Our Lady has commanded. May Our Lady intercede and bring about this much needed consecration so we can finally have, even if temporary, that Peace which only God can give.
Mark Anthony Beale, Our Lady told Sr. Lucia, “The consecration will be made but it will be late”. Sr, Lucia understood what Our Lady meant when she said, “It will be late”. Remember that one of Our Lady’s Prophecies have yet to be fulfilled, “The Annihilation of several Nations”, That must happen before the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, unless we avert it by obeying what Our Lady called for from each individual at Fatima.
The chastisement of the RCC has already begun with the Pope that God imposed in 2013.
Just look at how Christians are now the object of derision harassment and in other countries. killed.
God didn’t impose him. He allowed the marxist, communist, feminist, homosexual, etc., alliance to have its candidate for a time.
This will directly lead to a Donald Trump, real Pope in the Church who will reestablish Catholic Order and rule with a rod of iron.
May Pope Francis have a good and holy death, and may it be soon!
You have hopes in Donald Trump?! All Western lwaders are puppets and controlled.
Trump is different. He is currently being given the choice: comply with the establishment Plan to destroy European nations or be destroyed himself.
We will see which path he chooses.
Poor man. You have no hope, then; even of God, for he works through men.
Oh, I think it began much farther back – Vatican II ring a bell?!
Most Traditionalists are aware of the Ostpolitik of the Vatican from the time of John XXIII onwards (although, flouting Pius XII’s direct command, the future Paul VI had already initiated contact in the 1950s) which led to the “Metz Agreement”. If you do not know about this, there are many sources. Here is one: http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr16/cr16pg05.asp
Even if one completely ignores the doctrinal problems of the so-called Second Vatican Council, this Ostpolitik, which showed itself at the Council in a refusal to condemn the errors of the age – and what greater error could there be than atheistic Communism! – is a hideous betrayal for which that Council should be condemned out of hand. Heaven had communicated God’s course of action at Fatima: Rome chose politics instead.
Who was betrayed? Josyf Cardinal Slipyj for one, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, a Catholic hero who spent a total of nine years in Kolyma slave labour camps. József Cardinal Mindszenty for another, a Catholic hero who as head of the Church in Hungary was tortured and imprisoned by the Communists for years. Millions of our brother Catholics in Ukraine and throughout Eastern Europe were betrayed by Vatican II and as a result that Council will never, ever be able to be seen by this Catholic anyway as anything more than a sick joke.
And that’s before we start on the myriad problems of its disastrous documents.
Of course Russia hasn’t been consecrated. Traditionalists have been right about absolutely everything and they are right on the question of the Consecration too.
Both Slipyj and Mindszenty are saints whether The Church recognizes them or not.
Yes! And the same applies to Ignatius Cardinal Kung Pinmei.
There were other popes prior to John Paul II, during the interval between 1917 and 1984. Why didn’t Pope Pius XII, for example, make the consecration?
Yes, a very good question.
He did a Consecration of the World during WWII with the intent to make that of Russia but he was dissuaded for the same “diplomatic” reasons as JPII since USSR was allied with the free world to fight the 3rd Reich. In addition he couldn’t easily order all the world’s bishops to unite with him.
One will recall the condemnation of Communism by Pope Pius XI. Pope Pius XII was prevailed upon to lift the condemnation so that Western Catholics could fight with our great ally, Uncle Joe Stalin. Thus he could not, he felt, consecrate Russia.
The fruits of WWII and the errors of Russia are all around us. Until we recognize the wrongheadedness of WWII Allies we will never get the consecration.
I replied to Colby. Hope it helps.
Thank you, Margaret, for your answer.
Pope Pius XII consecrated the world in 1942 in response to a revelation of Our Lord to another Portuguese mystic, Blessed Alexandria Maria da Costa. The purpose was “an abbreviation of the present distress” ie a shortening of the Second World War.
(Frère Michel, Toute la Vérité Sur Fatima: Le Secret et l’Église, 1984, p. 464; 1986, p. 464.)
JMJ
TGS, I’m really not interested in confrontation, however do you believe that Saint John Paul the Great is a Saint or not?
I do because the Church tells me he is.
Actually, Pius XII did – BUT not correctly. To recap:
On June 13, 1929, in the Presence of the Most Holy Trinity, Our Lady said to Sister Lucia:
“The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to order and make in union with all the bishops of the world the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.”
This is what God asked for through Our Lady of Fatima.
From Pope Pius XI to the present, NO Pope has done it exactly as God wanted:
Pius XI – didn’t do it.
In the 1950s, Our Lady told Sister Lucia:
“Make it known to the Holy Father that I am awaiting the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. Without the consecration, Russia will not be able to convert, nor will the world have peace.”
Pius XII – 1952 – consecrated Russia BUT WITHOUT all the bishops. Our Lord told Sister Lucia that this was insufficient. (This is the answer to your question.)
John XXIII – didn’t do it.
Paul VI – didn’t do it but declared Our Lady Mother of the Church
John Paul I – died after 33 days
John Paul II – consecrated the WORLD – NOT Russia – in 1982, 1984 and 2000. Russia was not even mentioned in *any* of these consecrations, *nor* were they performed in union with all the bishops of the world.
Benedict XVI – didn’t do it
Francis – 2013 – entrusted the WORLD to Our Lady – no mention of Russia. Saturday he entrusted the WORLD (again) to Our Lady.
When God wants something done, He wants it done HIS way. NO politician, diplomatic treaties etc, is going to bring world peace.
Please check out http://www.fatima.org. They’re the best resource on Fatima.
Don’t forget the Eparch of the Russian Catholic Rite founded by Pope Leo XIII, Fr. Leonid Feodorov and the priests of the Russian Catholic Rite, who were beginning the process of the conversion of Russia; and who perished in the gulags.
After the fall of communism, the Church still refuses to appoint a new Eparch for the Russian Catholic Rite lest they antagonize the Russian Orthodox; and good Russian Catholic priests are forbidden incardination and funding by a the Latin Bishop for Russia, who is a Volga German and not Russian, and who hates Russians.
There is to be a Russian Catholic Rite world congress in July, pray that God will bless this Rite and give it the priests and funding it needs to convert Russia from within while we are awaiting the Pope’s consecration of Russia.
He’s now Blessed Leonid Fedorov. Pope John Paul II beatified him and others in June 2001.
You are correct. Should have mentioned that. Great article also, thanks!
We tend to think that Our Lady is going to miraculously convert Russia, and I’m sure she will to some degree. However, just as the Spanish priests had to convert the heathen Meso-Indians of Mexico, so too are the Russian Rite Catholics needed.
Russians do not want to be Latin Rite, it is culturally alien to them. That is why Vladimir Soloviev prevailed upon Pope Leo XIII to found the Russian Catholic Rite. Pray that the Vatican will give them an Eparch, and allow it to grow and move toward the conversion of Russia – as God obviously wants.
For those interested in Vladimir Soloviev read his Russia and the Universal Church – http://www.lulu.com/shop/william-von-peters-and-vladimir-soloviev/russia-and-the-universal-church/paperback/product-21377856.html – it is one of the finest works on the utter necessity of the Petrine Office in Christ’s Church.
Thank YOU for the link! XO
I’d heard about Soloviev, but never read anything other than what Bishop Sheen printed in his Life is Worth Living series (I know he quoted him somewhere!).
Start with this one: http://www.lulu.com/shop/william-von-peters-and-vladimir-soloviev/russia-and-the-universal-church/paperback/product-21377856.html
He has several of Soloviev’s books there.
Cardinal Slipyj spent 18 years (total) in the gulag. In fact, when he heard that his release was part of the Vatican-Moscow agreement, he wanted to go back to the gulag!
Another result of the Vatican-Moscow agreement was that Catholic clergy were forbidden to condemn Communism. Cardinal Slipyj ignored that prohibition and spoke out against Communism, which made Pope Paul VI very uncomfortable.
To consecrate something without mentioning it by name seems to be completely contrary to the idea of consecration as far as I can see.
However, I am a simple, dull-witted man who has no cares about the human respect of schismatics, heretics and diplomats, so perhaps I don’t have the life-skills necessary to operate in the grey world of ecclesiastical politics. In my simple reductionist way I would normally assume that if somebody doesn’t do something that they are asked to do, then its because they don’t really think it is very important or don’t believe that the one who has asked them to do it has any right to ask it in the first place.
Deacon_Augustine, I daily consecrate myself to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, not mentioning myself by Name. Would you say that years of making this consecration has not been valid becuase I didn’t mention myself by Name?
There’s really no comparison, you’re being a bit precious, PaxTecum! But, as a matter of interest, if you wish to make the formal and long consecration to Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Wisdom, by the hands of Mary, as recommended by St Louis de Montfort, at one part you have to say: “I, [name], an unfaithful sinner etc. … “
MSApis, Then my daily Consecrations have been invalid because I only have been saying, “I consecrate myself to thy Sacred Heart my Jesus, I consecrate myself to thine Immaculate Heart my Most Holy Mother.” Like the Holy Father I imply, ME! I guess my daily consecrations will be invalid till the day I die.
PaxTecum, you are really carrying on a bit! You know, protesting too much. Just read what I said, and don’t draw hyperbolic conclusions from my words.
MSApis, Quibbling about words is senseless. God knows our intentions.The intentions of St. John Paul ll were well known to God. His intention was to fulfill the consecration asked for by Our Lady and Sr. Lucia confirmed it was accepted. It does not matter how the consecration was made as there would always be Grunerites around to destroy the work of God. Stop protesting the collegiate consecration, its been done.
I’m happy quibbling about words as they are the gateway to truth and so reflect the Word. The greatest heresies were fought by quibbling over words. Satan softly seduces the heart and mind through ‘harmless’ words. As to Pope John Paul II, no doubt his intentions were known to God, but are they known to you?
Since you are unable to leave Fr Gruner out, I’ll confess that I’m what you call a Grunerite. Feel free to think badly of me, but God knows the truth. Just don’t try to browbeat me, that’s not going to work. Pax tecum.
MSApis, When I said,”quibbling about words” I meant stop “carrying on a bit”. That one is a Grunerite is a threat to ones soul. As Gruner only lied and deceived, I’ll take Sr. Lucias word for that anytime. I hope Fr. Gruner repented of his deceptions before his death.
MSApis, When I said quibbling about words I meant stop, “Carrying on a bit”. How can I leave Gruner out? He is the inventor of conspiracy theories and many followed his path. They were and are the enemies of Fatima.
You have a lot to learn. I’m done. Pax tecum 🙂
MSApis, I agree I have a lot to learn, it will be done according to all Our Lady said at Fatima. Pray for me, I will pray for you. God Bless you and all your loved ones.
MSApis, When I said, quibbling about words, I meant stop, “carrying on a bit”.
“Quibbling about words is senseless. God knows our intentions.”
I beg your pardon, but words ARE important. If you attend a baptism and the priest says over the baby “I baptize you in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier” that is NOT a valid baptism as per the CDF.
If Russia is supposedly consecrated:
1) where’s the period of peace promised by Our Lady?
There’s war all over the globe. Also, Pope Francis said that we are going through a world war piecemeal (I’m paraphrasing).
St. Augustine said that peace is the tranquility of order. If this is peace, then what is war?
2) where’s the conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith? Fr. Joaquin Alonso, the official archivist of Fatima who spoke to Sister Lucia, said that the conversion of Russia entails the return of Russia to the Catholic Faith. Today, Catholics are a *minority* in Russia. Catholic priests can get visas for only 6 months and are kicked out by the Russian government for specious reasons or no reason at all.
When the Holy Father and all the bishops finally consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Russia will convert to the Catholic Faith. Think of the conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) but on a national scale.
I am grieved that you would use the name of the late Fr. Nicholas Gruner in such a derogatory way. If you ever met him (as I did) you’d never post that.
Please check out www fatima.org. Thank you.
Margaret, “Words are important”. So then a man born deaf and dumb has no value to his prayers. He needs words, words, and more words. So, God does not know the heart, he then only understand us with words. Words are just letters put together. Its prayer from the Heart that is important to God. He has made this abundantly clear in both the OT and the NT. Who is wrong, God or man? Let go of the conspiracy theories they do no one any good. It only offends God when our ears itch for fables and we reject the ways of His Truth. Who needs fables? We have St. John Paul The Great and Sr. Lucia for the truth!!!
We also must not forget that we must also cooperate with the consecration. Mexican bishops recently exorcised all of Mexico yet the violence, decapitations and drugs continue to flow. Our Lady of Guadeloupe images also abound there and yet it is ruins.
And why haven’t subsequent apparitions of Our Lady mentioned Russia. There have been many approved apparitions since Fatima and they haven’t said anything about Russia and the consecration?
I love Our Lady like no other, but I also know that she’s not some entity we can work magic through, subduing the free will of others.
And..if Pope St. JPII can be both a saint and imperfect as a person..so why can’t also Sr. Lucia? Is it at all possible she made up the stories later in life when Our Lady visited her? Why does she get the benefit of all credibility but not JPII?
yep. words = crucial, according to exorcists who deal with the legalist (& intelligent, unfortunately) fallen angels all the live-long day.
Excellent point. The late Fr. Amorth used the old rite of exorcism. He said the new one wasn’t as effective as the old one.
I only have been saying, “I consecrate myself to thy Sacred Heart my
Jesus, I consecrate myself to thine Immaculate Heart my Most Holy
Mother.” That is fine because, no doubt, you are not reciting that particular personal consecration publicly.
Your use of the pronoun “I” replaces the use of your name.
The Great Stalin, The implication and intention of the Holy Father to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate heart of Mary, replaced the word Russia.
We differ on this point. But let our differences not be a barrier to charity.
The Great Stalin, Deo Gratias!
Apparently you might have made valid consecrations, but only if your name is “Russia.”!
I assume that you do realize that the words “I”, “My” and “Myself” specifically replace your name in such prayers and that it would be most unusual to refer to yourself by your name as though referring to a third person.
”IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD,………………………………. AND THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH” woids woids woidz…to us..? NO words are given power by the Creator.
Source: MEETING WITH SR MARIA LUCIA | Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone,
Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith | In the Convent of Coimbra, Portugal, 17 November 2001 – https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdflucia.htm
Funny how Sr. Lucia’s testimony was 180 degrees of Bertone’s hearsay until no one was allowed to speak for her but him.
This is where 1P5 Apostolate goes off the rails. What a pity!
Your idolatry of JPII appears to be the real problem.
You know very well I do not adore Pope St. John Paul II the Great, the great and saintly pope who in your comment above you deny him the title as saint. This will be you undoing.
The Great and Saintly pope who made so much of this possible? Undo me.
Er … no more communist Russia for starters …
And now we have fascist Russia instead. Well consecrated.
This is it exactly . Too bad it is buried at the bottom of the thread. Back in the ’80’s I studied communist systems, but the curriculum always emphasized political economy, not the essence n fact of what communism IS.
Dialectical materialism is not just about rubles, it is about the very soul, the very essence of what makes a man. It wasn’t until I became a Catholic that I began to truly understand, through the texts of the Church, this “other side of the coin”.
And so many aspects of this have now infected the Church leadership and Catholics themselves.
One is ilish materialism even in Jesus’ day, in the teachings of the Sadducees who though they were responsible for ceremonies of the Temple, denied the resurrection even to the point of mocking the martyred seven brothers of 2 Maccabees. I believe we have their ancestors among our Churchmen even today.
History is a giant spiral, isn’t it, with the same errors in a new form chasing each other through the centuries.
“Chasing each other”.
Yes, that’s it.
How did Communism come to Russia?
I suspect you are going to tell me. But if I’m wrong, a good place to start would be the books by Professor Pipes. All available on Amazon.
For years I have been following the progress of cultural Marxism through education [sic]. The so-called Common Core wars are the tip of the iceberg; most of what is going on remains hidden from view unless you are looking at it, say, in ed conferences in Mongolia. Moscow is a very active participant; in fact, the (British) head of the education division of Pearson, the flag-ship publisher of Common Core and related material, is on the staff of the National Research University in Moscow. The social engineering of the early Soviet behavioralists is positively crude compared to what is now going on in the schools, thanks to digital technology. Here is a sample of what the sleek, air-brushed, globalized iteration of Homo Sovieticus looks like, as embraced by the Harvard School of Education: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/16/11/how-thrive-21st-century.
Right. Communism isn’t in vogue at all today, and Russia didn’t spread the errors Communism all over the world on JP2’s watch; and JP2 definitely didn’t lament the silent apostasy going on in the Church while it happened. Nope. Nothing to see here. sarc/
Communism isn’t in vogue at all today
***
So something happened for it not to be in vogue. A desired consecration was effected? Via labors of a great and saintly pope? The latter is even acknowledged by the secular world.
What is Communism, FMShuanguya?
I doubt that you can define it. Not only is it in vogue in the world now, it is its controlling force. Forget the crazy economics, that’s gone but the economic lunacy wasn’t Communism.
Cf. Catholic Encyclopedia > C > Communism – http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04179a.htm and CCC 2425 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm#2425
***
My simple understanding: simply a lie from the enemy cooked up in the lodges where everyone is made equal via the abolition of e.g. all private property, all Religion, all family and marriage, etc. with the end result of the State/its Dictator being turned into a god.
Ummmmm, that was sarcasm, which I thought was so obvious I initially left off the “sarc/” at the end of my comment. But, wow, the fact that you actually think Communism is not in vogue today tells me everything I need to know.
Understand your sarcasm now. Communism didn’t collapse? Russia still communist?
In truth, the errors of Russia include much more than those merely associated with a command economy. In fact, aspects of even that have spread, but certainly the {im-}moral teachings of socialism/communism HAVE metastasized. It wasn’t till I dove into the pre-V2 teachings on socialism/communism {eg Quod Apostolici Muneris} that all this really sunk in.
Cultural Marxism is alive and well in the developed West.
Our Lady’s message of the need for conversion must be heard and the hearts of the people..all of us…turned toward our Savior Jesus Christ.
Cultural Marxism is alive and well in the developed West.
***
In the West. No longer in Russia.
Well, in some ways that might be true, but Russia has something like 30% more abortions than live births and I believe, the world’s highest divorce rate.
That doesn’t sound like a conversion to me.
I have argued here: http://disq.us/p/1inf3i9 the context of the conversion.
“No longer in Russia or from Russia.”
Very much so throughout the former USSR. You don’t know it. I do, having lived there for many years. Very little has changed there since Soviet times.
Cultural Marxism rules the vast majority of the world.
I agree about the illogical nature of the anti-Russia rhetoric to some degree. In fact, I WISH we were pursuing a policy favorable of Russia. I don’t think Trump is against it, but time will tell. The current raving by Democrats is, in my opinion extrmely dangerous and unproductive of any good.
Agreed
One of the errors to be spread is abortion.Russia..yes RUSSIA IS THE PLACE WHERE….
There is no need for Russia to still spread her errors because they have already been spread. Another reason to think that the consecration has not been done because it was meant to avert the spread of errors.
MSApis, Perhaps you are right. So many errors have been spread on Fatima by the professionals. Its the work of Communism! Must Fatima be debunked? After all there are so many contradictory FACTS that prove Sr. Lucia never told us the truth. We Must follow Gruner, the master of all that pertains to Fatima.
Sarcasm is the weapon of the Devil. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. If what you mean is that the errors of Russia have not been spread already, then why don’t you say so? The ad hominem against Fr Gruner was uncalled for. Catholic courtesy is reflected in the old saying: “De mortuis nil nisi bonum”, which means speak no evil of the dead – (because they are not there to defend themselves).
MSApis, There is another saying, “I don’t speak of his death but of his life” The sarcasm you claim I made is not sarcasm, its what all Grunerites by their words and actions are in reality living. There are those living the consecration that was made late. They have offered themselves as a sacrifice in reparation for sins committed against God and for the conversion of poor sinners, they have much to suffer! That St. John Paul ll did not make the consecration standing on his head and screaming out Russia a million times does not matter. It was the Intention and he made it clear that the Consecration was made in order to fulfill the request of Our Lady and Sr. Lucia said, “Heaven accepted it”.
If they are already spread from Russia, of what use will be the consecration of Russia that you believe is still not yet done?
@FMShyanguya, Thanks. I now know that we were not spared from destruction by Atomic and Nuclear bombs as the charlatan Lucia claimed. Communism never ended, the good things happening in Russia are not happening. There is no final battle between God and Satan on the Family. I guess Sr. Lucia Dos Santos needs to be condemned by the Holy Roman Catholic Church for telling us all her lies. With Sr. Lucia feeding us lies, maybe Our Lady never even asked for the Consecration of Russia, maybe Sr. Lucia was forced to say that under obedience. Maybe Our Lady never appeared in 1917. Maybe the 70,000 people who claim to have witnessed the miracle of the sun were paid to say that. If the Consecration was not done on March 25, 1984 then we must conclude that Fatima is just another Medjugorje.
In France we still have a big number of people with a communist/leftist mind and they continue to spread the communism lies and errors. I guess it is the same in the US and elsewhere.
In the United Nations, Mrs Figueres told recently that “the political system of China is the best to deal with the climate change” !!!!
No, based largely on the Church’s perennial, unchanging teachings, upheld by countless popes, and the Church’s age-old civilised, rational methods of resolving issues as they arise.
@FMShyanguya, Let us not forget the miracle of which Sr. Lucia spoke of, “The world was about to be destroyed by Atomic and Nuclear bombs. The Consecration averted it”.
The promises of Our Lady when she asked for Russia’s consecration to Her Immaculate Heart weren’t about a nuclear world war:
– The conversion of the orthodox Russia to the true Catholic Faith
– A period of peace granted to the world.
The consecration to the WORLD made by JPII certainly brought good fruits, that of the fall of the communism in USSR and in its satellites,
…but we didn’t yet get the promised ones.
The conversion of a people can in no way be compared to a change in a political system
Jacques Dumon, Our Lady never gave a complete computer read out of what the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart would be.
Jacques Dumon, Sr. Lucia said of the 1984 consecration, “The world was about to be destroyed by Atomic and Nuclear bombs. The consecration averted it”. Were it not for the consecration we would have evaporated back in 1984
“2) The attempted innovations of the present emperor wears no clothes can’t get past the great and saintly pope’s teaching. The 4 brave bishops who are cardinals dubia based largely of the Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching.”
This is quite true. In a world where it seems nothing written before 1965 matters, fortunately we have Pope St John Paul II’s words which must give the 3 Amigos Daneels, Kasper and Marx fits. Not to mention the Pope, who, as Amoris indicates, has chosen to provide truncated quotes thereof.
Steve, your sarcasm and cynicism about St. john Paul 11 is very disheartening to me. He is a saint in our Catholic church. Why oh why can we not see what he DID do for the church? Why such animosity and polarization? Can this come from the Holy One? I tremble that so many words of detraction are so easily thrown about over him and how they must cause the Blessed Mother to weep. We constantly fall into sin in weakness ourselves and cry out for mercy, and yet we have no mercy for a man of this caliber! We expect all the benefits of mercy for ourselves but we will be greatly disappointed, as Jesus DEMANDS acts of mercy in word and deed towards others from us as well. Scripture says of Him “I will make your enemies my enemies.” That St. John Paul is Christ’s friend should be enough to make us hold our tongue.
I am not asking for one to live in denial and I know that I am perhaps not as well read about past trials that the church has lived through as I could be or as others here are, but knowing does not necessarily make one more pleasing in the sight of God. What I do know is that if I had one iota of Lolek’s humility and his interior life, I would see the heavens open wide before me. We should take a note from Cardinal Sarah’s book “The Power of Silence” where many of our questions will be answered or become unimportant in the Light of His Face. There is a quote in his book by Romano Guardini that I underlined the other evening….”The silent forces are the strong forces.” In those words are what is sometimes missing in all of us…beauty, goodness and truth.
Beautifully said. Thank you!
raphaelheals, Thanks for coming to defend the Great Holy Father St. John Paul ll The Great. What a powerful comment you made. I have made many mistakes in writing but I would like to correct just one word you used. You wrote of “detraction” it should be “Calumny”. Detraction is when we speak the truth of another that harms their good name. Calumny is when we lie about someone in order to destroy their good name. So those who attack St. John Paul ll The Great are in no way detracting him, they are in fact calumniating him.
There is no calumny in recalling the blasphemous Assisi meetings where one could see people worshipping Buddha in a christian church with the pope’s benediction.
Jacques Dumon, Research what St. John Paul ll The Great actually did at Assisi, don’t take the words of his enemies for it.
There are pictures of this desecration: It was not made in the Pope’s presence but it was made during the Assisi meetings he organized.
Ahh yes..pictures. Like the one where JPII is ‘kissing the Koran’. …which it wasn’t. But don’t let that ruin a good story.
Jacques Dumon, You do not know what happen in Assisi. So until you learn what it was all about, you are calumniating and blaspheming the facts. I would explain it to you but I’m sure that the conspiracy theories are infallible Doctrinal Binding under pain of mortal sin Fables for you. Scripture foretold this day very accurately, “The day will come when men will no longer endure sound Doctrine, but their ears will be itching for fables”, we are now living in a Biblical prophecy fulfilled to the letter.
YOu are becoming very redundant..well this is my first day. Ok you are redundant
Sams_1, How can one not be redundant when the same questions and comments are repeated over and over again. Don’t ask or make the same comment twice and you will see that I will not be so redundant. I think it best that you and I not exchange any more comments, your redundant to the extreme.
Thank you Pax, you are right. May the peace of Christ be with us all as we walk this bumpy road.
In a time when the Function of the “Devil’s Advocate” had not been abolished (by JPII himself !) certainly he wouldn’t have been made a saint, mainly among many other things, because of the Assist meetings.
Jacques Dumon, When a miracle attributed to a possible Saint the Bishop of the Diocese gathers all the information, testimonies from family and Doctors etc.. All medical information, X-rays, CAT Scans MRI’s etc.. Then it is presented to the Congregation for Saints. For the Beatification of St. John Paul ll The Great there were 276 Documented miraculous cures. And hundreds more for Canonization. Please explain that!
I am living in France and I could read recently that the french sister miraculously healed had an inopportune relapse in her illness.
Jacques Duman, When I read that from a reliable source I will believe it. If true, well they still have 275 inexplicable miraculous medical cures. Plus hundreds more used for the Canonization.
Nonsense. The miracle of the nun who was cured with Parkinsons was nothing to you? Let us get a grip here.
…do you know how fast Pope Pius X was canonized? Go look it up. Fast-tracking sainthood isn’t unique to JPII.
Yes, but there’s a tremendous difference between 40 years to canonization (Pius X) and 9 years (JPII). Just an observation.
Yes, and there’s also a tremendous difference between 40 years and nearly a hundred for the two that were canonized this past weekend. Most saints don’t get canonized for AT LEAST a century. So no, there really isn’t that tremendous difference. Both were fast-tracked when put up against the tradition of the Church.
Spot on.
Amen.
You may not have noticed, but we’re not into denial here. The string of post-conciliar papacies have been, on balance, disastrous to the life of faith. The incredible imprudence of a rushed canonization of a man only recently deceased when we are still in the fallout of the post-conciliar age remains, in my opinion, one of the larger mistakes of recent memory.
I grew up idolizing JPII like everyone else of my generation. It was with great chagrin that I came to realize how much of what has gone wrong in the Church happened under his leadership, even if it was not the work of his hand.
To this day, I believe that he was personally devout, and likely even quite holy, but that he lacked the theological foundation or the concern with the importance of the structures, traditions, and liturgical customs of the Church to preserve them. He was a poor judge of character, as proven by his appointments and his alliances with men like Maciel. He was, by all accounts, a religious indifferentist, which is a hard thing for me to reconcile with Catholic sainthood. The present pontificate, while far worse than anything that happened during JPII’s tenure, wouldn’t have been possible without his.
The Church says he is a saint, so I am compelled to give my assent. But I do not think his is a pontificate that should be emulated in all of its aspects. I am grateful for the good he did, but saddened by the things he allowed. It will take a great deal of time for that damage to be mended.
It bears noting, and as Michael Voris pointed out in one of his recent Vortexes, that unless we die as saints we will be damned. I found that thought both challenging and freeing.
Without knowing the greater context of this particular episode of the Vortex, my initial thought is that’s actually wrong. Otherwise there’d be no need for purgatory. We need to aim for heaven, but if we’re not quite there, purgatory will get us there.
Some time ago a priest opened my eyes to the terms “ordinary sanctity”, and “heroic sanctity”, when I asked him if it was possible for a regular Catholic to permanently live in a state of Grace. He answered absolutely and then said that ordinary sanctity was the same as staying in a state of Grace and heroic sanctity could be applied to someone like Saint Pope John Paul II persevering to the end (can’t remember the particular example he used).
With this in mind I knew what Voris meant. Here is the link: (scrub to @2:41 upon ad completion).
Steve I didn’t say that you were in denial, I was referring more to myself regarding denial and those who perhaps are not as well read as some others. I came back to the church at age 31 in 1980. It takes time for a soul to get their bearings and sense what is happening. In retrospect I see St. JP as a steadying force in a time of grave upheaval, not the catalyst for the upheaval.
Maciel fooled just about everybody, so that isn’t really a stain upon ST. John Paul. St. JP was a Thomistic scholar was he not? Did he not have two or more doctorates? Is that not enough of a theological foundation for you? He had a profoundly deep interior Carmelite spirituality. All popes seem to have placed bishops into cardinalships ( is that a word?) who ended up being a great disappointment. God seems to use each pope for different purposes. JP11 travelled the globe bringing the Light of Christ and the Gospel to the world. He chastised those devouring Latin America with Liberation Theology. He steadied the barque of Peter through 26 extremely turbulent years. And what a difference it would make without his initiative to bring the Catechism into being. Especially with the confusion that we suffer through today.
I believe that when we have completed our sojourning, we will see the abundant fruit that his presence produced to a lost generation of uncatechised youth and adults. If the miraculous cure of the nun with Parkinsons due to his intercession is true then we know that JP stands in the light of the Beatific Vision and is more than worthy of our thanksgiving and devotion. I think Cardinals’ Burke and Sarah have a completely different opinion than you on St. JP11’s legacy.
Wow!
FM…thank you. Please read my comment below.
And thank you! Through the intercession of Pope Dt. John Paul II, God bless you and yours and his work at your hands.
***
This is something that tarnishes @skojec|1P5 in an otherwise very wonderful and helpful Apostolate in our day.
@FMShyanguya, When it comes to St. John Paul ll The Great, there are those who were and are always searching for anything they could imagine he done wrong, only for the purpose to condemn him. They never listened to what he had to say, if they did or would they would understand and appreciate why we ask the Church to grant him the title “The Great”. If people only knew that His Holiness could rightfully be called a Traditionalist. Over 25 years of defending and restoring the Usus Antiquior. I remember his words, “The rightful aspirations of those attached to the Ancient Latin Discipline must always and everywhere be respected”. Was he being a modernist heretic as accused, when he said this? For this His Holiness was granted an Imprimatur, by the subjects of He, who was the Vicar of Christ. Strange!!
As for the worship Steve Skojec accuses you of. I ask, is not Fr. Gruner Idolized. He is considered to be infallible on all that pertains to Fatima. Even Sr. Lucia’s own words are rejected because Gruner knew more than her about Fatima. Even Stranger!!
St. John Paul ll The Great and Servant of God Sr. Maria Lucia of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart, ORA PRO NOBIS!
At least one of his Encyclicals, ‘Redemptor Hominis’ from memory, can hardly be squared with Holy Tradition. He was no Traditionalist. I do accept that he is a Saint, but the title of “the Great” I do not think will ever be added to him as it was for his predecessors Leo and Gregory.
The Great Stalin, Deo Gratias! You accept that St. John Paul ll is a Saint. I can say many things said and done by His Holiness that can prove he can be called a Traditionalist.
A Traditionalist does not kiss a Koran, the false book of a false religion.
A Traditionalist pope doesn’t allow worshipping a statue of Buddha in an Assisi’s church
Indeed.
HOW ABOUT FLAMENCO after mass?
The Great Stalin,, the so called kissing of the Koran is still debated. Many times a picture can look like what it is not. A Cardinal who was there said, “His Holiness did not kiss the Koran”. Lets say the Holy Father did kiss that book. Why would we deny him mercy and redemption for all eternity. Not even God does that. Are we greater than God?
Still debated?! There are clear photos of him doing just that!
The Great Stalin, Here are just a few things I remember well of St. John Paul ll;
In the beginning of his Pontificate, he ordered all priests to return to the cassock, officially giving the rules on it. He ordered all Religious to return to a, “Clearly Identifiable Habit”
He made it clear that he did not like Communion in the hand. He forbade that anyone receive Communion in the hand in the City of Rome. His plans he made clear about abolishing the sacrilege of Communion in the hand.
He immediately started work on the restoration of the TLM. Having sent an official Papal Letter to all the Bishops of the world concerning the TLM. He condemned the idea of, “In the Spirit of Vatican ll”. He called on all to teach the fullness of Catholic Truth. He condemned that communion lines were so long and Confessional lines so short.
The list would be way too long, but if interested I could go on and on.
“He made it clear that he did not like Communion in the hand.”
But allowed it.
You see the dichotomy in the post-Conciliar Church? He (and Benedict XVI after him) hated many of the things that were happening, had full authority to change things for the better, yet did not use it. Both went on and on about the “benefits of the Council” ad nauseam while decrying its effects. You explain it to me. I can’t.
The expression “grasping at straws” comes to mind.
My own opinion, but it seems to me that both JPII and Benedict were terrified, for whatever reason, that to express any sort of doubt publicly about the Council would tear the Church apart, so obsessed were they with the supposed “hermeneutic of continuity”. Never mind, of course, the fact that the Church was falling apart around them anyway.
Yes, desperately trying to hold things together. That’s very probably it.
“But allowed it.”
In truth, this is the big problem I see with the post-Conciliar Church hierarchical culture.
“Both/And” has become “Anything Goes”.
ANY Pope who truly seeks to reform and purify the Church is going to have to start with an ultimatum and mass excommunications unless a revival sweeps the planet. So much has been “allowed”, it has become very hard to even explain what the Catholic Church teaches to those who are honestly inquiring.
Yes, Rod, I agree with this one hundred percent.
The Great Stalin, On the first 2 trips to the USA by St. John Paul ll, the Los Angeles Times covered extensively the fact that St. John Paul refused to give Communion on the hand to all Americans. This could be seen in the footage. Some raised their hands as if in a struggle with his Holiness. The Holy Father struggled back and went high above their raised hands. Then the Liberal Bishops pouted and cried like baby’s with such false humility to His Holiness, so the Holy Father gave in. Not that he believed their hypocrisy. In Rome Communion on the hand was forbidden as if under pain of mortal sin. I was there twice during the reign of St. John Paul ll and the tour guides warned us not to attempt to receive in the hand in any Church in Rome. The Holy Father sent a letter to all US Bishops for a five year experimentation and stated that then he would decide if Communion in the hand would continue to be allowed in the US.
My dear brother Stalin….we who have lived through the agony of the grave disobedience of priests and bishops over these past fifty years should understand that the Holy Father can speak and can condemn Communion in the hand but how his brothers obey or not is a completely different issue. This is our long lived crisis and the Passion lived out in her Mystical Body that we are still living through.
In 2015. I asked this question Has the Vatican issued clarification for pictures which appear to show Pope St John Paul II kissing the Qur’an? over at Chritianity Stack Exchange [I am no longer there]. Look at Dick Harfield’s answer I selected. He is not a Catholic. I at times feel that non-Catholics appreciate more the great and saintly pope and his accomplishment [one just needs to recall his death and funeral] that the Church’s own children.
@FMSyanguya, I watched the televised funeral of St. John Paul The Great. That at least over 200,000 faithful repeatedly shouted “Santo Subito” was astonishing. The Television commentators translated that as meaning “Make Him a Saint now!”. My wife is friends with a good Protestant family. A major part of their Christmas Tradition was for the whole family to watch St. John Paul The Great’s Christmas midnight Mass. Another good Protestant family has told my wife that they have a great admiration for the teachings of the Catholic Church. They tell her that when they attend a Catholic Funeral they are amazed that inside of a Catholic Church they sense something holy and peaceful, something they do not sense in their own Church’s. My wife knows its because Our Lord is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar and He is granting them Graces.
@FMShyanguya, If St. John Paul The Great did kiss the Koran one explanation was given. When a Muslim gives a gift, if the recipient accepts he then kisses the gift. If he rejects the gift he demonstrates it by not kissing it. If the Holy Father kissed the gift of the Koran (which is still debated) then he was only following the givers tradition and demonstrating that the gift was being accepted. If he kissed it, he was not kissing the Koran but only the accepted gift. Whatever took place it doesn’t change the fact that His Holiness is “The Great”.
..Ugh..that wasn’t the Koran. It was the Gospels in Arabic. The man on the far right in the photo was Christian.
Well said and thank you for this. God bless you and yours and his work at your hands.
Pope st. John Paul II The Great, solidly orthodox. I of late have been saying that his detractors will one day regret or be ashamed.
http://www.medjugorje.com/medjugorje-messages/search-messages/?q=John+Paul+II
Medjugorge
***
And what is the judgment of the local ordinary?
He maintains it’s a scam.
However, just in case you didn’t click on the link, on the night Pope John Paul II died (plus see link for extra):
My local ordinary, an Archbishop, celebrated an LGBT Mass in Dublin sometime in the last five years.
He maintains it’s a scam. Since the Univerals Chucrh has yet to render judgment, and the local ordinary has, in your words, pronounced it ‘a scam’, I give it a wide berth and others ought to do the same. In any case I do not need a private revelation to confirm a Church canonization.
I hear you, I just thought of this, and your comments above. I was actually living in Medjugorje the day Pope John Paul II died, and writing this now is bringing back powerful memories of that time. Note to Steve: sorry, please don’t get enraged lol. I’ll give the Mej stuff a break now. FM, appreciate your work also.
I know you do. Seen you many upvotes. I suppose they are doing you and others good, then let’s gve thanks to God for that.
Amen brother.
Watch the hero worship and calumniating of 1P5 staff and contributors…
Jafin, I don’t think anyone is attacking 1P5. We are here because this is a great site. The article deals with a hot button issue. We have been discussing this issue in a cordial manner. We have a problem, the planet is in grave danger, Our Lady appeared at Fatima. There are now too many contradicting interpretations and opinions on Fatima. They cannot all be correct. By discussing this we hope to come to a conclusion that will unite us and together battle the evil forces of hell. We will never be successful if we are bickering on just one issue, Russia was not mentioned, Russia was implied etc… There is a lot more to Fatima than that.
Oh, come now. We are all adults here. One can acknowledge that the Church has declared JPII a saint, while simultaneously acknowledging he made some errors in prudential judgment without contradicting oneself.
Church has declared JPII a saint, while simultaneously acknowledging he made some errors in prudential judgment, without contradicting oneself.
***
Read my exchange with @skojec, he and other like him won’t acknowledge Pope St. John Paul II as a saint.
errors in prudential judgment Just a cover and ‘excuse’ to detract and malign a great and saintly pope.
FM, I’m sure you are sincere, but your constant referring to JPII as “a great and saintly pope” in every single post of yours that references him grows wearisome to read. Furthermore, it is not detraction to point out that JPII made some very serious mistakes, among them his blindness to Maciel’s evil, his laxness—by his own admission—on disciplining wayward bishops and cardinals, and the fact that he gave Bergoglio his red hat in the first place.
Even saints—including the first pope, for goodness sake—make mistakes. Your unwillingness to listen to anything remotely negative regarding JPII—whether out of sentimentality or willful blindness on your part, I do not know—is precisely the same attitude those who will not listen to any criticism of Francis/Bergoglio demonstrate on a daily basis.
False. Steve DID admit St. John Paul II was indeed a saint. Watch your calumnies. You seem fond. You’re on REALLY thin ice FM.
well we were warned about that sort of thing from the get go..n;est ce pas?
Antonio Socci’s The Fourth Secret of Fatima might help you out.
I should trust Antonio Socci over the Xhurch’s official position?
Ah yes, because of course, the Church never lies.
Especially as regards Private Revelations, that’s the Church’s purview.
Your blindness as regards everything post Vatican II and pre-Francis is embarrassing. I’m thankful you can at least see that the present emperor wears no clothes.
You claim too much. The Church is indeed the authority in determining that an apparition is worthy of belief: however, the opinions supposedly given in 2000 by Bertone, Sodano and Ratzinger are so clearly contrary to every statement made down the years by those who have also read the Secret that one can dismiss the three Cardinals’ disgraceful lies and cover-up out of hand.
“One can dismiss the cardinals” and upon all Bertone who got embroiled publicly during TV broadcasts in many occasion.
Card. Ratzinger contradicted himself when he said in 2000 that “Fatima belongs to the past” and after, as Pope Benedict XVI, he said one would delude oneself thinking that Fatima is ended.
The Church can’t lie, or she wouldn’t be what she claims to be.
But individuals within it can, and do. At a puerile level, what about the different reasons given by the abdicated Benedict XVI and Ganswein for the former continuing to wear white vestments?
WELL THERE YA GO
What you should do is ask why, just when the very men who dissuaded JP2 from mentioning Russia decided the Church needed an “official position”, Sr. Lucia suddenly began flatly contradicting a lifetime of otherwise consistent testimony.
So we are not to take the Church’s position on a matter of Private Revelation, whose competence lies fully with the Church. On what grounds should I seek some other in her place in such a matter?
When you say the Church, whom do you mean exactly? As you are well aware, these days any Tom, Dick or Harry take it upon themselves to speak in the name of the Church, often saying things that are totally opposite to each other.
Simply, the assembly/household of God’s people founded by Our LORD Jesus Christ, who is the Head of His Body and Bride, the Church.
***
Start here at Article 9 of the Creed – http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P26.HTM
See also: Catholic Encyclopedia > C > The Church – http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
EXACTLY OBVIOUSLY…while we watch the assassination of a good young man unfold in DC who tried to tell the truth..I watch this too…. Leaks, power, dominance in lies….ad infinitum..seemingly. wisdom TELLS US THERE IS AN END TO THIS …STUFF…
Yes, certainly
The Church is run by men. Men have been mistaken before in the history of The Church. You might just get insights to events that will happen long after I’m dead when they correct all of this.
Men of the Church can and are mistaken, they are sinners, but not the Church.
That is correct and things men have said have been corrected by The Church many years later
Yes and men running The Church have been corrected historically.
This is one of those areas where you go off the rails. Projection is a common problem today.
BUT not FUNNY HA HA
@FMSyanguya, What you have written is the TRUTH!!! Sadly there are those who place more faith in others opinions and reject the words of the Seer Herself.
Card. Bertone “arranged” the interviews with Sr Lucy. Oddly enough he didn’t keep their recording tape.
Antonio Socci debunked many inonsistencies in Bertone’s book.
For God’s Love, please cease taking the book of Bertone like a beacon in this discussion. There are too many inconsistencies inside debunked by A. Socci up to the point the good cardinal prevented him, though he is an acknowledged journalist, bringing contradiction during a press meeting where he presented this book.
Jacques Dumon, Where did you get the false notion that I go by Bertone’s book? I have never read it but I certainly plan to.
This is what I take into consideration; St. John Paul ll as I remember made the Consecration of Russia with the words that went something like this, “especially the Consecration you have been awaiting”. The Servant of God, Sr. Lucia Dos Santos said, “Our Lady never gave a formula for the Consecration. The fact that Russia was implied was enough”. She also said, “Heaven has accepted it”. She made clear that the Consecration asked for by Our Lady was accepted by Heaven. Who are we to believe? Sr. Lucia Dos Santos or the mere opinions of others? Our Lady never said Russia was to be consecrated by Name, only that she be Consecrated and Consecrated it was.
Sources for your assertions about Sr. Lucia’s words, please PT.
The Great Stalin it greatly saddens me that you and I disagree on something, as I have long held you in high esteem and continue to do so. Here are some words of the Consecration of March 25, 1984 that implies Russia;
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“And therefore, Oh Mother of individuals and peoples, you who know all their sufferings and all their hopes, you who have a mother’s awareness of all the struggles between good and evil, between light and darkness, which afflict the modern world, accept the cry which we, moved by the Holy Spirit, address directly to your Heart. Embrace, with the love of a Mother and Handmaid of the Lord, this human world of ours, which we entrust and consecrate to you, for we are full of concern for the earthy destiny of individuals and peoples.
IN A SPECIAL WAY WE ENTRUST AND CONSECRATE TO YOU THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND NATIONS WHICH PARTICULARLY NEED TO BE THUS ENTRUSTED AND CONSECRATED…
The power of this consecration lasts for all times and embraces all individuals, peoples and nations.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
As for the words of Sr. Lucia concerning the consecration, the best source would be the Biography of Sr. Lucia Dos Santos written by all the Nuns together from the Carmelite Convent of St. Teresa of Avila in Coimbra Portugal.
There are many other sources that repeat what is written in that Biography.
Dear PT57, you are very kind. A disagreement on this question doesn’t change our agreement on everything else, so all is good. You know, there are many sources that contradict those sources you refer to, including Sr. Lucia’s own family members.
There is a great deal about the post-Conciliar Church’s attitude to Fatima that is highly suspect. They’ve destroyed everything else in a Masonic-protestant manner. Why not the Fatima message?
We will know the truth of it, I suspect, only in Heaven.
The Great Stalin, Yes, we will know the whole truth, in Heaven for our greater glory, or in hell for our greater regret. I ask, who is the source of Sr. Lucia’s family members who contradict the many other sources?
Like you with your sources, I cannot recall the exact individuals nor their names. But we are talking cousins and nieces who spoke with her regularly until they were barred from visiting her. They reported that she had told them directly that the Consecration was not done.
The Great Stalin, I know Sr. Lucia kept in contact with her family. I will try to do some research to find out this source.
How do you know??!!!!
Sams_1, I know because I read many times she kept in contact with her family. When on a Pilgrimage to Fatima we went to the childhood home of Sr. Lucia. We were told that her sister who had recently passed away loved to recount the story of Fatima to everyone, she was a beacon of light at Fatima. We were told that Sr. Lucia and her sister always kept in contact. We also went to the childhood home of St. Francisco Marto and St. Jacinta Marto, we met there the brother of Francisco and Jacinta, the one mentioned by Sr. Lucia in her Memoirs. We met his wife and granddaughter also. Beautiful family!
The Great Stalin, I most certainly consider the two of us as being in agreement on just about everything. I told you I have always admired your Faith and Comments. And I always will. We are battling on the same side. Now that I know what Masons are I agree they have been undermining Fatima. The time of satan is coming to an end and he knows it. We can hasten his end by following Our Lady’s message at Fatima.
God bless you. May Our Lord bring us all home safely to our Heavenly home.
PT,
You left out the most important part. Pope John Paul II departed from his prepared text and added the following:
“Enlighten especially the peoples of which You Yourself are awaiting our consecration and confiding.”
If the consecration of the world sufficed as you say, then WHY would he say that when he just consecrated the world?
In every sacrament, the person is called by name, even in the sacrament of penance in the Byzantine Tradition. This is the greatest honor that can be bestowed upon Russia.
Margaret, Thank you. Those are the words I remember but could not find them in the Text of the Consecration. I will copy and paste this.
You’re welcome. Btw, that’s from L’Osservatore Romano.
I have also seen in articles, beginning in the late 1980’s that Sr. Lucia Dos Santos said that Our Lady was satisfied with Pope John Paul II’s , consecration.
About that time our family visited Fatima, and in the dining hall of our hotel there was a note on the bulletin board stating the same…. an answer to inquiries by anxious patrons.
I was satisfied because I trusted Pope John Paul II and Sr. Dos Santos.
I much later developed intense doubts that the actual Sister Lucia Dos Santos was alive at the time, and have more confidence in the 2 Lucias theory. I suspect that mistrust of the Fatima message re the consecration may have something to do with intervening Popes’ not having confidence in the nun , Sr, Lucia living in Coimbra. If Pope John Paul II doubted her also, I do not know at what point that would have begun..and I suspect it might have been later if at all.
Father Gruner gathered dozens of testimonials from 1984 to 1989 in which Sr Lucy said the Consecration wasn’t made according to our Lady’s will.
Then in 1989 she stopped speaking so because she was ordered to shut up by the Vatican.
She complied in a sybilline manner, saying that the Consecration “has been accepted by Heavens”.
Indeed, ALL consecrationso are “accepted by Heavens” so far as their aim is just and charitable. Has anyone heard about a consecration that Heavens ever refused ?
The 1984 consecration act certainly brought good fruits, the main one being the fall of communism in Russia and in the East countries, but did we get the promises of our Lady?
– The conversion of orthodox Russia to the true Catholic Faith ? NO
– The period of peace ? Certainly not.
The conversion of Russia has nothing to do with the change of its political system. Sr Lucy said that it will be “a miracle of conversion”.
In addition to the fact that Russia wasn’t mentioned, the world’s bishops were not called to unite with thé Pope during the consecration: Another reason why it missed it’s true aim.
Jacques Dumon, Sr. Lucia complained to the Holy Father that Fr. Nicholas Gruner was putting words in her mouth she never said. And that Fr. Gruner was causing great damage to the message of Fatima. The Holy Father then forbade Fr. Gruner entrance to the Carmelite Convent and he was suspended from the priesthood. Just before he died he was on the fourth and final stage of excommunication for his lies. Fr. Gruner was the grand master of conspiracy theories. All he had to say is accepted above anything of Sr. Lucia’s authority on Fatima. “She was silenced, she only said it under obedience, she was locked in her cell, she was kidnapped and an impostor put in her place” The Grand Master was a master of deceit just like his father as Jesus said.
Give me your source for that.
Not only Fr Gruner was forbidden to meet Sr Lucy but ALL people except carefully selected people by the Vatican
The testimonials provided by Fr Gruner are often from local newspapers and cannot be refuted. Relatives of Sr Lucy witnessed in the same way too.
Jacques Duman, The sources are many. When I am asked for my sources I’m afraid I can’t give them because I don’t jot down the source of everything I read. I do recommend the Biography of Sr. Lucia Dos Santos. In it are everything her Carmelite Family quoted her as saying. I am 57 yrs of age and I have made Fatima my Rule of Life since I was 17 yrs old. So I have always held as very important everything Sr. Lucia had to say. I have rejected everything that is contrary to her words.
The biography of Sr Lucia was made under the control of the Vatican. In my opinion it is suspicious like is suspicious the book of Card. Bertone.
Fr Alonso, following Fr Fuentes the Postulator for the Beatification of the kids, wrote a report of 24 (!!!) volumes about the apparitions. Only 2 volumes were edited. The Archbishop of Fatima-Leiria forbade editing the 22 others. What did he want to hide?
I am in the same situation as you: I converted back to the Catholic Faith thanks to Fatima.
Jacques Dumon, Be careful of those who condemn the Biography written by the Nuns of the Carmelite Convent of St. Teresa of Avila in Coimbra Portugal. Many condemn it because it has written quotes of Sr. Lucia that contradicts what they claim.
When I was 17 I read the book “Fatima in Lucia’s own words” I was struck by the May and the July apparitions. I agonized when I read that Our Lady on May 13 asked the children and asked us all, “Are you willing to offer yourselves as a sacrifice to God in reparation for sins committed against Him and for the conversion of poor sinners?” Lucia answered in the affirmative, then Our Lady said, “You will have much to suffer”. My conscience was one brainstorm for 3 days, I believed Our Lady was requesting this from me. i didn’t want to suffer. After 3 days I went before the Blessed Sacrament and made that offer of myself as a sacrifice. A great peace came over me. The July 13 apparition scared me into making a General Confession with the resolve to amend my life. I did not want to go to hell.
You. have only to look at the photos to know it was not she ..the real Sr. Lucia…and then hear the lies imposed.
Jacques..this is evidently true. We who dabble in common sense see this.
That, I believe, was said by the false Sister Lucia who was trotted out by the Vatican powers-that-were after Vatican II and whose facial structure, features and comportment was not that of the real Lucia who was last seen shortly before 1960 I believe. Research the evidence which is easily accessible on the Internet. IT IS TRULY SHOCKING. There is no way that the big-boned, Nordic looking nun who took communion then kissed JPII’s hand immediately after was the real sister Lucia. The eyebrows, mouth, dentition, especially the dentition! is that of two different women. The real sister Lucia had long, very ugly teeth with a sweet, upturned smile. He entire countenance was one of one who really had once seen a vision of hell. She was reserved and somber. The false Lucia had equally ugly short teeth with a lot of gum exposure with a downturned smile. Her comportment was said to be much more breezy and relaxed than the real sister Lucia. Again, look at the facial comparisons and studies available on the Internet, some by disinterested parties who make a strong case that the woman trotted out post Vatican II is a false Sister Lucia.
Pearl of York, About her kidnapping, Sr. Lucia quipped, “Then who am I?” There was no false Sr. Lucia. That lie was invented by the conspiracy theorists. If those theorists would have said Sr. Lucia was not a Nun but got a job in construction, so many would have believed it and would have spread it as factual truth.
Compare the faces of the two Lucias. They are of two different women. Of course the false Lucia will quip about the ruse. She’s part of the deception.
Pearl of York, The same was said of Bl. Pope Paul Vl, the pictures seemed and only seemed to be true. The fact is that as we age our nose and ears never stop growing. The pictures of Sr. Lucia at the age of 10 and the ones of when before she died look like two different Lucia’s. Maybe Sr. Lucia was kidnapped at the age of 10. Maybe I’m not me, maybe I was kidnapped and I’m only an impostor of the real me.
God gave us senses to make sense of the world. There is no way the pre and post Vatican II Sister Lucias are the same woman. Examine the pictures on the Internet. Only the willfully blind will say they are the same woman.
Pearl of York, God also gave us reason. It is proven by Medical science that we have 2 body parts that never stop growing, the ears and the nose. Our senses and a mirror tell us we age and our features change with it.
The woman who came to the Vatican had a prominent chin.
Sr. Lucia had a recessed chin in her photographs. The chin continues to recede with age. There is no explanation within medical science for that.
Dental work you stupid people – she had false teeth which can alter the chin structure at times – or, she had surgery to fix it a very bad set of dentures. Contact the Carmel and Lucia’s living relatives in Portugal. You people are completely off the rails with this BS.
Mental work you rude person..USE YOUR LYIN EYES.
I’m sorry, I should have said You people with the stupid ideas. I’m amazed someone on 1P5 would call other people out for being rude, when this is probably the rudest place on Catholic social media. And of course you are a model of cordiality …
Why would a dentist replace ugly, worn long teeth with equally ugly baby corn teeth? The post Vatican II “Lucia” is not the original Lucia.
You’re wishcasting. My daughters both had stretchers for receding jaws. Neither of them ended up with that chin. It would take a cosmetic surgeon to implant a prosthetic chin. And if they were giving her such a lovely chin, why couldn’t they find her a set of dentures that didn’t have such prominent gums, which also recede with age? They gave her a chin implant but couldn’t find a set of dentures to fit her?
There is no need to debate this. Experts took software which is used by police to give a photograph of a person either reduced in years or aged. When they took the Sister presented and de-aged her to 12, she looked nothing like Sr. Lucia.
I posted several photos on my blog without commentary – if you look at them you can see she is the same person – and I doubt she even had corrective surgery. When you people make these claims you suggest the Carmel, Sr. Lucia’s relatives, and the Popes and bishops have colluded to deceive. That is beyond comprehension. So you people are not stupid – but you are so deluded by conspiracy theories your spiritual insight is clouded at best. These foolish theories are completely absurd. There is no place for this type of drama in the message of Our Lady at Fatima.
Oh I get it. You’re pushing your blog.
Anyway, first you said she had dental work then when I pointed out that no amount of dental work takes a receding chin and makes it prominent, you said you doubt she had corrective surgery.
You seem a bit confused.
Not promoting my blog at all. What a dumb thing to say. I’m not confused at all. Common sense lady – make a novena and ask for it.
Yeah. Someone who comes on a discussion thread, calls people stupid while stating that something known medically to be wrong, is right, then tells everyone “I posted several photos on my blog without commentary – if you look at them…”.
Of COURSE you’re not promoting your blog. Of course!
So, I should have remember the first rule of internet discussions. Don’t feed the trolls.
Bless your heart.
Ignore the ears and nose. It’s the eyes and mouth and total facial bone structure of the two women that is radically, shockingly different.
Pearl of York, By the fall of our first Parents we change, we get older, our features change. Has it ever happened to you that you didn’t see a person for 20 years then saw him again and did not recognize him. Could someone had kidnapped him, get some pictures and you will conclude that its a different person. Conspiracy!!! Call the police! Did you really think that Sr. Lucia found the fountain of youth and her features would never ever change? Lets get real about this, debunk the lie of the conspiracy theorists that she was kidnapped. Maybe the original conspiracy theorists were kidnapped and the impostors invented the story of the kidnapping of Sr. Lucia.
WORD!
Pearl of York, With all due respect, I can never believe the idea that there were two Sr. Lucia’s. Pictures can be deceiving. I hold that Sr. Lucia whom Our Lady promised, “My Immaculate Heart will be with you always”. And whom Our Lady told, “You will remain here for a time in order to spread devotion to my Immaculate Heart”, would have been protected from such an incident. Sr. Lucia is now in Heaven and we should ask for her intercession.
We will each believe what our senses and intellect tell us is the truth. For me to look at the photos of Lucia as a Dorothean nun who as a child witnessed hell and lived her life accordingly gives me peace and hope. It is to her I direct my honor. When I look at the woman purported to be Lucia in the company of JPII it is an assault. The falsity of it is as if I were beholding something intrinsically wrong and distorted. In a word, repellent. Note that Our Lady said “you will remain here for a time”–1917 to circa 1960 is 40+ years–a goodly amount of time. Lucia need not have lived to the new millennium.
In the end God knows our hearts. As long as we are both praying to/for Sister Lucia the prayer will reach the correct recipient. Look forward to the Final Judgement when all will be revealed.
Pearl of York, I have not seen the pictures which supposedly show a difference. But are you saying that the pictures being compared, one of them is Sr. Lucia as a Dorothean Nun? That picture was taken in the 1940’s. To compare a picture to another taken 60 years later, I think the facial features would change significantly.
Those are simply the photos I love of the real Sister Lucia–as a Dorothea nun. In my opinion you are incorrigibly blind to think the woman in the company of pope JPII is the real Lucia. We will have to agree to disagree.
Pearl of York, Lets then agree to disagree. God Bless you and your loved ones. May the Immaculate Heart of Mary always be with you.
Pearl of York, Thanks and God Bless!
HOW DO YOU SAY so what??!! in Latin?
Sams_1, I don’t know. But I’ll take a shot at it. Our conversation is, Finitas.
Sams_1 I forgot to press submit in my response. I don’t know how to say that in Latin but I’ll give it a shot. Our Conversation is, ad principio, et ad finitam.
This is Bayside revisited! I also think it is a tool of the devil to have us gazing at ears and noses so that we miss the greater truths. It is a diversionary tactic of satan to keep us from being at peace and recollected. I went through this in the early 80’s over Bayside. It was a very superficial spirituality and I was adamant and untrusting. It kept me entranced for a year until I spoke with a holy priest about it. Let it go people! Our sanctity and our mission to be faithful to Christ and to carry him out into the world, into our homes each day does not rise and fall on whether there was one or two Lucias. Evil exists, the Masons are in the highest ranks of the church, the homosexual mafia is everywhere…priests continue to be cesspools of impurity but now I go off to bed and pray my night prayers and do my best to console Our Lord for my failings of today and those of the whole world. Peace be with you all. Good night sweet Prince of the church…Lolek.
WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT HER TO LIE? yes as a verb there.
Sams_1, I’m sorry but I didn’t understand what you meant. Sr. Lucia was left in this life to spread devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Sr. Lucia wrote that she thought she was not doing what Our Lady said about her spreading devotion to Her Immaculate Heart. So she made the painful decision to leave the Religious Life in order to do what Our Lady asked. Then she heard of the work of The Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima and realized they were listening to and obeying Our Lady. She then happily remained a Nun. As a member of the Blue Army a cousin and I went on a pilgrimage to Fatima with a large group of Blue Army members. All with a traditional Catholicism. We went to the Convent in Coimbra Portugal where Sr. Lucia was a Nun, to hear Mass in the Convent Chapel. Lo and Behold, a Nun came immediately after Mass ended and whispered something to the priest. The priest told us, “I was just informed that Sr. Lucia has been informed that the Blue Army is present and she has promised to pray for all of you”. I just had to share that great experience. To think I was in the same building where Sr. Lucia was present and that she promised to pray for us. Sadly the Blue Army was taken over by liberals for a time and lost many of its subscribers. They are working hard to restore what was lost. St. Padre Pio promised that when there was a Blue Army member for every communist in Russia, then Russia would be converted. Being a member of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima means taking on all the responsibilities with faithfulness the requests of Our Lady.
Which Sr. Lucia..from photos at least ..there are two distinct humans. 2 distinct personalities. too. You do not have to believe in conspiracies to see the huge difference in humans there…an Pax Tecum 57 LOOK AT THE WORLD. what do you see? NOW EVEN MEXICO HAS 150,000 ABORTIONS..(ONE OF THE RUSSIAN IMPORTS TO THE WORLD OUR LADY SPOKE OF) BISHOPS THERE HAVE DONE A MASS EXORCISM. AFTER A PERSONAL ONE ..ONE OF THE DEMONS WAS SAID TO HAVE SPOKEN THAT THEY HAVE AGAIN UNLEASHED THE BODY TORTURE AND RAVAGING THAT OCCURRED UNDER THE AZTECS AND THAT la GUADALUPENA MIRACULOUSLY EVISCERATED…BUT is now again happening to babies in abortion. Look around and know.
I don’t really have a strong opinion on the details of the prophesy, but certainly the errors of Russia have metastasized. I don’t see that as exclusively the result of an improper consecration, or lack thereof, but rather mostly as a result of people refusing to follow the commands of Christ and the message brought to us about penance and holiness by Our Lady.
And that, as true private revelations always must, reflects sound doctrine. In a sense, in sum, the lion’s share of the Fatima prophesy can be summed up in 2 Chronicles 7:14,
“And my people, upon whom my name is called, being converted, shall make supplication to me, and seek out my face, and do penance for their most wicked ways: then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins and will heal their land.”
…and further…
“19 But if you turn away, and forsake my justices, and my commandments which I have set before you, and shall go and serve strange gods, and adore them,
20 I will pluck you up by the root out of my land which I have given you: and this house which I have sanctified to my name, I will cast away from before my face, and will make it a byword, and an example among all nations.
21 And this house shall be for a proverb to all that pass by, and they shall be astonished and say: Why hath the Lord done thus to this land, and to this house?
22 And they shall answer: Because they forsook the Lord the God of their fathers, who brought them out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold on strange gods, and adored them, and worshipped them: therefore all these evils are come upon them.”
Not to draw too close a comparison between the Israelites and the Russians, but we know that from the prophesy God loves the Russians. He wants their obedience and conversion! And yet…have we seen anything like a conversion of Russia?
In the end, for myself, I prefer to try to keep my lamp full of oil and the wick trimmed like the virgins of Mt 25 than to state too much about the details of a prophesy I just don’t know exactly how to interpret in full, not to mention trying to make sense of the litany of statements that have been made by various Vatican officials over the years which in my opinion have made a complex prophesy even more complicated.
Father Gruner gathered dozens of testimonials from 1984 to 1989 in which Sr Lucy said the Consecration wasn’t made according to our Lady’s will.
Then in 1989 she stopped speaking so because she was ordered to shut up by the Vatican.
She complied in a sybilline manner, saying that the Consecration “has been accepted by Heavens”.
Indeed, ALL consecrationso are “accepted by Heavens” so far as their aim is just and charitable. Has anyone heard about a consecration that Heavens ever refused ?
The 1984 consecration act certainly brought good fruits, the main one being the fall of communism in Russia and in the East countries, but did we get the promises of our Lady?
– The conversion of orthodox Russia to the true Catholic Faith ? NO
– The period of peace ? Certainly not.
The conversion of Russia has nothing to do with the change of its political system. Sr Lucy said that it will be “a miracle of conversion”.
In addition to the fact that Russia wasn’t mentioned, the world’s bishops were not called to unite with thé Pope during the consecration: Another reason why it missed it’s true aim.
And what would have happened if, at the last moment, he had uttered the word “Russia” ?
He would have had to confront the wrath of his advisers. And then what ?
Wasn’t him actually the SOVEREIGN Pontiff ? Sad to say that he lacked courage, because otherwise, once the Consecration was truly performed as She wished, our Lady would have silenced them anyways.
I don’t have the source handy, but I read that someone who was standing close to Pope JPII distinctly heard him say Russia quietly, and yet aloud.
Possibly, but the union with the world’s bishop during the consecration is blatantly lacking.
Jacques Dumon, The SSPX does not accept the consecration of 1984. But one thing they do accept is this, The Holy Father did make a consecration “In union with all the Bishops of the world”. I’m quite sure that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made the consecration in union with St. John Paul The Great.
Colby, We were instructed well in advance that the Holy Father would be making the Collegial Consecration on March 25, 1984. We awaited in anticipation for that great day to arrive. Everyone knew that the Holy Father had every intention possible to make the consecration Our Lady of Fatima requested. Many great things happened, that today are seen as mere coincidences. Like the Holy Father granting the first Indult for the return of the TLM, the unbelievable fall of Communism in Russia without a single bullet being shot. Sr. Lucia said that we were at the point of, “The destruction of the world by Atomic and Nuclear bombs but the Consecration averted it” etc… I can’t accept all the amazing things that happened as a mere coincidence.
Dear Jacques, I’m not trying to start a confrontation between us.
Saint Pope John Paul the Great experienced the Nazi occupation of Poland followed by the Communist occupation by Russia.
The commies placed microphones in his confessional and during his life he was shot and stabbed, for me this man had immense courage.
Jacques Duman, Whatever way the Holy Father would have made the consecration, satan would and was there to thwart the plans of Our Lady. Imagine all those wasting their time and energy by allowing themselves to be consumed by conspiracy theories. We lost many Fatima faithful to fables.
That is pathetic. you are too heavy handed here. Of course satan would be doing his job..and was there to TRY to thwart all good. Who is consumed in their energy by conspiracy theories? wHEN WE HAVE THOSE WHO CAN LOOK AT THOSE PHTOS OF THE TWO Sr. Lucias and still say it is the same person THAT MEANS WE HAVE A LOT OF ENERGY TO SPEND…. ridiculous to say they are the same. They say a different thing and conduct themselves differently in the extreme! We lost Fatima faithful? no they await the truth and the intent of OUR LADY. You seem to have your ego too involved in being right here. We do not know each other so I will say what your friends PERHAPS tread lightly to avoid. THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU , YOUR ERUDITION . FAMILIARITY OR BEING A FAVORED…THIS IS ABOUT THE WORLD.This is about following GOD through his messenger , the Queen of Heaven who loves us like a Mother. I am not being unkind. I am honoring your humanity with facts. WE HAVE TO FIX THIS SOMEHOW. Jesus can die on that cross..we can fix this!
Sams_1, I don’t believe I’m being heavy handed. What I have said is the Truth. I know this is not just about me, this is about the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary and all humanity. Our Lord appeared to Sr. Lucia as a Child with Our Lady whose Immaculate Heart was pierced with thorns. He said to Sr. Lucia, “Have pity on the Heart of your Mother pierced with thorns by ungrateful men at every moment. You at least console her.” Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart is today pierced with thorns from ungrateful men who prefer to believe conspiracy theorists rather than believe Sr. Lucia whom She left in this world longer so as to spread devotion to Her Immaculate Heart. Sorry you are offended but I must console the Holy Hearts by speaking the Truth.
Ungrateful men…who prefer… conspiracy theorists… LOOK AT THE PICTURES. AND do not speak for OUR LADY. I am not offended, nor did I say so. You do not have that influence over me. Now back to the real important issues…you do not need to console the HOLY HEARTS. THE TRINITY AND THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN DO THAT. please get off that throne…it is bad. bad. It is all about you here. Can you not see that?
Sams_1, Read what I said, it was the Child Jesus who appeared with His Sorrowful Mother whose Heart was pierced with thorns. The Child Jesus is the one who told Sr. Lucia about those thorns, they were placed there by us ungrateful men. I speak in defense of what Jesus said about the Sorrowful Heart of His and our Mother and His request that we console Her. The problem with the theorists is that they give no mind to the full message of Fatima but instead are nit picking because St. John Paul the Great did not name Russia by name, he only explicitly referred to Russia and intended to make the Collegial Consecration requested by Our Lady. If you are not offended by what I say then why are you yelling through a good part of your comment? Patience!
Perhaps a middle path? The Consecration was accepted and communism fell. But because the consecration was not done in its fullness (no mention of Russia) the promises of Our Lady were not fulfilled in their fullness.
Kinda like the part in the Bible where Elisha tells Jehu to shoot arrows and Jehu only shoots three and Elisha tells him that he should have trusted and shot more because that is for how many sons his dynasty will last
Thomas J. Mcintyre, When exactly did Our Lady say that Russia must be mentioned by name or the consecration would be invalid. Sr. Lucia said of the consecration, “Our Lady gave no formula”.
When did she say that ? In Card. Bertone’s book? Lot of laughs.
Antonio Socci debunked a lot of inconsistencies in it.
I know for sure that for 5 years from 1984-89 Sr Lucia said that the consecration wasn’t properly done bcs the name Russia wasn’t uttered and bcs the world’s bishops weren’t United with the Pope in that exact moment.
Jaques Dumon, Obviously all who do not accept the consecration are the sources of those imaginary words that Our Lady never spoke. Get my point?
PT, I never said that I don’t accept the Consecration performed by JPII. I said only it was not done according to Our Lady’s requirements. ALL the consecrations to the IHM are are “accepted by Heavens”. This one made no exception and brought good fruits but not the ones She promised, the conversion of the orthodox Russia to the Catholic Faith and the period of peace.
Where are they? Russia is still orthodox and the world is at war everywhere.
In addition give me a proof that the Consecration was made in union with the world’s bishops. Go and ask in your diocese. In my diocese it wasn’t.
Jacques Dumon, I am not a conspiracy theorist so I know you will not believe me on this because it is fact. You want proof that the consecration was made in union with all the Bishops.
St. John Paul The Great had made a consecration. Sr. Lucia told him it was not accepted by heaven. So he carefully planned the Collegial consecration. He sent the text prior to it to Sr. Lucia who approved it. The Holy Father sent the Text of the Consecration to all the Bishops of the world, instructing them that it must be made at all the Mass’s on March 25, 1984, the Solemnity of the Incarnation. With further instructions that the Bishops give a copy of the Text to all priests under him who were to make at all Mass’s on that day, the consecration in union with their Bishops and in union with the Holy Father. With further instructions that priests were to give a copy of the Text to all the faithful at the Mass’s on that day, the faithful were to make the consecration in union with their priest, in union with their Bishops, in union with the Holy Father. As it went around the world, it was a 24 hr. nonstop consecration. St. John Paul The Great made every effort for this to fulfill the request of Our Lady of Fatima.
Sister Maria Lucia of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart said, “Heaven has accepted it”
If there were Bishops who defied the Holy Father it was only because they were not in union with him. So to heaven in my opinion those Bishops didn’t matter.
In my Diocese it was done as the Holy Father asked and intended. Our then Parish Priest stood before a statue of Our Lady, then we all knelt and made the Consecration. I attended all 3 Mass’s that day just to repeat those sacred words.
It stands to reason that if you are consecrating something, you mention it by name. When I made the Marian Consecration on Saturday, I stated my name “Thomas McIntyre, a faithless sinner.” When the priest says the words of consecration, he explicitly asks God to “bless and approve this offering in every respect.” I would think a consecration takes more than a wink and a nudge at God, saying “Ya know what I mean? Of course you do, you’re omniscient.”
All of that being said, while I think Russia still needs to be consecrated BY NAME, you do have a valid point. That’s why I did not say “invalid” but “incomplete.” I’m not trying to cut down St. John Paul II. On here, I’m one of his more vigorous defenders.
Thomas J. Mclntyre, When I make my daily consecration I always say “I”. I don’t think I need to say my name as God who created me knows me and knows my heart is sincere. Perhaps I should say my name, I’ll try it.
Thomas J. Mclintyre, I tried saying my Name in my daily Consecration. Its good! I made the judgment that when I say “I”, I am consecrating my mind, heart, body and soul. Perhaps I just got used to that after so many years. I’ll use both.
“Kinda like the part in the Bible where Elisha tells Jehu to shoot arrows and Jehu only shoots three and Elisha tells him that he should have trusted and shot more because that is for how many sons his dynasty will last”
That is a very interesting text to use in this situation. That and the parable on prayer of the unjust judge in Luke 18. We can question whether the Popes have done their job, but I still see this whole issue as one not so much of whether a Pope did what was commanded of him but rather whether WE have done what was and is commanded of US.
Have WE obeyed, prayed, been righteous? Because the message of Fatima is one of the call to conversion by the people. Certainly the Consecration is important, but for me, I pray my condition before God is not a hindrance to the blessing He wants to offer.
many commentators seem to be totally unaware of Our Lady’s specific command (a request from an Empress is a command!) namely : –
“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.”
http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/frhess.asp
The consequences of the kings of France failing to consecrate the country to the Sacred Heart, when Our Lord asked, were dire indeed. We’re still suffering from the effects to this day.
Father RP, Posted on here recently about Saint John Paul the Great and the amount of undue criticism that his pontificate receives.
Christopher, You can possibly imagine the pain the dagger plunged into my whole being when St. John Paul ll The Great is calumniated. So many lies against His Holiness. There was a Priest who in his sermon had this to say, “I agree Pope John Paul ll is an evil man, a wicked man. Imagine, he goes around the world teaching the people to love and to serve God.” He said this sarcastically for those who attacked His Holiness.
On the question of moral teaching, JPII was undoubtedly in line with Holy Tradition.
Indeed, he is the burr under the Amoris saddle right now.
“They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world.” John 17:16
Evidently the Popes did not receive the memo.
Regarding the change in Sr Lucy’s declarations saying after 1989 that the consecration had been “accepted by Heavens” (which in no way means that it was properly done) though she had said the contrary for 5 years, we have the testimonial of the late french Abbé Georges de Nantes, well known for his “Liber Accusationis in Paulum Sextum”. He knew well the Bishop of Fatima-Leiria, Mgr Do Amaral, who confided him that he personnally conveyed to Sr Lucy the strict order to SHUT UP.
Jacques Duman, So the bishop of Fatima-Leiria, Msgr. Do Amaral ordered Sr. Lucia to “SHUT UP”. What is the conspiracy theory when Sr. Lucia obviously defied him? She wrote a book for the world called “Calls” in which she answers the most frequent questions asked of her by the faithful via mail.
Sr Lucia never used a computer like all the people of this generation. By the time she died, the e-mail weren’t so widespread and certainly not yet in a carmélite convent. In addition it is highly doubtful she ever knew how to use a typewriting machine.
Are you saying that the holy Abbe de Nantes and Mgr do Amaral are liars?
Sorry, I didn’t read well when you wrote mails, not e-mails.
All the correspondence of Sr Lucia was seized when she died and seals we placed on his cell’ door and windows. Probably there were explosive contents inside?
I doubt these letters will ever be published by the Vatican. Anyways they shouldn’t be so many.
Jacques Dumon, Give me proof that what you have heard or read is true. With all the letters Sr. Lucia received she wrote a book called “calls” an answer to all the questions asked of her. As for being locked in a cell, Sr. Lucia laughed at such an idea, quipping, “How would I go to the Chapel if I were under lock and key”.
Jacques Dumon, I am not saying that Abbe de Nantes or Msgr. do Amaral are liars. I will say that those who invented this lie are the liers.
To put things in proper perspective, here is what Roberto de Mattei wrote:
“Our Lady added two specific requests: the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to be performed by the Pope in union with the bishops throughout the world, and the propagation of the practice of the first five Saturdays of the month, consisting of uniting ourselves with Her, confession and reception of Communion, for five consecutive months, meditating for fifteen minutes and praying the Rosary.
The spreading of the practice of the First five Saturdays has never been promoted by the ecclesiastical authorities, the acts of entrustment and consecration by Pontiffs have all been partial and incomplete, but most of all, for at least fifty years, Churchmen have not been preaching the spirit of sacrifice and penance anymore, so closely linked to the two little canonized shepherds. In 1919 when Lucy visited Jacinta in hospital on the eve of her death, their conversation was entirely centered on the sufferings of the two cousins, offered for sinners to avoid the terrible punishments of Hell, which had been shown to them by Our Lady.”
As Mattei wrote, the Church took an opposite direction from what Our Lady instructed. While we can argue and debate about the consecration of Russia, there is little doubt that the second condition hadn’t even come close to being fulfilled.
“Totus Tuus”….not so much.
I still don’t understand the continued pilling on of St. JPII with regards to Fatima.
Was the request of the Blessed Mother for the consecration of Russia at Fatima or later when Lucia was in the convent? If it was at Fatima, why don’t prior popes also share in the blame?
Just based on the article above, it seems the Vicar of Christ then (JPII) was assured in his heart that he fooled his counselors and was still able to play their geo-political game while in his heart and mind and words, still fulfill our Lady’s request. I mean does the authority invested in the keys and chair of St. Peter mean nothing? If Pope Francis explicitly said (which he did kind of do the other day) that Medjugorje is totally false, I know everyone here would support that because hey, he’s the pope.
Consecrations are prayers, not magic spells. The idea that if you don’t use the right words the spell won’t work is silly.
This is the pope who helped bring down the iron curtain along side Regan and saved Poland from their Communism nightmare. Look at Poland compared to the rest of Europe and tell me nothing speacial is happening there.
As Catholics, we are to believe that there is no set destiny. That at any given moment we can, through prayer and action, change the course of our futures for the better.
After all, did Jesus Himself not allow Satan 100 years to rake havoc on humanity according to Leo XIII? Would the consecration have had an overnight effect regardless?
Everyone wants to ignore world history during and after Fatima and jump right to the Cold War. Russia helped us win WWII.
“Consecrations are prayers, not magic spells. The idea that if you don’t use the right words the spell won’t work is silly.”
Please see my reply to PT. Thank you.
Nick, Great Post! When the consecration of 1984 was made I was 24 yrs old. We were all instructed that it would be the Collegial Consecration that Our Lady of Fatima asked for. St. John Paul The Great knew what he was doing, his intention to fulfill Our Lady’s request was his priority. That’s what it was all about on that great day of March 25, 1984. Perhaps those who reject that consecration were not aware at that time and were not interested in what was happening on that day before the sight of Heaven itself. But there are those of us who were well aware of what was happening.
Well, there’s nothing that says another Consecration can’t be made. Our state was just consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary last summer. Evidently the Bishop didn’t think the world consecration of Pope St JPII was good enough. With the direction of our state {and all the rest} I reckon we can use all the spiritual help we can get, so he won’t hear any criticism from me on that score.
Still, this article won’t let my concern to those who believe that 1984 Consecration is accepted by Blessed Virgin Mary (and Heaven) suppressed.
Joanna Swords spoke at a Boston 2016 Fatima Conference of Our Lady’s Army of Advocates. It was the first time I heard about Fr. Amorth’s witness when in 1984 JPII asked his bishops whether he should make the consecration to Russia. Should I name it? Should I name it? and they said no. Swords’ talk, Know Your Spiritual Weapons, gives us ways we can say yes to Our Lady’s requests at Fatima. Worth a listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN1vjjggTNQ&list=PLtLZ3BcBezkIScwWBn9kzTLEef3fkgEuT&index=10
MID WAY IN THIS I AM SQUIRMING….THEN PUT IT TO FRANCIS TO DO THE DEMAND TO CONSECRATE RUSSIA…. anyone??
Sams_1, Cardinal Raymond Burke has asked for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I was at first confused by his request. But he explained that the 1984 consecration was valid but using the words of St. John Paul The Great, it can be done again. I doubt it would be valid according to some because it would never be done to the approval and according to the regulations of the theorists.
Whelp, we can all see this is false. Russia has converted to the Holy Roman Catholic Church. We have had world-wide peace since 1984. And St. John Paul the Great organized the various religions of the world to convert to the one true Church.
I have it from a good source that Vladimir Putin personally asked Papa Bergoglio to concecrate Russia to Mary and the request was denied.
@the_greatstalin:disqus
In my work, which puts me in contact with some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the US business world, I have seen exactly what you describe. It is the “new man,” who in his narcissism worships man qua man and has as his secret creed the very words of the Original Revolutionary: “I will not serve.”
Some of these people are what Fr. Malachi Martin described as the “perfectly possessed.” They have consciously and permanently joined their will to the Enemy’s. As I get older, I am more attuned to these, and they fill me with dread when I see them. I often have the sense that *they know that I know.*
Others are victims, you might say, of the great deception of our age. They have not consciously gone over to the Enemy, but their spiritual sense has been mutilated. They are nothing more than living machines, and their goal is to remake all of human society as a system of mechanized values. They have no love for their neighbors or countrymen, and they think little of their own children. To them, family and society are mere abstractions, just like the concept of God.
At any rate, it is clear to me as I move among these golems and other monsters that we are far beyond any hope in human salvation. These people firmly control the reigns of power, and their control is only increasing. The end game–a transformation of human nature into something both mechanical and demonic–is within sight. Our only hope is in the grace of Our Lady and Our Lord, the final eucatastrophic triumph of the Immaculate Heart promised at Fatima.
Dear Fatimist, in a nutshell my take on our era is as follows.
We are in the times described in the Apocalypse of St. John (and have been ever seen the Incarnation, but things move swiftly now to their conclusion). How far along? Only God knows the appointed time. However, these are the signs that I can see (others might easily add to these).
1. There seems to be a great sorting out going on. It’s either Christ or the devil and people are making their choices.
2. Those on the side of the devil (even if they think they are on the side of Christ or on no-one’s side) are becoming ever more brazen and open and hurried. Soros, for instance, a very old man, knows he has little time left. Those around Bergoglio, etc. The hatred directed at Trump.
3. Bizarre events such as the plainly Satanic opening ceremony of a Swiss mountain tunnel – attended by Merkel and some other EU leaders; the Satanic ceremony at the CERN facility; the statue of the devil unveiled in the US.
Throw into the mix the Fatima message that we already know, the description of the Chastisement given at Fulda by John Paul II, and the current state of the world and you have a cosmic grenade about to go off. If the apparitions at Garabandal are authentic, then it must be — well, now.
I would add to your list the growing brazenness of our elites with regard to organized ritual pedophilia, of which “pizzagate” was merely the latest in a long series of quickly forgotten episodes.
Sexual degeneracy–ritual pedophilia in particular–is the “glue” that holds our entire global political system together. The system of mutual incrimination is far more powerful and real than the illusion of party politics. Classic Freemasonic psychodrama and occult double-mindedness.
I often wonder about the 100 years of “availing time” that Pope Leo XIII foresaw being given to the Devil to destroy God’s church. It was this vision of course that led him to compose the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel.
When did it begin?
Almost certainly not on the day of his vision. Increasingly, I believe that it began at Fatima. If so, the next 5.5 months will be some of the most eventful and horrific in human history…
Yes, I have the same suspicion.
A few years ago an enterprising journalist discovered that the leaders of Portugal’s socialist, conservative and main centrist political parties were all members of the same Lisbon Lodge! To think therefore that we live in free democracies is the height of naivety.
“Our creed (according to one email hacked from the main Paris Lodge last year) has abortion at its centre”. The glorification of sodomy we have had foisted upon us by all our political leaders in the last five years is also very telling: sodomy is the ‘homosexual sacrament’. As I am sure that the Masons rule our world, I can readily believe the cement holding it together is the paedophilia you mention. It’s all completely diabolical.
The lifestyle of Alaister Crowley seems more and more mundane with each passing year.
Coming from a Protestant background where preditcion of the world’s immanent destruction was sort of cottage industry by some, I am not one who puts much concern in the might-be’s, but I have to say, I find the pontifcates of Leo XIII, Pius X and Benedict 15 to be worthy of intense investigation.
Yes, I think we are in very interesting times.
And praise be to God that He has warned us if we have hears to hear.
Sadly, my paternal great-grandfather, an Italian, owned a hotel in Bradford where Crowley’s satanic sect conducted its rituals and he himself was a member of it.
Wow. I bet you are already aware of all this, but Crowley supposedly had Masonic connections as well.
I might as well add that Fr Ripperger’s site has special prayers for those who were or had ancestors who were Masons. My wife and I prayed them with guidance of a priest due to the existence of Masons in our past lineage {she for sure, me maybe}.
The great-grandfather’s brother was a General in the Italian Army in the Great War, a senior member of the Army Command under Mussolini and a Rosicrucian and Mason to boot. I will look at Fr. Ripperger’s site for sure. Thank you very much for that heads up.
Masons are always droning on about how their “club” isn’t a religion and isn’t Satanic, etc, etc, etc.
If you ever run into a person who believes that, just read them a bit of the prayers and they will very shortly dispense with any such notion they had held before. Those prayers involve the breaking of oaths and those oaths are damn creepy, with an extra heavy emphasis on the “damn”.
This minimization of Freemasonry in the Church has got to stop.
TW: Years ago, Ripperger was our parish priest {before my time} and he taught one of our current priests at FSSP seminary. He then left the FSSP to develop his current apostolate.
Considering that this Pontiff isn’t going to do it, and WWIII is lurking around the corner, we must pray that those millions of us who will have perished when the Consecration is finally done as our Lord and Our Lady wished, will nonetheless be able to rejoice in the subsequent Triumph of her Immacualte Heart either in Purgatory or in Heaven. I myself am not at all optimistic the way things are going that i will be alive when it is finally done, considering Francis has no intention of doing it or stepping down; and that with tensions in Korea, Syria, Europe, etc., a global conflagration or perhaps an EMP attack, looks quite likely within the next year or two. Kyrie Eleison Christe Eleison
Even if John Paul II had “mentioned” Russia in the 1984 Consecration, it in no way would have fulfilled Our Lady’s request for the consecration of Russia. Her directions to Sr. Lucy were that one day be set aside in which the pope, in union with the bishops of the world, specifically consecrate only Russia to the Immaculate Heart. The idea is that the Church in a public way must officially entrust Russia into the hands of the Mother of God. The Church has to ‘lay hands’ on the red beast as it were, and pray for its deliverance and conversion, otherwise the “political conflicts will arise,” just as they have arisen. The good pope was afraid to rock the boat.
I had ample opportunity to speak with Pope John Paul’s private confessor while in Rome in November, 1989. I met with him privately on three separate occasions. In the first meeting I asked if he could pass on some information about the Consecration to the Holy Father, and he said, “It’s done, it’s a dead issue, it’s a closed book, the pope already did it and we have these people like Fr. Gruner who are always harping on this.”
In our second meeting, he essentially said the same thing: “It’s done, he already did it, etc.” What intrigued me was that in spite of his alarming words, he was very congenial and good hearted, not sarcastic; made me a little suspicious.
In our last encounter at St. Peter’s, I told him: “I think you should consider the strategic role you have in influencing the pope to do a good thing for the for safety of the world, and try to take this seriously.” He then looked to the left, and to the right, as if to see if anyone was listening, and then said with his eyes cast down: “I told the Holy Father, ‘why don’t you just do it and get it out of the way.’ I don’t know why he doesn’t do it, I don’t know what he is so afraid of. He should just do it and get it over with.”
Another interesting point about my meeting with Father was his response when I brought up the apparitions of Bayside in America. I told him: “The Blessed Virgin has repeatedly warned about the problem in the Church in America.” He said, “Listen, the problem with the Church is not in America, it’s not in Canada, it’s right here in the Vatican!” He seemed a bit indignant, as if to vent some anger. I replied, “Yes, Our Lady has said that the Holy Father [JPII] is now under the domination of his own bishops.” He retorted, “Oh yes! The Holy Father is a prisoner here, he doesn’t even have permission to think!”
FYI
Lady has said that the Holy FAther
Fr Gruner was someone I think who shares some responsibility in helping to create the chaos surrounding the Fatima message.He was a big supporter of the fake Bayside apparitions. When these were going on he hosted a radio show that broadcast the Bayside happenings. He would usually have a retired military person to discuss how China was already in the US ready to take it over and the impending threat of nuclear war. The so-called visionary would be screaming about death, blood and destruction she claimed she was seeing. This was the anti-Fatima message that Fr Gruner, who was not a priest associated with any diocese in the US or Canada, used to promote a Fatima message of fear, along with his Fatima Crusader magazine. People who followed this message I found, were usually side tracked about nuclear war and politics rather than prayer and penance.
As I recall Sr Lucia herself said the Consecration was accepted by God, although it was very late. Also as i recall St John Paul II lived himself for many years under direct communist rule and knew first hand it’s evil. Sr Lucia also said the Consecration hinged on people’s conversion, making acts of reparation, all those things in the Fatima message. I think over the years, especially through those who rejected totally Vatican II and the Popes that came after it, lead people to think the consecration to Russia is some kind of magical formula that once uttered would bring about a quick and fantastic change in the world. They distort the message of Fatima to one of fear when in reality it is “Heaven’s Peace Plan” that includes the First 5 Saturdays, daily Rosary, acts of reparation, being faithful to our station in life, etc. This is the message that was given to the world in 1917 through 3 small shepherd children – prayer, sacrifice and penance, in reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
The years after St John Paul II’s consecration I remember witnessing something I thought I would never see – the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the USSR. I believe these things happened in response to that consecration and through Our Lady but we all still need to do our part as asked for at Fatima to help bring about the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart. Whether St John Paul II said the correct ‘formula’ or not (which is not how God operates), doesn’t change the fact that each and every person was asked by the Blessed Mother to respond to the message of Fatima in their own personal lives.
“which is not how God operates”.
Maybe not, but that’s how He expects us to operate.
To whit: the precise directions to Jews under the old law; the Canon of the Mass, words of consecration of the Sacred Species; the form of absolution in Confession.
Kathy, Your comment is a breath of fresh air. But when it comes to Vatican ll, I don’t reject the Council but I do have questions of what happened at the Council. What you say is almost as coming from Sr. Lucia herself. “prayer, sacrifice and penance” are the key to true freedom, those will bring us the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Kathy, I wrote that I have questions about the Council, these are some of the reasons;
St. John XXlll together with Cardinal Ottaviani drew up 9 schemas which were to make up the Council (5 have been translated from Latin into English, they can be found on the Internet). Those schemas were in line with the Council of Trent and Vatican Council l. After the first session of the Council ended, all the Bishops signed the first Document with the exception of one, namely the Bishop of Rome St. John XXlll. After the first session ended St. John XXlll called his closest Cardinal collaborators together and asked them to think of a way to gracefully end the Council as he saw trouble ahead. He died before it could be done. Bl. Pope Paul Vl continued the Council. The Council turned out to be Liberals vs Taditionalists. The Liberal Bishops garnished enough votes to throw out the remaining 8 schemas of St. John and Ottaviani. That spelled disaster. The Council was written in an ambiguous language that caused everyone to just create their own Council and force it upon us. Pope Benedict XVl called for the reinterpretation of the Council. He told the Society of St. Pius X that he hoped their theologians would contribute to this work. So for now the reinterpretation of Vatican ll is on hold.
Pope john paul 2 and pope pius had already done the consecration. Fatima prophecy is now history.
“We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete.”
Benedict XVI, 2013
If Mary requested it, then it should have been done, why no Pope has specifically done what Mary requests is extremely odd. If the apparitions from our lady of Fatima are true and I were the Pope, it would be the first thing I would do when stepping onto the balcony to greet the crowds…….it makes no sense that no Pope has specifically done this.
On the feast of St. Francis of Assisi, my patron saint. My wife and I were in St. Peters Square after visiting Medjugurje. When we landed at the Rome airport a fellow traveler said to me ” you see that priest over there, he investigated the shrine and will say it is true.” (I did not know but it was Cardinal Ruini). I went up to him, touched his shoulder as he was ahead of me and said: ” if I could give one message to the Holy Father, it would be “Consecrate Russia, please Holy Father”. He turned his back on me as is I never spoke. The next day we went to St. Peters square and did not have tickets to the event. But, I said; Dear Lord if you wanted me to give a message to the Holy Father, I would have been able too. After that we were in a group the far these back from St.Peters. Suddenly, the area opened up for us to move forward. It continued until we were on the rope line where the Holy Father would pass by. When he did I said :Consecrate Russia, Holy Father:” I was standing on a chair, eye to eye to him and he said ;Ya, Ya: Like he heard it before. So, we left after the event and while waling down a Roman street looking for a place to have beer, we saw this couple dressed as newly weds. I ask to take a photo and they told me they were just married by the Holy Father. They were children of friends of the Pope. Later, when home, I sent this photo to Pope John Paull II and told him of the affair. He had a letter come back from the Vatican in which he expressed “He appreciates the sentiments which prompted you to write to him and he invokes God’s blessing upon you.I do believe he wanted to consecrate Russia, but was not allowed to.
My computer will not send you without being corrupted, my letter from the Secetary Of the Vatican. I cannot explain why I can’t scan or email this letter. Frankj
demons. 🙁
And then he told us with a glowing face…what useless Protestant nonsense from Cardinal Cordes. THE POPE HAD FEELINGS OF JOY. And his face glowed. Oh Wow! Did it not occur to this fool and to JPll that he, the pope, was grasping at straws, hoping against hope that the Blessed Virgin Mary was overlooking his betrayal in that he obeyed his diplomatic advisors rather than Christ Himself. One can only wonder what corrosive effect the heresy of modernism, that had invaded his soul, had on his cowardly and dishonest decision to not mention Russia. How little trust in God this “canonized saint” had in Christ and His infallible church. We the walking wounded, by Adam’s sin, are so easily led astray. JPll was overjoyed when he heard that some Orthodox Russian bishops had taken up the slack that he in his hubris had left. As though the BV’s request could be anything but God’s Divine Will. In other words, that he the pope had to make the explicit consecration.
As I understand it, Pope John Paul II wanting to consecrate Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart or that he included Her covertly is somewhat academic and to a certain extent irrelevant. Our Lady requested not just the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart by the pope but also by every bishop in the world in their cathedrals. Our Blessed Lady was requesting a universal declaration of faith and obedience.Sadly, this has not occurred.
Cardinal Raymond Burke has called for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I was at first confused. But as I read on, Cardinal Burke said the 1984 consecration is valid. Using the words of St. John Paul The Great the Cardinal said it can be done again, it can be done more than once. So he accepts the 1984 consecration and asks that it be done again. Its on Life site News.
Great Stalin, if modern Christian Russia is fascist, what is modern atheist America? Are you a supporter of the atheist New World Order which, under Obama created ISIS, which then carried out genocide against the Christians of Syria? Only “fascist” Russia prevented the extermination of Syria’s Christians. Get real.