The problem with the above letter from Sister Lucia is that it was written before the Consecrations of 1982 and 1984 by Pope John Paul II. I have responded on a separate thread that I was impressed by Fr Apostoli's view that the Consecration was done by Pope John Paul in 1984. I have since discovered that I actually owned a fantastic book that deals with this whole matter, published in 1992. The book is titled 'Fatima, Russia & Pope John Paul II and the whole book can be read at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...a=X&ei=ZwTxU6b4Cqqf0QWSloCgDA&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA It really is a splendid resource of information about the whole matter of the Consecration. If you go to page 27 of the book, you find the evidence that Sister Lucia did indeed confirm that the 1984 Consecration did indeed fulfil Our Lady's request. There is a link to one of the relevant letters from Sister Lucia at: https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/Fatima1984.htm
Even if that letter was written before those consecrations, it confirms that Russia was supposed to be mentioned explicitly. So why would she suddenly reverse course and say that a consecration which did not mention Russia explicitly fulfilled Our Lady's request? It is very strange, and difficult to understand. Sister Lucia did reportedly say that the 1984 consecration did fulfill Our Lady's request, but as far as I understand, it was only her own opinion. She did not say that Jesus or Mary confirmed that to her. To me, the bottom line is: did we see Russia converting, and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart? No, we did not, though we did see some positive effects. So the consecration did have a good effect thanks to the mercy of God, but it seems that Our Lady's promise has not yet been fulfilled.
Yes, but whose opinion is better than that of Sister Lucia, especially as she had consistently pointed out that earlier consecrations had not fulfilled Our Lady's wishes. In addition, we know Pope John Paul himself believed the 1984 Consecration fulfilled those wishes. Bishop Hnilica, the great friend of the Pope and long time promoter of the message of Fatima was in Russia at the time of the 1984 Consecration and he had no doubts of its validity. If I am to choose between the opinions of these three important witnesses and that of Fr Gruner, the choice for me is clear. As to whether the results of the Consecration have been what we expected, I would make the following points. Firstly, Our Lady did not specify, in detailed terms, what the results would be, nor when they would occur. Secondly, the collapse of Communism began (under Gorbachev) the year after the Consecration. With the passager of time, it is very easy to underestimate the scale of that miracle. But it would be a very big mistake to do so. Marxist Communism was the ultimate godles, anti-Christian system, and no one anticipated its sudden collapse.
I don't think everyone who believes that the consecration was not completely fulfilled is a follower of Fr. Gruner. Anyway, Sister Lucia had talked about a message from Jesus that she received, in a letter she wrote in 1936, “I HAVE SPOKEN TO OUR LORD ABOUT THE SUBJECT AND NOT TOO LONG AGO, I ASKED HIM WHY HE WOULD NOT CONVERT RUSSIA WITHOUT THE HOLY FATHER MAKING THAT CONSECRATION. (HE REPLIED) ‘BECAUSE I WANT MY WHOLE CHURCH TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CONSECRATION AS A TRIUMPH OF THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY’.” My inference from that is that the Lord wanted the fruits of the consecration to be more or less immediate and undeniable so that the Church had to acknowledge her power. Of course, my inference here could be wrong, but that is the main reason why I tentatively incline to think that the consecration is not fully done to this point. Also, while by no means minimizing the great effect of the 1984 consecration, I do not believe that Russia can be considered to be converted by any stretch of the imagination. I fully recognize that the fact that Sr. Lucia and St. JP II believed it was done carries great weight as well. Only the future will tell us for sure.
Listen to this 10 minute video with Father Amorth, the head exorcist of Rome, on the consecration of Russia.
This really is a great speech . Not just that 'crazy Fr Gruner' as some call him.Fr Amorth organised the 1984 event! Fr Amorth recommends the first five Saturday devotion and near the end mentions the problems with Divorce. I am still unsure why people think the 84 consecration was accepted . 1 . No mention of Russia 2. No participation of the worlds Bishops . Could those believing Saint Pope John Paul and Sr Lucia are certain it is done provide evidence.And lets steer clear of Fr Fox. David you cant expect people to read a whole book by Tim Robertson. How about you pick some of the best quotes and back them up with references . Even 2-3 would be a start. 7. Didn’t the Pope succeed in performing the consecration of Russia in 1984? A: No. As Sister Lucy herself declared in a September 1985 interview, the attempted consecration of March 25, 1984, did not satisfy Our Lady’s requests because “there was no participation of the bishops and there was no mention of Russia.” In consecrating the world in general on that date without mentioning Russia, the Holy Father himself acknowledged in the presence of tens of thousands of witnesses, both during and after the ceremony, that the people of Russia were still “awaiting our consecration and confiding.” The next day these statements were reported in the Pope’s own newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, and the Italian Bishops’ publication, Avvenire.
Let me say straight away that Fr Amorth's words in this video are the best support for the 'no consecration done' view that I have seen. Nevertheless, they are just an opinion as has been mentioned earlier. For me, Sister Lucia's 'opinion' trumps any other. And Pope John Paul's views are pretty important for me also! Mac, I sympathize with your desire to have simple quotes to respond to. I'm not a great reader but it is necessary to read more than 'one sentence long' quotes to learn. It is not necessary to read all the book that I mention above but it is very enlightening to read sections of it. And I'm very interested in your comment, " lets steer clear of Fr Fox". Could you please explain why? His Fatima apostolate at http://www.fatimafamily.org/ seems to be very good. Do you know something more...? With regard to your desire to see evidence of Sister Lucia's belief that the consecration has been done, I think that you maybe are not prepared to believe anything anyone is reported to have said without seeing a video of them saying it or a photo of the handwritten words! On that basis, I'm not sure it is possible to believe that Jesus ever existed!
Full disclosure. My view is pretty much the same as this one: http://www.faithfulanswers.com/has-russia-been-consecrated-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary/
"For me, Sister Lucia's 'opinion' trumps any other." I'm not sure we can be entirely certain that these were Sr. Lucy's words. We have to take the words of others. But if...IF these were Sr. Lucy's words and she contradicts here ENTIRE testimony which she consistently gave before this supposed assertion, we could understand it in this way: Sr. Lucy was a cloistered religious. And as such she was under a strict vow of obedience. We have only to look at our Blessed Lord's counsel to St. Margaret Mary to see that a religious is bound to obey their superior over private revelations. So if a religious superior commanded her to say that the words she had heard previously were false, would she not be bound to do so? At any rate, I encourage you to read the links I have shared. God bless!
Now here is an interview by a publication of the Blue Army in Spain (Sol de Fatima) in 1985 AFTER the attempted consecrations of JPII: Question: At what moment of the Fatima mystery do we find ourselves? Sister Lucy: I think we are living in the time when Russia is spreading its errors throughout the world. Question: By that, are we to understand that Russia will take possession of the whole world? Sister Lucy: Yes. Question: John Paul II had invited all the bishops to join in the consecration of Russia, which he was going to make at Fatima on 13 May 1982 and which he was to renew at the end of the Holy Year in Rome on 25 March 1984, before the original statue of Our Lady of Fatima. Has he not therefore done what was requested at Tuy? Sister Lucy: There was no participation of all the bishops, and there was no mention of Russia. Question: So the consecration was not done as requested by Our Lady? Sister Lucy: No. Many bishops attached no importance to this act. End ------------------------------------------- I find this interview more believable that the Bertone interview. God bless!
"I don't think everyone who believes that the consecration was not completely fulfilled is a follower of Fr. Gruner." I wouldn't classify myself as a follower of Fr. Gruner and I think it wasn't done correctly. Also I think most FSSP priests (this is my unscientific/fallible guess from relationships I have) think it has not been done according to Heaven's request. And I have some friends who were advised by their FSSP priest not to assist at Fr. Gruner's Mass when he was in town for a conference.
I appreciate both sides of the argument but we are in danger of splitting into two camps which is never good. There is no doubt in my mind the 1984 consecration bore fruits in the collapse of the Soviet Union and the freedom of religion gained in Eastern Europe. And there could be no doubt that John Paul offered the consecration of Russia in his heart but he did not mention Russia explicitly verbally and in union with all Bishops. I believe there is a future, more complete consecration to come. The Pope and the Bishops united to him will consecrate Russia (specifically mentioned) in the not too distant future during a great conflagration in Europe. They will have to do it because it because nations will have been annihilated (by Russia). Russia must be singled out and named specifically in the consecration. That was the demand of heaven but as Our Lord Himself confided to Sister Lucy at Rianjo in August of 1931: “They did not wish to heed My request! ... Like the King of France, they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late. Russia will already have spread its errors in the world ...” Our Blessed Lord even mentioned Russia specifically by name! Sister Lucia. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia. Notice the wording of the 1984 consecration. It is polite politically correct speech, I would say even embarrassingly weak. What is so wrong in the Church that the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, in the line of successors of Peter, and the martyrs cannot name Russia specifically? There is a real mystery in this! Why could John Paul II not gone 'off script' and slipped in Russia instead of 'People for which by reason of their situation you have particular love and solicitude'? Did our Blessed Lord not say 'Let your Yes be Yes and Your No. 1984 consecration: Pope John Paul II, "united with all the pastors of the Church in a particular bond whereby we constitute a body and a college," consecrates "the whole world, especially the peoples for which by reason of their situation you have particular love and solicitude." This consecration was a master-class in doublespeak if ever there was one and I don't mean to sound patronising. That is not my intention. My intention is to highlight the gulf between what heaven asked for - Russia to be mentioned specifically and what we actually got. The ordinary man in the street would be left clueless by the actual sentence used. Instead of the single word Russia, we got sixteen words!
I appreciate your desire for unity on this, garabandal, but the truth is that 'the two camps' exist and the uncommitted would like to find the truth. I think I would question your statement that 'Russia must be singled out...'. That directive does not seem to be part of Our Lady's request. It is because of the 'freedom' that the Holy Father was given that he seems to have chosen not to specifically mention Russia. But the consecration most definitely included Russia, both legalistically and in intention. What concerns me most of all in this matter is the apparent harshness that creeps in from those insisting that the consecration must still be done. It is, effectively, a thinly veiled criticism of the recent Popes and of the Church. I am prepared to believe that the 1984 Consecration was not, maybe, 'ideal' but I feel fairly sure that it has been accepted and I do not see it being re-done.
I think I will respectfully and politely disagree with you David. Everything that was to do with Fatima centred around the errors of Russia. And the solution to those errors included consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The weight of evidence indicates that Russia had to be named in the consecration. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world”. I think Russia had to be mentioned by name. That is why I posted the letter of Sr Lucia above from 1980. She admits that our Lady of Fatima's request referred to 'only to the consecration of Russia'. But time will ultimately tell. All I can say is watch at what Russia does. Is she going to be an agent for good or an agent for destruction? If she attacks eastern Europe using maximum force, annihilating nations in her path then we will know the consecration was not accepted. Here endeth my contribution to this thread.
Well I agree with you Garabandal, I think it clearly hasn't been done yet completely, although partially with good results. But as David said - or implied - we should be charitable to recent Popes and recognize that there are doubtless good reasons why it cannot be done yet, although we cannot see what they are right now.
Why was the only person who could answer these questions never allowed to answer them. The person who knew the whole story was the only person in the world banned from talking about it why.? Cardinals wrote books bishops wrote books priests wrote books why did Cardinal Bertone go on TV numerous times and write numerous books on the subject when all he had to do was let Sister Lucy state publicly her take on the Consecration.I cant believe that our Church would let something as important as the Fatima Apparitions pass without properly documenting everything that Sister Lucy said. This includes documenting everything on Video, documentational evidence, and audio tape, if this was not done then it is a dereliction of Duty by whoever was in charge (Cardinal Bertone). But as we know it was done and is slowly being drip fed to us by Catholic Journalists like Antonio Socci.When Antonio Socci famously asked Cardinal Bertone Which One Of Us Is Telling The Truth We can plainly see who was giving the right answer and it was not Cardinal Bertone.
I certainly agree with that comment. I remain fairly amazed at the continuing negativity towards Russia. I think that, gradually, the truth will emerge and even this forum's members will recognise Russia as an agent for good!
Yes, Russia will be an agent for good, but first, as Blessed Elena and Alois have both prophecised, she will be an agent of the most horrible suffering throughout Europe. It is obvious to anyone with eye's that she is a long ways from being converted at this time.
