Burke Calls for Consecration of Russia to Immaculate Heart of Mary

I only have one comment. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the apparitions at Fatima. If Pope Francis or Pope Benedict would CONSECRATE RUSSIA To her IMMACULATE HEART this discussion would be over. If the Vatican has time to discuss Climate Change they certainly should have time to follow Our Lady of Fatima's request.

 

Both Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict know the Consecration requested by Our Lady to Sister Lucia has been done so any further consecrations (which I'm sure Our Lady will be happy to see) will not affect the Fatima controversy.

I've just found that the publisher of Sister Lucia's biography (World Apostolate of Fatima) from which I keep quoting have actually published a web page responding to Cardinal Burke's recent request. It can be seen here:

https://wafusa.org/call-for-consecr...mmaculate-heart-is-hopeful-sign-of-the-times/

 

Though I don't know if the consecration was done properly enough or not it certainly couldn't hurt to do it again and actually name Russia. They are Christian now and I don't think they would take some deep offense as has been used as an excuse in the past.

I disagree with the parts of your comment I emboldened.
If they actually named Russia just once in union with all the bishops of the world it would set to rest all controversy about this.
The consecration may have been done. It may have even been accepted by Heaven, but one thing is for certain. Russia has never been named.

It is easy to understand why people are upset. If I brought my baby to a priest and asked him to bless it and he said "I bless all the babies of the world". I would kindly ask him to please bless my baby specifically.

They consecrate the world over and over again. Why on Earth are they so resistant to just naming Russia?
The one thing they were asked to do.
It is so frustrating.

Like Nike used to say "Just do it!"

 

I think that Sister Lucia herself might have been concerned that 'another' consecration of Russia would suggest a lack of recognition of God's miracle of causing the violence free collapse of soviet communism.

Here is Sister Lucia again (in her last writing):

It is well known to all that this was one of the most critical moments in the history of humanity, when the great powers, hostile to each other, were projecting and preparing for a nuclear atomic war that would destroy the world, if not all, for the most part, with what chances of survival? And who would be able to dissuade these men to change all this to the contrary? Asking for a meeting in order that an embrace of peace may happen? Changing their plans from war into plans of peace? Of injustices aggressive and violent, in aid projects and help, recognizing the right of the human person by abolishing slavery, etc?

Who but God was able to act on these intellectuals, these wills, these consciences in order to lead them to such an exchange, without fear, without fear of opposing revolts? Of yours and of foreigners? Only the power of God, Who has acted in all, caused them to accept in peace, without riots, or opposition, and without conditions.

(Pathway under the Gaze of Mary)​

 

Didn't JP2 believe it to be done? Did he ever make an attempt after 1984? This is pretty telling if a future saint thought it done.

 

Cardinal Cordes revealed two weeks ago that John Paul II had doubts, but that the way event developed with the dismantling of the Societ Union gave him confidence it was done. However not he, nor Benedict, nor Fancis have ever May a statement saying it was done as requested by Our Lady. So given the uncertainty it is becoming more and more credible that they expected a final consecration be done in the future, when the Church and Bishops are ready for it. "It will be done" said Fr Amorth.

 

Listen to what Father Amorth had to say about the 1984 consecration.

 

They wont mention Russia because it is not prudent.
Our Ladys request in their opinion was not prudent.
To actually mention Russia would not fit with the Ecumenism that has entered the church.

Cardinal Bertone has just said as much.....



Cardinal Bertone underscored that the choice not to mention Russia directly was made “for ecumenical reasons” and out of “respect for the Russian Orthodox Church,”http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...talks-about-the-third-secret-of-fatima-20834/

 

Im sure a comment from Vassulas vessel wont be to distant.

 

Well if you insist.....

You remain strongly opposed to ecumenism despite Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XV and Francis being firm supporters and promoters of ecumenism throughout their papacies.

But then you don't think much of any of those popes do you, Mac?

As Sister Lucia has told us, "He who is not with the Pope is not with God; and he who wants to be with God has to be with the Pope."

 

Does this statement hold true even with bad popes, do you think, davidtlig?
Like the following:
....here are examples of popes who made the grade for Worst Ever on Esquire's list:

Stephen VI (896–897) held the "Cadaver Synod" of 897. [Angry] at his predecessor, [Stephen VI] dug up the rotting corpse of Pope Formosus and put it on trial. You know, like a crazy person. The former Formosus was found guilty of perjury, violating canon law, and performing bishop duties as a layman. The cadaver was thrice de-fingered and thrown into a river. Naturally.

A couple of centuries later, we find:

Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048) sold the papacy in 1044 to the highest bidder. After returning to office for a month, he sold it again in 1045 to marry his cousin. [Benedict IX] was accused of rape, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. Pope Victor III claimed of Benedict IX, "His life as a pope was so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it."

The most recent entry on Esquire's list was a pope who reigned five centuries ago:

Leo X (1513–1521) famously said when elected to office, "Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it." And he promptly made it rain. His extravagant expenses angered Martin Luther and caused a gang of cardinals to plot his assassination. The alleged attempt failed, and a not-so-mysterious bout of food poisoning soon plagued the conspirators.


https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-worst-pope-ever

 

Ecumenism is one of those words and ideas that suffers from a poor definition. It covers a broad spectrum of thought.

If by ecumenism you mean all other Christian sects who have separated themselves from the One True Church founded by Christ coming home and becoming Catholic then I am all for it.

If by ecumenism you mean watering down or changing what we believe as Catholics to make the Church more palatable to schismatics and heretics then we, as good Catholics, must oppose it at every step.

 

Unfortunately, ecumenism today means relativism. There is, by those who believe in ecumenism, no absolutes. Everything is up for interpretation. Who are we to judge? Relativism is Satan's last ism, because with it even those with faith will not hold to the unchanging truths of Christ's Church. It is called apostasy.