Am I correct in assuming the information from this Fatima web site is correct in stating that the 1984 consecration was not properly done, so in effect Russia has not had its own consecration ? 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. 8. Wasn’t the consecration of the world by the Pope in 1984 enough to fulfill Our Lady’s request? A: No. For her entire life since the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, Sister Lucy has insisted that Russia must be specifically mentioned. For example, in a 1978 interview with her confidant, Father Umberto Pasquale, and in a letter to Father Pasquale in 1980, Sister Lucy was asked the question: “Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about the consecration of the world?” During the interview, Sister Lucy answered: “No, Father Umberto! Never! At the Cova da Iria in 1917 Our Lady promised: ‘I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia ...’ In 1929, at Tuy, as She had promised, Our Lady came to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the consecration of that country.” And, in the 1980 letter (dated April 13 of that year), Sister Lucy confirmed what she had said in the interview, stating in her own handwriting that “Our Lady of Fatima, in Her request, referred only to the consecration of Russia.” Both the 1978 interview and the 1980 letter (photographically reproduced) were published in the May 12, 1982, Italian edition of L’Osservatore Romano. http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/faqconse.asp
Thank you . I get asked this a lot with the implications from both Fatima & Garabandal as to pre-Warning activities of Russia, and the need for its conversion.
Hi Glenn, There's been a lot of discussion about this on other threads as you'll see if you type 'Consecration Russia' into the site's search engine. I don't want to recap all of that, but I would like to deal with one issue which was raised by a perceptive commentator on the guest post concerning the Consecration and Fatima more generally that Charlie Johnston graciously asked me to write for his blog. The common argument against those who say that St John Paul II's 1984 consecration didn't fulfill the conditions for its validation is that this would appear to make Heaven's attitude out to be very legalistic, whereas surely God would have honoured the purity of intention of Pope John Paul and not been too picky about the exact wording of the Consecration. But what if the problem is coming from the Other Side, who definitely are legalistic? The idea that Satan haggles with Heaven over questions of legal rights and authority may seem strange, but it certainly has good Biblical precedent. Think of the argument between Michael and the Devil over the body of Moses (Jude 1:9), or the initial dialogue in the Book of Job. If we accept the Job-like idea, expressed in the famous dream of Pope Leo XIII, that God granted Satan a century (i.e. the 20th) to test the church, then it is not hard imagine the kind of negotiation that may have been going on after Fatima with regard to the various attempts to make the Consecration. Something along these lines: [Old Red Socks and his minions: 'You granted us this century and we're not giving it up because Your Church is disobedient and won't fulfill your request']. God would love nothing more than the conversion of Russia, after all - but the Team from Below has been given legal rights which can only be fully taken back by absolute 'to the letter' obedience. Maybe this is why the 1984 Consecration had a tremendous effect - the collapse of the Soviet Union - but evidently didn't yet bring about the promised Era of Peace. It's a very similar situation to that of the request to the French kings, made in 1689 exactly a century before the Revolution, to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart. There is no way that the Revolution represented God's will, but He allowed it because the monarchs' refusal to make the Consecration (until Louis XVI finally did it from prison, tragically late) gave Satan the legal right to act. Does this make any sense in terms of what may be going on in the spiritual realm? It would seem from Scripture (again going back to the book of Jude) that God in some strange - to our way of thinking - way shows his fallen angel far more respect than we do. This is barely comprehensible to us - after all, why should God have allowed Satan this kind of free rein which, even if limited by Divine Providence, has still had terrible consequences and meant the loss of an incalculable number of souls (this is the kind of theological nightmare question which keeps me awake at night)? But God's ways are not our ways, and the perspective of eternity is not something we can grasp in our finitude. All we can do is to trust in His perfect wisdom and Love.
P.S. I might just add that it is only this question of 'legal rights' granted to Satan by human disobedience which makes the necessity of Christ's sacrificial atonement comprehensible. The Devil acquired rulership over this earth because we gave it to him, and it had to be bought back by Jesus's perfect human obedience (while also being of infinite value by virtue of being Divine). If this were not a matter of absolute moral necessity (for God, constrained by his own nature, to remain just), then the Father could simply have forgiven Adam and Eve and sent the Devil packing without the need for Christ's Passion.
Peter, one of the main reasons I agreed that is it was not properly done is a comment by Jesus in a locution to Conchita ( I will for the sake of argument say that this only applies to those who believe in Garabandal, as a point of reference that it was not) On July 20,1963 Conchita left the Church saying that she had had an intimate conversation with Our Lord. A Priest asked her to relate the circumstances in writing. Then the girl took a piece of paper and a pencil, and wrote these lines spontaneously with great ease. I was making my thanksgiving and praying for things. He answered me… And I said to Him: — “Why is the miracle coming? To convert many people? “ He answered: — “To convert the whole world.” ─“Will Russia be converted? “ ─” It also will be converted, and so everyone will love Our Hearts. “ Locution on July 20,1963 “Conchita;s Diary“-7
My response, Glenn, to your question is - I believe the 1984 consecration was accepted and the evidence supports the fact that Sister Lucia confirmed that she believed that the 1984 consecration fulfilled Our Lady's wishes. There is a good discussion on the matter at: http://motheofgod.com/threads/sister-lucia-the-consecration-of-russia.6491/ The Fatima.org website presents the personal views of Fr Gruner. Another Fatima website, http://www.fatimafamily.org/#!about_us/cjg9 has Fr Robert Fox at its centre and it is he who communicated with Sister Lucia about the matter. EWTN's position is that the Consecration was done in 1984.
Hi Peter- thanks always for your thoughtful and theologically sound posts. As you are about to see, I don't have very well developed theology so I would love your reply to what may be a completely crazy thought after reading your post. Is satan damned forever? Is God who loves all his creatures, still "working on him". I ask only because you said He respected satan and I thought maybe by allowing all that is happened and the freedom he has given him, and in the end the Church still triumphs and all things are reconciled , he reconciles with God? Or us it that satan has so rejected God, that he is beyond reconciliation.?
I'm puzzled by this post, Glenn. Why does this 1963 locution to Conchita mean the 1984 consecration was invalid?
In reading Sr. Lucy's letter she says for the specific mention of Russia. I am not debating that the Pope did infact do a world wide consecration, BUT, did he specifically mention " Russia ", as our Lady requested? This is why I feel it may have been done improperly.
Ok, I understand why Conchita's locution might suggest it hadn't been done. For me, Sister Lucia's view is overwhelmingly important. We can of course go on arguing why Pope John Paul II didn't do it properly from a legalistic standpoint but I don't believe God (or Our Lady) is a legalist. What worries me is that this matter comes very close to being something that makes people criticise the Pope(s). I feel certain that Pope Francis will not do what Fr Gruner says he should do. I think we should accept Pope Francis' position rather that Fr Gruner.
Is it at all possible there may be a political or moral reason the Pope did not want to say "Russia" specifically ? He would be seen a judgmental to the world ? I guess we'll never know .
I wouldn't use the term "respect", as we are apt to consider it, when it comes to God's relation to His creation, Satan. Rather, He just knows that fallen angel a lot better than we do. He also knows the grace offered or matched to the extent of temptation to His children whenever evil abides. This earthly existence, after all, is a time of choice and challenge for us to obtain what and where our eternal life is going to be spent. And we already know the degree to which the Father loves us....giving His only Son, and the power released in that sacrifice (which looked like a complete failure at the time) that defeated Satan. It was already accomplished. So the "joke" is very much on Satan when any further "permission" for him to prowl some more is granted even in a limited way. There is also Michael who is on watch guard and defending us in that battle. Maybe this is just a child's reply when it comes to the question of Russia being consecrated, but I have to ask, without all the qualifications, just when and where did that occur in answer to the Mother's own stipulation which of course was God's (Who, btw, was just as omniscient at the time of the request as any other time) own words. As we say about His commandments....they weren't just "suggestions". Unless they too are honored as stated, without rationalizations, we personally and as a whole people will suffer. If we concentrate only on JPII's attempt and wonder if heaven honored his "purity of intention", then what about all the previous attempts by other Popes who also refrained from or qualified their own attempts for whatever the world situation at their times seemed to order them to do for what they considered perhaps best for the protection of the faithful? Why weren't those attempts also considered totally done deals or at least "partially granted"?? At JPII's time there was still an official agreement with the then Soviet Communists to not condemn them in public so that more harm would not be imposed upon Catholics in their satellites. In fact, at that time, Russia did not stand alone but was rather considered to have been only a part of that larger Soviet Union, even if being the driving or original force for evil. Heaven may understand the forces placed on the conscience of the human who has the great responsibility for such an ordered action, but then, on a smaller scale we have things asked by heaven of the little ones chosen, like Bernadette, who was asked to do something seemingly insane before the watchful eyes of the public mob....dig, like a pig, in dirt, and "wash"/smear the resulting mud on her face with the known response of the public to consider her mad and a worthless representative of the Blessed Mother for the time being. And yet, outside of human consideration, the miracles began.
Thank you, Peter. It grieves me when the view is shared that God's mercy overturned His justice. No, the Cross demonstrates both His infinite love and his perfect justice. To demean God's justice is to demean His Person. Rev 15:4 "Who shall not fear and glorify thy name, O Lord? For thou alone art holy. All nations shall come and worship thee, for thy judgments have been revealed."
OK, perhaps I should have used a word other than 'respect' with regard to God's attitude towards Satan, but I'm struggling to find one. Both history and the Biblical record, however, suggest that the Devil is allowed far more freedom to operate than most of us would like (for example, if Michael will eventually chain him and cast him into Hell, why can't this happen immediately? Why can't an all-powerful God simply put Satan where he can't do any harm?). Why this is so is a profound mystery that I don't pretend to be able to fathom. Some theologians have suggested that God is making the Devil serve Him (the very thing that he couldn't countenance) by using him as his instrument for purifying the saints, which may be true but does beg the question of the colossal 'collateral damage' in the process. Another line of thought would be to say that the answer to all this lies in the ultimate mystery of freedom , in that God created the angels, like us, free and will never revoke that freedom. As for the question of the final 'reconciliation of all things' (apokatastasis panton), I know that there have been major theologians who have gone down this road (e.g. Sergei Bulgakov, who considered it an ontological necessity), but it's hard to see how this can be squared with the Biblical witness. There is a fundamental difference between our sin and that of the fallen angels: they rejected God despite having direct knowledge of Him, which I would guess can be compared to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit or the spiritual state of those who 'deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth', for whom 'no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God' (Hebrews 10:26-27). With the difference, of course, that the sacrifice mentioned here was made for human beings, not for angels.
Peter, Not sure how this helps but it leads to interesting conversation. Some conversations entail prayer, thought and even fasting...to try to even touch the mystical. I have been lacking in all three but there is some truth to the "created one" interacting with heaven. There is "Divine Universal Order" that must be followed to have "Divine Justice" on souls. So, when order is affected the "created one" does have to ask one of Gods Generals...for God to allows certain actions. In my personal opinion, sometimes the "created one" is allowed to communicate directly with God. When the "created one" battles for souls... he has to follow Gods laws. May Gods Will be Done
I often wonder if it was not done to Heaven's satisfaction and clearly JP2 knew clearly what was asked and expected, is God holding him responsible for some of what has transpired since not doing it? I believe JP2 is a saint and was an outstanding pope but are we all not held to account for all we do and fail to do? This isn't a judgement on the pope but a serious question. Clearly no effort was made to consecrate Russia from 1985 until his death. I remember Jesus telling St. Faustina that if she didn't proclaim his Divine Mercy to the world He would hold her to account for the lost souls. Perhaps this is God's way to motivate. Just like Pope Benedict suggesting, yeah we got to do that still, umm wouldn't the popes of all people want to satisfy Mary's specific request ahead of almost everything else on their plate. Yes quite a task getting all the bishops on board but I still to this day can't fully understand this.
