Pope Francis to consecrate world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary…

Pope Francis to consecrate world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary…

Pope Francis to consecrate world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary...

Image of Our Lady of Fatima will be taken to Marian Day at the request of the Pope in October, at the Vatican, Pope Francisco consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

What is going on? Where did this craze come from to consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, when Our Lord has made clear that he wishes RUSSIA to be consecrated – by name. What is going on?

Click on photo to read announcement from Fatima shrine.

Comments (90)

  • 3littleshepherds

    Doesn’t Our Lady of Fatima warn us of specific chastisements to keep us from complacency? Anyway I do think the chastisement will come inorder to bring souls to repentance so that Our Lady will have her Triumph. I agree with Athanasius when he says it will be a sudden and catastrophic global event (prophecies being his source). But the world is not going to be blown up, Our Lady is going to save the world.

    August 16, 2013 at 11:03 pm
  • Magdalene

    Having a deep, abiding Faith is not the same as being complacent. We must always remain alert but put our total trust in God.

    August 16, 2013 at 11:31 pm
  • Prionsais

    Even if the world did suffer a catastrophe, how many would look at it as a sign from Heaven?
    The miracle of the sun was dismissed as an optical illusion or mass hysteria.

    August 17, 2013 at 12:11 am
    • spiritustempore


      Probably around the same number of people that will be saved.

      Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life, and few there are that find it!”

      August 17, 2013 at 12:18 am
      • Prionsais


        August 17, 2013 at 11:38 am
  • 3littleshepherds

    I didn’t mean you were complacent. In fact your trust in Providence is rare, I would think. But many many souls are not repenting, are not doing penance nor praying at all. And people have told me (all men) that reading about the Chastisement does them good.

    August 17, 2013 at 12:25 am
    • 3littleshepherds

      I should say that the chastisement is scary to me too but also exciting for want of a better word. I like strategy and although we can’t foresee God’s Providence and are usually wrong about it, in this case He has given us a lot of “clues”.

      August 17, 2013 at 12:51 am
  • Thurifer

    Didn’t Pope John XXIII faint when he read the Third Secret?

    August 17, 2013 at 3:39 am
    • Athanasius

      I’ve never heard that said before, Thurifer. I don’t think that actually happened.

      August 17, 2013 at 1:04 pm
      • spiritustempore

        I’m not sure whether John XXIII fainted when he read the Third Secret or not. The information seems to have come from an interview Fr Malachi Martin gave to Art Bell.


        Art Bell: All right, here we go. Just a couple of things I want to quickly read, one from a friend in Australia, Father who says, “I had a Jesuit priest tell me more of the Third Secret of Fatima years ago, in Perth. He said among other things, the last pope would be under control of Satan. Pope John fainted, thinking it might be him. We were interrupted before I could hear the rest.” Any comment on that?

        Fr. Martin: Yes. It sounds as if they were reading or being told the text of the Third Secret.

        Art Bell: Oh my!

        Fr. Martin: It sounds like it, but it is sufficiently vague to make one hesitate. It sounds like it.

        August 17, 2013 at 1:42 pm
    • chardom

      that’s cause it was the bill for the last supper + interest

      August 17, 2013 at 1:12 pm
      • spiritustempore

        I wish that there was a ‘like’ button for posts….

        August 17, 2013 at 1:30 pm
    • editor

      Nope. He just put it back saying it was not for our times. Talk about famous last words.

      August 17, 2013 at 1:41 pm
  • Crouchback

    I think that the Society of St Pius X bishops should send a message to the Pope that they will consecrate the World at the same time as the Pope.

    OK it’s not Russia yet, but at least the Pope would know that ” two or three” would be supporting him…..I was present when a late Scottish prelate consecrated the world in 1984……he looked bored with the whole thing……not long after there was Chernobyl….!!!

    So even bored bishops can have an effect

    Has the Pope asked that the worlds bishops join in the consecration…??

    should we be contacting the bishops to see what arrangements they are putting in place for this consecration….??

    August 17, 2013 at 7:36 am
    • Athanasius


      It would be wrong for the SSPX to send any message to the Pope that undermines the request of Our Lady of Fatima. Her instructions were quite clear on what consecration she requires, namely Russia. Nothing less than humble obedience to that request is acceptable to heaven (Sister Lucy) and should not therefore be encouraged.

      August 17, 2013 at 1:03 pm
      • Crouchback


        I get your point, but everyone would know that this consecration wouldn’t be what Our Lady asked for at Fatima…..and the SSPX bishops would be acting within their “remit” by joining in ….AND….reminding everyone from the Pope down that the real consecration is yet to be done

        Win – Win for the SSPX as far as I would be concerned.

        August 18, 2013 at 7:21 am
  • spiritustempore


    There’s no reply button under your post, so sorry that I’ll have to reply here.

    I’m really not sure why the point about evil continues to be an issue:

    We can generalise that there is evil in the world, and in the episcopate. What we cannot do is say “Spiritustempore is evil. Archbishop Nichols is evil. Pope Francis is evil.”

    Nowhere have I said that we should say that this or that individual is evil, although it’s obvious, in general terms, that evil individuals exist within the structures of the Church. As you write, we cannot know who they are.

    I have said that some give themselves over wholeheartedly to doing evil (not being) evil. If you consider – as we are taught – that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies and a great evil, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a bishop who wholeheartedly devotes his career to ‘inflicting wounds upon the face of Christ’, as Pope Benedict puts it, is equally wholeheartedly committing himself to doing evil, from an objective standpoint.

    That is not to make a subjective judgment on the final state of his soul or to definitively judge the person evil and therefore damned. It is to say that he does evil and that if he does not amend his ways and truly repent, he is going to hell and taking rather a lot of souls along with him.

    Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves

    August 17, 2013 at 9:34 am
    • editor


      I’m really not sure why the point about evil continues to be an issue…

      It’s not an issue. I’ve said from the outset what you have said above. I am therefore still puzzled as to why it was an issue in the first place! All the words that you have boldened in your final (I hope!) post on the subject above, I have been saying, not just on this thread, but for fourteen years in our newsletter!

      Let the subject of “evil” therefore, rest in peace – at least for now!

      August 17, 2013 at 1:42 pm
      • spiritustempore

        With all due respect, dear Editor, you seem to be the one taking issue with my posts?

        August 17, 2013 at 1:43 pm
      • editor


        I think I merely sought to clarify on occasion to ensure that readers knew that you meant what I presumed you really did mean, as stated clearly in your latest post above – that is all! It has taken a while to get to where we are, although I was absolutely sure that you meant the same thing as I was saying (i.e. that the Church teaches.)

        Hence my puzzlement when you continued to apparently “correct” me when, all along, as is evident now, you were, indeed, saying the same thing. I am always surprised when, in clarifying something, a blogger insists “I didn’t SAY this or that” – precisely, I think, why the matter required clarification, in case it is wrongly interpreted thus.

        Anyway, all, as I say, is well that (I hope!) ends well.

        August 17, 2013 at 1:45 pm
      • spiritustempore


        I think it was already quite clear at 8.32pm last night, re-reading the posts.

        August 17, 2013 at 2:08 pm
      • editor

        Then, not having time to re-read the posts I will take your word for it, and thank you for pointing that out. I apologise – absolutely without reservation – for my unnecessary clarifications. No offence intended or malice aforethought, I assure you.

        August 17, 2013 at 3:14 pm
      • Josephine

        I’ve just replied to spiritustempore, to say it was me who continued the posting after 8.32, so if any apology was due it would be from me.

        August 17, 2013 at 3:26 pm
      • Josephine

        Actually, the Editor accepted your answer at 8.32 last night. I was not so clear and I asked editor to clarify her position because she accepted your comment about the bishops giving themselves wholeheartedly over to evil and that was ambiguous to me. – Editor answered me (and I “got it”) and then you posted again. So it’s me you should blame for the posts after 8.32. last night but I wanted to be absolutely sure of what the Editor was saying.

        August 17, 2013 at 3:25 pm
  • Prionsais

    I wonder at times if the consecration of Russia is now too little too late. In these days of political correctness the Catholic Church would probably be laughed at. There are a few countries now who are upsides with Russia in doing evil, Britain, Israel and America to name only a very few. The only way I can see the consecration happening without rocking the boat is for the Pope along with the world’s bishops consecrating a number of countries by naming them, God only knows, they need it, and slipping Russia in somewhere near the middle. Our Blessed Lady permitting of course.
    That way, wee Vladimir might not lose the rag

    August 17, 2013 at 11:54 am
    • Athanasius


      Our Lady was quite specific about the method of consecration she requires – Russia was to be named as the sole object of the act so that the world could see afterwards that it was by this singular act that Russia was being converted. Any other kind of consecration, such as mentioning Russia among other nations, would be an ambiguous act borne of human respect and would not therefore be acceptable to God.

      Such an act, when it finally comes, will not be too little too late. Our Lady has already said that the Pope and bishops will consecrate Russia but that “it will be late.” Any suffering the world may have to undergo in the meantime, and I think great suffering is yet to come, will be the result of the Pope and the bishops delaying the inevitable. That suffering will cease upon fulfillment of Our Lady’s request, Russia will suddenly convert, the world will experience a time of true peace and great holiness will abound once more in the Church. We have Our Lady’s word on that. I just wish those in authority in the Church would accept Our Lady’s word with humility and grant her request instead of following their own inclinations and pandering to human respect.

      August 17, 2013 at 12:52 pm
  • Prionsais


    Thanks for that. I just wonder though if we will still have a presence in Scotland when that (late)
    time comes. I can just imagine the hue and cry when a pope finally announces his intentions.
    Getting their own house in order will be a popular cry. The longer the consecration is held back the more difficult it will become. I just can’t understand why successive popes, knowing the seriousness of the situation, have done absolutely nothing other than tip-toe around the issue, especially when they know how many innocents may suffer.

    August 17, 2013 at 1:33 pm
    • Athanasius


      I think Fr. E. Dhanis might have something to do with that tip-toeing you refer to. His flawed and insulting theory more or less became the prominent one in Rome because it suited the ecumenical programme. This was the theory that Sister Lucy had made up the Third Secret and the consecration request from aspects her pious childhood, accidentally of course! In other words, God allowed Sister Lucy to mess around with heaven’s message. How’s that for audacity? Yet, they stick by it and by Vatican II reform. The devil is very clever at presenting good as evil and evil as good. That’s the “diabolical disorientation.”

      As for the hierarchy in Scotland, it will continue to oversee the ecumenical rot of the Faith in this country, I fear, just like so many other liberal hierarchies in so many other countries. If they can’t see the Satanic ruse, then they can’t apply the heavenly remedy.

      August 17, 2013 at 3:37 pm
      • Josephine

        “If they can’t see the Satanic ruse, then they can’t apply the heavenly remedy.”

        That’s it. I couldn’t agree more.

        August 17, 2013 at 3:40 pm
      • Prionsais


        Again, thanks for your comments. I often wonder if a few months of “sabbaticals” in the big bad world away from the comfort of their palaces would smarten their ideas up a bit. They all seem to me to be living in a fairy (no pun intended) tale world with their sermons written by someone like Hans Christian Anderson.

        August 17, 2013 at 7:38 pm
      • Athanasius


        Their sermons would be less damaging if they were written by Hans Christian Anderson. Sadly, I think most of them are penned by Hans Kung!

        The problem today is that none of them actually do live in palaces, which buildings once represented the dignity of the Episcopal office. The problem is precisely that too many bishops now spend too much time socialising in the big bad world and it’s secularising their spirituality.

        August 17, 2013 at 8:45 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    So if the devil’s gameplan is to eventually get one of his own on the Chair of Peter how far can he do this and still have someone who has jurisdiction? Does he always have to stick to liberal Popes? If a Cardinal is a freemason of the highest degrees and is elected is he excommunicated or would he have jurisdiction?

    August 17, 2013 at 4:40 pm
    • Athanasius


      This is a really complicated subject, not subject to the scrutiny of subjects, if you catch my drift.

      In questions of this magnitude, I think we always have to distinguish between the individual and the office. Is it possible that a Pope could excommunicate himself and yet still function as Pope? For me, it’s the same as asking if the Masses and Sacraments can be validly offered by a priest who is in a state of mortal sin. We know they can because the office of the priesthood is unaffected by the worthiness or otherwise of individual priests, so I would venture to suggest that the same rule applies to individual Popes.

      August 17, 2013 at 5:07 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        I get your drift.
        I would also say it would be a doggone mess if a really bad one kept his jurisdiction. Especially if he believed in consecrations, if you get my drift.
        Well, Our Lady will triumph so all’s well.

        August 17, 2013 at 5:29 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    Here is part of a letter that Sr. Lucia wrote around 1950. It’s from “The Whole Truth About Fatima” volume III, page 309.
    “Our Heavenly Mother loves the Russian people and I love them also; uniting myself to the secret designs of Her Immaculate Heart, I ardently desire their return to the right road which leads to Heaven. I know that the Russian people are great, generous and cultured, that they are capable of walking on the paths of justice, truth and good.”
    No sooner had I seen the kindness of the Mother of God in their regard than I began to look on them as brothers, and I wish nothing more than their salvation.”

    August 17, 2013 at 11:47 pm
  • Theresa Rose

    That Our Lady requested that Russia be Consecrated to her Immaculate Heart when she appeared to the three children at Fatima. In 1929 She appeared to Sister Lucia in her convent at Tuy, saying the time had come for the Pope and Bishops Consecrate Russia. A five minute prayer that is all that it would take.

    If not Russia would spread her errors throughtout the world. So far as has been said this Consecration has not been done. Our Lady did also say that it would be done, but it would be late.

    Many Rosaries are needed to be said in order for Our Lady’s request to be carried out. Just think of the Miracles that happened because many people prayed the Rosary. Here are one or two examples:-

    The Battle of Lepanto 1571 – where the Muslims forces were defeated saving Catholic Europe.

    Rosary protects Jesuit Priests from the atom bomb at Hiroshima 1945.

    Rosary Crusade frees Austria from communist rule 1955.

    And read this link:


    August 18, 2013 at 9:46 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: