Surely, Now’s The Time To Raise Most Important Issue In The World?editor
Below, a report of the planned meeting between the Pope and Vladimir Putin in Rome – surely an excellent opportunity to raise the question of the Consecration of Russia. I say that, because I doubt that Putin will have any objection, and that puts the bishops in their place. I did read somewhere that he DID object once when it was put to him, but not sure whether that is true or not. Certainly, if he has no problem with it, why should the bishops? Read the report below and tell us if you agree…
Vladimir Putin will raise the Ukraine crisis and the plight of Christians in the Middle East during a meeting with Pope Francis in Rome on Wednesday.
It will be Mr Putin’s second meeting with Pope Francis, and the latest episode in a long-running but sometimes fraught relationship between the Kremlin and the Vatican.
At Wednesday’s meeting, the president of Russia and the Bishop of Rome will cover “specific international problems, in particular the situation in Ukraine with emphasis on inter-religious relations and the activities of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics,” Kremlin spokesman Yuri Ushakov told reporters on Tuesday.
Russian leaders traditionally visit the Pope during any visit to Italy, and Russian and Soviet leaders have maintained links with the Vatican since formal contacts were established between the Holy See and the Kremlin under Mikhail Gorbachev.
For the Kremlin, these meetings are an important source of “supplementary external legitimacy,” said Andrei Zolotov, a Russian journalist who specialises in religious affairs. “That is particularly important for Moscow in the present political situation.”
At their last meeting in November 2013 the notoriously tardy Mr Putin kept the Pope and his aides waiting for nearly an hour (the Kremlin blamed the delay on protesters outside Mr Putin’s Rome hotel).
Mr Putin’s team hailed that meeting as a success, and it raised hopes of a rapprochement between the Catholic and Russian Orthodox Church hierarchy.
But analysts say a mooted historic meeting between the Pope and Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, is now off the cards – largely thanks to the war in Ukraine.
To date Pope Francis has avoided taking a strong line on the Ukraine crisis, confining himself to expression of dismay at a “war between Christians” and implicitly – but not specifically – condemning the annexation of Crimea by calling for respect for international law.
A Russia-backed rebel fires at Ukrainian army positions at Donetsk airport, eastern Ukraine (AP)
According to one leading Vatican analyst, the Russians have taken care to express their appreciation for that restraint.
Writing in Rome’s Corriere della Sera newspaper on Tuesday, Massimo Franco said that in the past few days Patriarch Ilarione of the Russian Orthodox Church had “discreetly” reaffirmed gratitude for the Vatican’s “independent” line.
That is partly because the Vatican is sees Mr Putin’s Kremlin as an ally in other areas.
Apart from a joint commitment to “traditional values” – most prominently in opposition to gay marriage – the Third and First Romes have shared interests in the Middle East.
Pope Francis has also been outspoken in his condemnation of persecution of Christian minorities in the Middle East, blaming the fanaticism of groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil) for driving Christians from their homes.
The Vatican openly opposed Western countries entering the war in Syria, and some analysts suggest that the “moral pressure” of a vigil for peace led by Pope Francis in September 2013 was instrumental in averting airstrikes.
In turn, Mr Putin has sought to reassert Russia’s traditional claim to be the protector of Christians in the Middle East, and has long portrayed his ally Bashar Assad, the Syrian president, as a secular protector of religious minorities against violent Islamism.
Russian weapons deliveries and diplomatic cover at the United Nations have been crucial to Mr Assad’s survival since an uprising against his rule in 2011 broke into a full-blown civil war.
For the Vatican, that makes Mr Putin an “unavoidable and valuable interlocutor for containing Islamic terrorism,” said Mr Franco.
But Pope Francis is coming under increasing pressure from leaders of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church to take a more forceful line.
Sviatoslav Shevchuk, the Archbishop of Kiev Halych and the head of the Ukrainian church, has openly criticised the Vatican’s “ambivalence” over Russia’s role in the war.
“We understand Rome is trying to safeguard its ties with Moscow, but we also know Christ has always been on the side of those who suffer. In this conflict, it is Ukraine which is suffering – and the Holy See, whose diplomacy is service of the Gospel, should be at our side,” he said in May in an interview with La Croix, a French Catholic daily.
Most combatants on either side of the war in Ukraine are eastern Orthodox.
But the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has been outspoken in its support of Kiev, and some fighters, especially on the pro-Russian side, see the war as a continuation of centuries of enmity between Orthodox Slavic civilization and the Catholic dominated West. Source
Get a load of this!
I’m not sure what I was supposed to be looking for in that link. I found it a bit overwhelming. I just kept going back to the first page and the list of goals for the west. Is that what you meant by “get a load of this”?
The one I thought was most sinister was this one:
“NATO must retain its credibility as a deterrent to Russian aggression. In particular, it needs to demonstrate that limited war is impossible and that the response to ‘ambiguous’ or ‘hybrid’ war will be robust.”
Apart from that, and the one about helping to “reconstruct” the Ukraine (to stand up to Putin) I can’t see much else of concern.
Yes indeed, Josephine, and the whole Russian Challenge also.
Didn’t I read somewhere (The Fatima Network?) that the Pope had already met with Putin and that Fatima had been raised and the Pope dismissed it? Something like that, I’m sure. Thinking about it, I think it was in a short Fr Kramer video on YouTube. I’ll see if I can find it and post a link.
Don’t’ go looking for a link – see the video posted by Crofterlady below, where Father Gruner talks about the raising of the Fatima question by Putin. However, further down, Benedict Carter dismisses that – thinks Fr Gruner did not have accurate information.
Yes,here it is:- Fr. Kramer: Putin Requests Consecration Francis Denies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74WaRCdjq2Y
PS Just to clarify I do NOT support Fr Kramer’s views on the current papacy
I watched that video of Fr Kramer. It was interesting, but I wonder why they filmed it in a pub – not very appropriate IMHO.
Again, as I said in my post after watching the Fr Gruner interview, it’s just too hard to take on board why the Pope would refuse to discuss Fatima, ignore Putin when he wanted to raise it, let alone say “we will not discuss Fatima”. Getting my head round that is really difficult.
Yes, Michaela, I noticed the pub also and the great big 250ml glass of ? wine in front of Fr. Kramer. Mind you, maybe it belonged to the cameraman………….
Michaela & Crofterlady,
I agree – in fact, think it was very bad judgment to film that five minute talk in a pub. I mean, whether it was Fr Kramer’s glass of whatever, or the cameraman’s (as Crofterlady charitably suggests!) I would worry if they couldn’t go for five minutes without a drink! The whole video only lasted around 5 minutes and that includes all the nonsense about eagles at the end. I’ve let it go this time, but we have a policy of giving absolutely NO publicity to the “resistance” (to nothing) brigade, so best to avoid posting any of their material if possible.
That is a fantastic interview with Fr Gruner, it’s the best I’ve seen so far and I’ve seen quite a few.
It’s just beyond belief that Putin should mention Fatima to Pope Francis and the Pope dismiss it. It’s terrible.
What was really very interesting, apart from that information, was the way Fr Gruner explained that the Vatican/Pope just don’t understand that consecrating Russia is an honour, not some kind of insult, to Russia.
That video is really educational. I will now go and watch the Fr Kramer one, although I don’t agree with him on a lot of things, including the papacy of this pope, as Westminster Fly says.
Father Gruner was excellent, though, and it’s the first time I’ve seen him so animated, as he gets near the end. It must have been so frustrating for him, having worked all those years, almost 40 I think he said, and still see the blindness at the Vatican. I’m so sad that he’s no longer here to continue the fight.
I agree, that was a really excellent interview.
I’m not so sure that Fr Gruner was given accurate information because I find it hard to believe that Putin would be interested in Fatima, given his reputation, but on the other hand he maybe thought it was a point of interest between the Pope and Russia. I’m not sure.
I did enjoy the interview though especially towards the end when Fr Gruner really showed his passionate desire to get the Vatican to understand the real importance of the Consecration.
I also found the Fr Gruner interview really enlightening. I think Fr Gruner will be impossible to replace. He comes across so humbly. I am sure he’s in heaven now.
Thanks for those YouTube videos which I’ll look at tomorrow, hopefully.
A reader emailed this article for our interest. Well, it’ll put a smile on our faces if nothing else…
As he wrote – whatever the truth/disinformation – the Consecration is, if anything further away than ever.
If you recall, Our Lord said to Sister Lucia at Rianjo “‘They did not wish to heed My request! … Like the King of France they will repent of it, and they will do it (the consecration), but it will be late.” The fact that Our Lord said they will ‘repent’ and do it, suggests that something cataclysmic is going to have to happen first to actually bring them to repentance. That’s my take on it.
The reader who emailed the article about Putin’s alleged passing, emailed again this morning to say he should have added that he puts it in the same category as the “double Sr Lucia” photos. Agreed!
The Orthodox have a MAJOR problem with Fatima and have always been hostile to it.
One of the biggest reasons is that the messages show that Russia needs converting: but as the Russian Orthodox have dreamed their “Third Rome there shall be no fourth” dreams for centuries, it is a big scandal to them that Our lady could possibly have thought Russia in need of conversion; and anyway, the Catholics have always tried to conquer Russia and Fatima is just a tool in that never-ending battle … this is the way they think. Fatima, for them, is an act of aggression against Russia.
Putin will never go against the Patriarch on this matter. Never. The Church is Putin’s biggest ally and at a time when real poverty is increasing in Russia, he will need all the allies he can get. So forget Presidential support for the Consecration of Russia.
Given the heterodox and surrender monkey nature of most of the world’s Catholic Episcopate, the Consecration of Russia will happen only towards the end of a disastrous slide into global war and anarchy. It will have to be veritably torn from a post-Vatican II Pope by Heaven.
I take your points about Putin and the Patriarch, but why would he have raised the issue of Fatima with Pope Francis? I don’t believe Father Gruner was lie about that.
My guess is that I don’t believe that Fr. Gruner had accurate information. If Putin raised the subject, it would have been to get assurance from Francis that he wouldn’t do it, not to ask him if he would do it.
The current regime in the Ukraine took power as a result of a US supported coup. The Russians are less than happy at having a US client state on their border. Nothing surprising in that. The Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe may have been a step towards communist brotherhood thoughout the world but, more importantly, it kept some physical distance between Russia and the US dominated West. This dangerous interference by the US in the Russian sphere of influence is little different in kind to the stationing of missiles in Cuba by the the soviets. The Crimea is a matter between Russia and the Ukraine and need have nothing to do with anyone else.
As far as possible the religious issues should be kept separate from the political.
The Church should look to drawing the Orthodox churches back into union with Rome. If this schism could be repaired that would certainly qualify as the “Consecration of Russia”?
The Russian attitude to Ukraine has very little to do with a purported “US coup” in Kiev but has been consistently hostile to Ukrainian national consciousness for centuries.
Ukraine is a sovereign state which does not wish to be in “the Russian sphere of influence”. That’s why they got rid of the hideous “vor v zakone” Yanukovych.
And why should they? Ukrainian soil is soaked in blood spilt by Russians.
“The Crimea is a matter between Russia and the Ukraine and need have nothing to do with anyone else.”
Oh, really?!? So the French and we did well to leave Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1938, eh? Your defence of Russia’s invasion is risible.
“As far as possible the religious issues should be kept separate from the political.
The Church should look to drawing the Orthodox churches back into union with Rome.”
Of course. But it is humanly-speaking an impossibility. There are serious doctrinal differences which the Orthodox will not budge on, while they see the Modernistic post-conciliar Catholic Church with horror. It’s not going to happen.
In general, you are yet another Westerner who has fallen hook, line and sinker for the “America – bad therefore her enemy – good” line. It’s utter nonsense.
I lived in Russia for twelve years or more. I speak the language. I know them very well. “Savages, mostly harmless” is how I and others used to describe them. But in point of fact they are not “mostly harmless” at all.
If Ukraine wants new friends and a final end to the Bolshevik shadow that has hung over it for generations, then good for Ukraine. if only Russia would follow suit.
Oh dear. Why do you make assumptions? I certainly do not think that the US is the agent for good that it could be, nor do I think that Russia is shining bright.
It is wildly dangerous, and stupid for the US or the EU to become embroiled in a spat between Russia and the Ukraine. The US deliberately set out to upset the Russians, who knows why, possibly because Russia supports Assad in Syria. The US were prepared to plunge the world into war when the Soviets tried to install missiles in Cuba. I do not see any sign that they are too worried about a bit of a war in Europe.
On the other hand nor do I see that your 12 years in Russia have given you much insight into the many layers of US arrogance and aggression.
You also say “But it is humanly-speaking an impossibility. There are serious doctrinal differences which the Orthodox will not budge on, while they see the Modernistic post-conciliar Catholic Church with horror.”
Well maybe. Though some differences seem trivial.
The point is that we are not looking at what is humanly possible, but what may come about through the power of God and the intercession of his Blessed Mother, are we not?
“The US deliberately set out to upset the Russians ..”
Evidence? RT doesn’t count.
” … some differences seem trivial”.
Give it a rest. Back on topic, please and thank you.
There is not much point in commenting on “Ukrainian” soil, since what exactly that has varied so much between 1917 and 2014; and it is obviously simplistic to blame the blood-letting on the Russians – the Ukrainian Uniates were up to their necks in all sorts between 1941 and 1947. And the Russian Orthodox will never be drawn “back” into union with Rome since they were never in one to begin with – Rome had gone off into schism long before Moscow became a patriarchate.
But this comment takes the biscuit:
‘“Savages, mostly harmless” is how I and others used to describe them. But in point of fact they are not “mostly harmless” at all.’
If that is the best you can manage after 12 years abroad, better stay a home. Calling members of the Orthodox churches dangerous savages is absolutely outrageous thing to say.
Nothing like “Catholic Truth” for fecund error.
Yeah, well, Dowden, don’t let’s keep you. No point in reading “fecund error” day in and day out. So, as I keep saying but you, like all our critics, keep ignoring…. Byeeeeeeee!
This is interesting – click here…Putin is quite a guy! Used to be “the late Mr Putin” (or whoever) meant the person is dead and gone – not in his case 😀
I have always thought that Mr. Putin is unjustifiably maligned. He is seen as the aggressor when, in reality, he is only defending the U.S.A’s encroachment on Russian and nearby territories.
I bet he did ask the Pope to consecrate Russia and the former, for whatever reason, refused.
I think you are probably right, although there are stories of Putin being a gangster, having journalists executed etc. A doubt remains but then I don’t trust the western media one iota.
To my great surprise, I’ve discovered that EWTN has posted a chronology of the Consecration and obviously they believe it has been done.
I am very sorry to see that the ignorance on display here about the nature of the Russian State is as great as it is in the comments sections of other online Catholic journals. There is a willful suspension of reasoning displayed by so many whose dislike of American hegemony in the world allows them to see Putin in a light wholly formed by their own wishful thinking.
The man presides over a thuggish kleptocracy. He is a modern version of the chiefs of the war bands that littered Europe for centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. Sometimes these men were called kings or dukes but all ruled warrior bands whose lives were based on the glory of war, plunder and the exacting of blood vengeance. He is no different.
Certainly he has been involved in murder, in massive theft, in the suppression of emerging Russian democracy – and however much we may dislike many aspects of modern western democracy, let us not forget that in a dictatorship you don’t get to choose your dictator – in causing trouble wherever he can.
Do readers here really support a regime that is involved in the deliberate forgetting of the demonic monstrosities of Bolshevism? Do they really imagine a State is “Christian” where abortion still rules the land and the population declines? Where journalists are beaten up or killed? Where the secret police retain their total hold over the country? At the moment the system is relatively benign in that there are no mass killings as before – but that could change in an instant if the conditions were right.
Ukraine has decided upon another path. They are sick of the plunder of their country, of the boundless greed and cynicism of their so-called leaders – leaders Putin has consistently supported and approved – of the shadow of Stalin which still fell over the land until in the end they couldn’t take any more.
Statues of Lenin are coming down all over Ukraine. In Russia they are sacrosanct to this day.
So who do you support?
On the other hand the legitimate Government of the Ukraine was ousted by the agency of the US. Russia now has a US client state on her very border. The US interference in the Russian sphere of influence is both stupid and dangerous, and especially dangerous to the people of Europe. That hardly encourages a rapprochement?
“On the other hand the legitimate Government of the Ukraine was ousted by the agency of the US.”
Yes, all of Putin’s paid internet trolls working from the St. Petersburg troll factory say the same thing, but nary a word of verified proof.
Why can you not simply accept that Ukraine finally has broken away from its Soviet past and wants a different future? Why the support for a thug and a villain?
Maybe you would like to live in the Crimea, whose government is now in the hands of a Kremlin-appointed man, a former convict who goes by the name of “The Goblin”?
This pro-Russian nonsense makes me want to retch.
Ben and Andrew,
It’s a pity such animosity has crept into your exchanges – I’m one of those innocents abroad who doesn’t believe ANY politicians, will never defend ANY of them because I think they’re ALL scoundrels.
Now, that said, this thread is supposed to be an opportunity to discuss the Consecration of Russia – something that we’re probably all fed up to the back teeth discussing and not seeing (apparently) coming any closer.
Still, that’s the topic. Not Putin’s personality. Not the US Vs Russia. Not Obama Vs Putin. Not even David Cameron Vs the SNP – none of that. Not interested.
There’s really nothing any of us can do about the politics of it all – and I say that with a straight face, determined to make NO comment on a supposedly intelligent UK population (yeah right) who just voted the same Government back into power for another five years after five years of what we’ve all “enjoyed”. So, politics, out, Consecration IN…
I’d appreciate if both of you would offer an opinion on whether or not it would be helpful for each of us to write to Papa Francis, without insulting him, but without fawning (as if) to “ask” him – in forthright manner – when (not if) he plans to obey Our Lady, speaking on behalf of Our Lord and, indeed, The Trinity, and thus, in said obedience, consecrate Russia, as prescribed.
Remembering Father Gruner’s insightful remarks about this being a sign of Heaven’s favouring of Russia as an instrument of world peace, it might be worth a try.
Well, lads? A tad more productive, surely, than futile arguments about who is the good/bad guy in a scenario reminiscent of Hobson’s Choice. So…
Let’s hear it…
I don’t want to get into the ‘has been’/’has not been’ consecration controversy, but it seems to be to be as plain as a pikestaff that Russia is a major threat to world stability.
I visited Russia a few years ago, and from what I was told about what the Orthodox had to suffer under Stalin, I find it impossible to believe that they could hold that the country is not in need of conversion.
For instance, our guide told us that numerous churches (including a very beautiful one in Moscow which has since been rebuilt) were demolished on Stalin’s orders, only for public toilets to be built in their place at the exact point where the altar was previously. This is diabolical beyond belief. The principal Catholic Church in St Petersburg was turned into a printing shop, and the damage inflicted may still be seen today.
Our guide further told us that the baptized in today’s Russia make up only 8% of the population. Not only, but if one excludes all those who have an economic relation with the Orthodox Church, e.g. cleaners, candle sellers, and the like, there are more Catholics at Mass on a Sunday than Orthodox.
That having been said, it is a deeply beautiful and country whose people have a (to Western eyes) mysterious dignity about them. Definitely worth visiting should the opportunity arise, much more so than Las Vegas and Disneyland so beloved of the moronic British with more money than sense.
This is a very poignant moment in international relations. China and India are on the rise, the Middle East looks like a witches’ cauldron, Russia is on the offensive, and the West generally is in retreat and denial. Let’s just say that interesting times lie ahead. (Incidentally, in China it is a curse to live in interesting times.)
I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I was in my teens we were governed by the likes of Thatcher and Reagan. Love them or loathe them, they at least gave one the impression that they knew what they were doing. Now we have Obama, Cameron, Sturgeon … we almost even had Miliband. Be afraid … be very, very afraid.
I just wonder if the West’s apostasy is going to be punished in a way that will make us suddenly wonder what hit us. After all, it is no longer a question of the behaviour of a narrow bohemian elite at the top of society. A random read of the newspapers on any day of the year reveals an apostasy which cuts through society from the top to the bottom: the human sacrifice that is abortion (now the cause of more than a quarter of annual deaths in the UK), the exhaltation of homosexuality, the willful destruction of the family, addiction to alcohol and other drugs … I could go on, but on this blog there is no need. All of the foregoing may be summed up in the exhaltation of the bad, the lie, and the ugly in a nefarious rebellion against goodness, truth and beauty. It is all around us and only a fool could fail to see it.
We live in an age in which there is a growing spiritual conflict taking place all around us which comes down to two beings: God and Satan. How sad that so few in the Church seem to understand the dramatic nature of the times in which we are called to live.
It would be a good idea if all those who attend daily Mass in the Novus Ordo started to recite the Leonine Prayers at the end. No permission is needed for this and it can be done privately. Also, have Holy Mass celebrated in Honour of St. Michael the Archangel. Most importantly, get the rosary out start praying. The world thinks that it is the passé passtime of myth-attached old ladies, but in reality it is the spiritual equivalent of a .44 Magnum.
In a word, don’t wait for Bishops and Priests to give you the lead. Start fighting the spiritual combat in your own daily lives now, in the knowledge that you are fighting not just for your own salvation but for the salvation and peace of the world.
A great article from Prognosticum above.
You seem to ‘cover all the bases’ as the saying goes.
Apart from one major point
That is the greatest scientific fraud since Lynskosism, as we are discussing Russia, namely the Man(n) made global warming scam.
As this is reputedly the week our misguided Pontiff is to issue his global warming encyclical, it is appropriate to mention the subject.
So please find some time to read this article. If even half of it is true, you will indeed need to pray hard.
Btw I would strongly recommend our very busy hostess to find a spare few minutes to also peruse the link above
When the encyclical is published,(18th June I believe) I will post a thread so would you mind sticking to this topic and not further discuss it here. Thank you. I will read your link asap, but might be better to re-post it on the encyclical thread when the time comes. Thanks again.
I have never believed in man made global warming. I am no scientist, although I have dabbled in the philosophy of science, but it seems to me that one of the hallmarks of any authentic scientific endeavour should be a respect for any data obtained and an unwillingness to adjust said data without good reason and always keeping the original data to the fore. Also, it seems to me that the history of the planet’s climate exhibits substantial variations which could have very little to do with man since they pre-date the industrial revolution. Greenland was once green and cultivated. The Thames for a long time would freeze over annually. Of course, they no longer speak about anthropogenic global warming, but of anthropogenic climate change, and with good reason. There has been no increase in the earth’s temperature for the last eighteen years.
But the question here isn’t man made global warming. It is how the mainstream mass media falls into bed with elites to the detriment of truth and the harm of society. In the age of internet mass media, public opinion means nothing apart from the corruption of the gullible by vested interests aided and abetted by paid scribblers who are themselves employed by vested interests.
I am really supposed to delete off topic posts, and since I’ve already asked for bloggers to stick to this topic and leave climate change until I post a new thread on the Pope’s encyclical next week, I’m really being very weak in not deleting your latest comment. Perhaps you didn’t notice my request posted at 8.33.a.m. this morning, when I was already late for my chauffeuring others to Mass Sunday stint?
The information you provide above, from your time in Russia and the statistics for the baptised, is all very interesting indeed. No way could anyway claim that Russia has been converted – not remotely in the way Our Lady meant. Converted to Catholicism – and that is yet some way off. All the more reason for the Pope to get on with it instead of wasting precious time planting trees for peace etc. Crackers.
Sorry dear editor. Consider my knuckles well rapped.
I eagerly look forward to contributing to your upcoming (evisceration?) of said Encyclical.
You are forgiven! It’s Prog who is going to have his pay docked I hope he does the personality test on the other thread – bet he’s “defiant determined”! 😀
This short video might prove of interest here – Father Gruner answering a question about the differences between the Russian Orthodox and Catholicism, including a question about whether or not the Russian Orthodox would welcome the Consecration of Russia…
No, Editor, you are wrong.
The state of Russia is intimately connected with Fatima and its ‘Secret’. And a discussion of it is therefore absolutely “on topic”.
Have you so easily forgotten the radio interview on the Third Secret given thirty years ago by Fr. Malachi Martin, who had read the Secret in the very early ’60s with Cardinal Bea?
In that interview, pressed to give an indication of what it contained, he said that “It concerns Moscow and Kiev” and he repeated this two or three times, very clearly indicating that future events connected with the Secret would involve these two cities. He also stated that the events foretold were very close to us in time.
So to criticise me for not being “on topic” is to completely miss the real “sings of the times” (to use a phrase rightly loathed by us Traditionalists but one which nevertheless is Scriptural).
None of us know, do we, but the terrible events to come may well be just months away. The second round of the Synod Against the Family might well be the precursor.
So follow Putin’s doings closely. A Russian invasion of Ukraine during the Summer? We will see.
No, Benedict, YOU are wrong, or at least off at a tangent. I did remind you further up this thread that the topic is the Consecration and not politics, no matter the role that politics/ war MAY play in bringing that about. Of course it is acceptable to make some points about the political situation but not to allow that aspect to take over the discussion; since Our Lady didn’t leave any information about the politics of Russia and gave us no indication of the rights/wrongs of Russia/Crimea/Ukraine, then there’s not a lot of point in getting bogged down in that discussion, and there’s certainly no excuse for insulting anyone who holds a different view. And for the record (yet again – I’ve said this many times in different contexts) I’m not a fan of Fr Malachi Martin. I’ll stick with what Our Lady revealed, thanks.
I was speaking to a friend only last night about the difference in the attitudes – and manners – of those who are confronted with someone who says they don’t believe in Fatima and those Medjugorje people who just will not tolerate anyone who doubts that “phenomenon”. Rage and rudeness are, in my experience, a hallmark of the pro-Medjugorje brigade (with apologies to any exceptions out there) while the Fatima scholars hold conferences and distribute literature in an effort to convince us of the central importance of the Fatima apparitions for our times. Let’s not take up the “I know better than you” attitude to the Putin Vs Obama/Cameron scenario – scoundrels every one of them. Name me a politician who is NOT a scoundrel. Let me save you the time; none. I wouldn’t ask a politician to tell me the time of day – I know they’d lie.
As for the “signs of the times” being “loathed by Traditionalists” despite being “scriptural”. You’ve clearly not read my editorial in the June edition which begins with a quote from Romano Amerio which itself includes a quote from Scripture. “It is not for you to know the times and the seasons.” (Acts 1:7) It is rather to read the signs of the eternal will, that are there to be read in every age, and stand steadfast before the face of every generation that passes wit the centuries.”
By all means, we might “follow Putin’s doings closely” but the fact remains that Our Lady’s promise of a period of peace in the world is linked, NOT to what Putin may or may not do, but on the Pope and Bishops consecrating Russia to her Immaculate Heart. THAT is the topic of this thread. Not whether Putin will invade the Ukraine during the summer.
Interesting remark reportedly from Sister Lucia of Fatima:- http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/06/cardinal-what-sister-lucia-told-me.html
Then please define in the future for each thread what you want to see written, GLAVLIT style, and what is considered verboten. It will save all of us a lot of trouble. There is a cosy club on this site, none of whom much like interlopers. I’ve felt the small-mindedness of the club before now and this is another example of it.
Best to make the site a closed Google Group if you are only interested in the club line.
Funny really, especially in this case as I am undoubtedly the only contributor here with many years’ direct experience of Russia.
Here we go again. I’ve heard this before – from you and others – that this is a cosy club, inner circle, blah blah. RUBBISH! I know very few of the bloggers here, never met them, not even had an email exchange with the majority. So that’s just plain daft talk. It does get to be irritating after a while.
But let me tell you this. I’ve no memory whatsoever of any female bloggers bleating this self-pitying nonsense and telling us all how clever she is/they are, so I’m inclined to a dollop of what the brain-dead call “sexism” today – is it (my pet theory goes) that the much lauded bond between mothers and sons often translates into mummy’s boy(s) acting like, well, er. spoilt brats? Just a theory. Born of (annoying) “direct years’ experience”.
Or is it, as a close friend said to me the other day, that there are still men today who don’t like the idea of being corrected, however mildly and politely, by a female? The hours I’ve wasted in circular email (and blog) conversations trying to explain the bleedin’ obvious to a mummy’s boy, you wouldn’t believe. No more. And peace has descended on my (ever so) humble soul since I’ve taken to not bothering trying to explain. Anyone who thinks I’ve wronged them in some way, let’s talk. Let’s not hide behind the printed word. However, as the above un-named friend said: they don’t want to do that – they know who’ll win! 😀 D’ye think she meant me? Moi? Yippee!
Bottom line is: if you don’t like it here, go elsewhere. Personally, I’ve had quite enough of spoilt little boys taking the huff about nothing all the while trying to blame me. MOI to blame? Never!
Oh and as for your many “years’ direct experience of Russia” – you wouldn’t consider returning would you? See if you can set up a meeting with Putin and the boss of the Orthodox community, see if you can get them to agree the Consecration.
Oops! Forgot. It’s the POPE who objects, not them. So we can all enjoy reading about your years of living/working/reading about, whatever “direct years’ experience in Russia” means, but we’d like to know what bearing it has on the Consecration question. As and when, Ben. As and when.
It may be as well to pass on the cosy club and the dislike of interlopers comments but you may not have the monopoly on experience of central and eastern Europe.
The point is that the average Russian would not have the faintest idea of what “consecration” to an “immaculate heart” actually means. These are exclusively western ideas surfacing only within the Roman-Catholic branch of the Western Church between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries – [link added by Ed.] A narrow circle in the wider church. [Ed: the “branch” theory is a condemned heresy. From earliest times, the name of the Church is The Catholic Church]
The concepts are little understood outside that narrow circle and have disappeared even there except in a narrower group of “traditionalists” nostalgic for the good old days before 1958. To the rest of us it is faintly lunatic to class this peculiar little bit of private revelation as the greatest issue facing the world today.
A point of view no doubt but not one taken seriously by either of the present bishops of Rome: both have made respectful noises to Constantinople and developing the theme of Andrew as the first to be called – that sort of line might work in Moscow. The obvious starting point is to accept that the authentic jurisdiction over Russia lies with Moscow and that it is simply bad ecumenical manners to interfere. Arrogant talk of conversion will get nowhere – conversation not consecration is the way forward.
“Conversation not consecration is the way forward”. Ah, Dr Dowden knows better than the Mother of God. Oh well, if he can bring about a solar miracle in front of 70,000 or more witnesses – including people who didn’t believe in the Fatima apparitions, and even atheists – then maybe we’ll listen to him. Until then . . .
Well said. Spot on. Etc Etc,,,!
PS thanks for the link to Rorate – I didn’t have time to read it earlier but I can see that Benedict has posted it below, so I will check it in a few minutes.
Dr. John Dowden. You sound like a protestant. “Church” of England, methinks? It’s plain that you are not a Catholic but harbour all the usual nonsense. Away with you.
As to Fatima being the preserve of nostalgic loons, have a read of this (before you go). Fatima is very soon now to be fulfilled:
Editor – apologies for my spleen. No excuses.
You can stick your apology… on your living room wall with ACCEPTED WITH GRATITUDE painted across it! You’d probably win the next Homes & Gardens competition!
Off to check that link – looks very interesting.
Editor, you are a better person than me.
Strange that RC should post that story today: it supports all we are saying about the demoniac Kasper, Marx et al and their plans for the Synod Against the Family.
My mother – a very, very saintly woman, a Christian from another age – said at least forty years ago with great certainty, “We are in the End Times”. I believed her then and I believe it ever-more strongly now.
Trust me – I’m a better person than nobody! I’m glad to see that you don’t hold grudges, though. That’s a very rare quality, I’ve found, So, thank you for that, and for not taking offence at my straight talking – you are in a minority, there, and to be commended for your maturity. Well, I suppose at 84 that’s only to be expected 😀 Kidding!
Yes, I was amazed to read that part of the Rorate report about Our Lady saying what she did about marriage and the family. It’s all coming together now. Fasten your seatbelt!
Yes, Benedict, Dr D is an Anglican. Editor has mentioned this on a previous thread. Perhaps Dr D might benefit from seeing just how many nostalgic loons there are out there. Just a few. http://www.santuario-fatima.pt/portal/index.php?id=12204
Touché, WF. With bells on!
Actually, Dr D does make one sadly true point – that the Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is little understood by the majority of Catholics today – notwithstanding the millions who go to Fatima, as seen in the video above, and live the Fatima message. Even though Pope John Paul II stated that the message of Fatima ‘imposes an obligation on the Church’, this playing down of the relevance and urgency of the Fatima message can be traced back to the damage caused by the modernist ‘theologian’ Fr Edouard Dhanis SJ, who basically divided Fatima up into parts I and II. While grudgingly accepting the fact that Our Lady appeared, and the solar miracle, he proceeded to rubbish everything Sister Lucia revealed after that, instead of seeing the whole thing as one integral message. Like Dowden, Dhanis also believed that Our Lady wouldn’t and couldn’t have asked for the consecration of Russia. The full extent of the damage caused by Dhanis was revealed in ‘The Whole Truth About Fatima: Volume 1 – Science and the Facts’ by Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite.
And didn’t Our Lady say to Sr Lucia at one point that “even the good” do not heed her requests?
N O T I C E . . .
The new papal encyclical is to be released at noon at a press conference in the Vatican. We have some information from the leaks to kick start a discussion, so the new thread will be launched as soon as I have a link to the encyclical, sometime early this afternoon.
Yes, that came from Sister Lucia’s meeting with Fr Fuentes in 1957:- She said: “Father, the Blessed Virgin is very sad because no one has paid attention to her Message, neither the good nor the bad. The good, because they continue on the road of goodness, but without paying mind to this Message. The bad, because of their sins, do not see God’s chastisement already falling on them presently; they also continue on their path of badness, ignoring the Message. But, Father, you must believe me that God is going to punish the world and chastise it in a tremendous way . . .”
So according to this, just being good wouldn’t seem to be enough. Our Lady wants us to live the specifics of the Fatima message. Perhaps this is why Pope John Paul II stated that the message imposes a obligation on us.
Comments are closed.