-
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/pope-francis-to-consecrate-ukraine-and-russia-to-immaculate-heart-of-mary
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250674/pope-francis-to-consecrate-ukraine-and-russia-to-immaculate-heart-of-mary
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2022/03/15/0177/00384.html
VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis will consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Vatican announced on Tuesday.
The Holy See press office said (https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2022/03/15/0177/00384.html) on March 15: “On Friday, March 25, during the Celebration of Penance at which he will preside at 5 p.m. in St. Peter’s Basilica, Pope Francis will consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”
“The same act, on the same day, will be carried out in Fatima by His Eminence Cardinal Krajewski, Apostolic Almoner, as envoy of the Holy Father.”
Ukraine’s Latin Rite Catholic bishops asked Pope Francis (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250547/bishops-ask-pope-francis-to-consecrate-ukraine-and-russia-to-immaculate-heart-of-mary) earlier this month to consecrate Ukraine and Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
In a letter (http://kmc.media/2022/03/02/yepyskopy-ukrayiny-prosyat-papu-prysvyatyty-ukrayinu-ta-rosiyu-sercyu-mariyi.html) to the Pope, the Ukrainian bishops said that they were writing “in these hours of immeasurable pain and terrible ordeal for our people” in response to many requests for the consecration.
“Responding to this prayer, we humbly ask Your Holiness to publicly perform the act of consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary of Ukraine and Russia, as requested by the Blessed Virgin in Fatima,” said the letter, published on the bishops’ website on Ash Wednesday, March 2.
Following the bishops’ call, Our Lady of Fatima shrines worldwide were invited to unite in prayer for the conversion of Russia.
The appeal (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250639/ukraine-war-our-lady-of-fatima-shrines-worldwide-asked-to-join-in-prayer-for-conversion-of-russia) was made by Father Andrzej Draws, rector of the Sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Fatima in Krisovychi, western Ukraine.
He encouraged all shrines in honor of Our Lady of Fatima to unite in prayer for the conversion of Russia on March 13.
The second secret was a statement that World War I would end, and a prediction of another war that would start during the reign of Pius XI if people continued to offend God and Russia was not consecrated to Mary’s Immaculate Heart.
Sister Lucia (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/36001/a-personal-look-at-fatimas-saintly-sister-lucia), one of the three Fatima visionaries, recalled in her memoirs that Our Lady asked for “the Consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays” to prevent a second world war.
She said that Mary told her: “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."
In a letter written in 1989, Sister Lucia confirmed (https://www.bluearmy.com/letter-from-sister-lucia-confirmed-consecration-of-russia-was-done/) that Pope John Paul II satisfied Our Lady’s request for Russia’s consecration in 1984. Other authorities, including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html), also have affirmed the consecration was completed to Sister Lucia’s satisfaction.
-
Everyone start a novena today, that will end on March 24th, so that this thing takes place! It's not perfect, because it doesn't sound like the Bishops of the world will participate, but i'm sure God will bless us in some way. We need whatever blessings we can get.
-
Well not exactly what is being asked (Ukraine) but maybe since Ukraine was always part of Russia in the past it would be considered Russia as well.
It seems that Ukraine started a war of Independence against Russia/ Bolsheviks that started in November 1917- At the time of the Miracle of the Sun, one month earlier, Ukraine WAS still Russia.
If the Consecration is successful under Anti-Pope Pachamama, I will happily eat my hat.
-
If this consecration works, everyone will know Our Lady accomplished her promise under impossible circuмstances.
-
If memory serves, Our Lady of Fatima stipulated that the consecration was to be done by the Pope assembled with all the bishops.
Right?
-
If memory serves, Our Lady of Fatima stipulated that the consecration was to be done by the Pope assembled with all the bishops.
True. This consecration may not be "perfect" but Sr Lucy said that God blessed the world in the 80s, when JPII made his "imperfect" consecration. I'll take whatever we can get. An imperfect consecration is better than nothing!
-
If memory serves, Our Lady of Fatima stipulated that the consecration was to be done by the Pope assembled with all the bishops.
Right?
Wouldn't that be ripe? Another failed attempt because the bishops fail to comply. :facepalm: All Catholics should write to the bishops and tell them to get this done. The 25th of March is the same day JPII failed to get the consecration done because he failed to mention Russia.
-
Well, that's something I never expected from Francis
(https://media.tenor.com/images/73c9ad4cdb095d006ac07db206cbac1a/tenor.gif)
-
Maybe +Francis knows he's dying (I mean, he's in bad shape, for sure) and he's trying to repent. Deo Gratias if true!
-
Being an inveterate pessimist, if I were to make a wager it would be that Francis offers some pathetic nonsense like his 2013 "consecration" and/or that he finds some way to grievously insult our Lady.
I hope that I'm wrong, but I have seen nothing from Francis to indicate that he is ready to own up to the evil that he and his cohorts have been guilty of lo these many decades.
-
True. This consecration may not be "perfect" but Sr Lucy said that God blessed the world in the 80s, when JPII made his "imperfect" consecration. I'll take whatever we can get. An imperfect consecration is better than nothing!
Agreed.
Maybe +Francis knows he's dying (I mean, he's in bad shape, for sure) and he's trying to repent. Deo Gratias if true!
Let's hope so. It would be wonderful beyond words if he were to recant all his тαℓмυdic teaching and anti-Christ blasphemies!
-
Agreed.
Let's hope so. It would be wonderful beyond words if he were to recant all his тαℓмυdic teaching and anti-Christ blasphemies!
Nah, it's much more likely that he thinks this will put him in good graces with those who question his authority.
I'm not buying this for one second.
-
If memory serves, Our Lady of Fatima stipulated that the consecration was to be done by the Pope assembled with all the bishops.
Right?
by the Pope (??????????)
-
Nah, it's much more likely that he thinks this will put him in good graces with those who question his authority.
I'm not buying this for one second.
"Hope springs eternal in the human breast." —Alexander Pope
-
"Hope springs eternal in the human breast." —Alexander Pope
Doesn't matter. His "consecration" means squat. Let him convert to the Catholic Faith first. Then we'll talk.
-
Pius XII carried out an imperfect consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the results were fairly predictable -- imperfect.
If Bergoglio is indeed the pope and he consecrates Russia in the manner he apparently intends the consecration will have been imperfect and the results may be just as predictable -- imperfect.
-
True. This consecration may not be "perfect" but Sr Lucy said that God blessed the world in the 80s, when JPII made his "imperfect" consecration. I'll take whatever we can get. An imperfect consecration is better than nothing!
1980s Sister Lucy was a fake.
Also, to consecrate Russia AND Ukraine is an insult to Our Blessed Mother in that it deliberately avoids doing what she requested. Russia needs to be called out individually. There's nothing to prevent him from consecrating both, but Russia must be consecrated specifically in one act, and the Ukraine in another. None of this I consecrate "Ukraine and Russia" business.
If Bergoglio does this consecration, nothing will happen ... because 1) it's not according to Our Lady's wishes (not together with all the world's bishops) and 2) he's not the pope.
But I don't believe that God will allow him to pretend to make a consecration that will seem ineffectual, thereby impugning the honor of Our Blessed Mother.
If Bergoglio actually sets about to do it on March 25, I fully expect him to drop dead before that can happen.
-
1980s Sister Lucy was a fake.
Also, to consecrate Russia AND Ukraine is an insult to Our Blessed Mother in that it deliberately avoids doing what she requested. Russia needs to be called out individually.
If Bergoglio does this consecration, nothing will happen ... because 1) it's not according to Our Lady's wishes and 2) he's not the pope.
But I don't believe that God will allow him to pretend to make a consecration that will seem ineffectual, thereby impugning the honor of Our Blessed Mother.
If Bergoglio actually sets about to do it on March 25, I fully expect him to drop dead before that can happen.
I was thinking this as well.
-
Good point about the addition of Ukraine.
As you say, if there is a consecration and it works, I'd have to reassess my view of Jorge.
-
Good point about the addition of Ukraine.
As you say, if there is a consecration and it works, I'd have to reassess my view of Jorge.
Why can't they do PRECISELY what Our Blessed Mother asked for. It's a special level of arrogance to think you're somehow "improving" on her request. She made it very clear what she wanted. She asked for "Russia", not "Ukraine and Russia". Doing something slightly different is to do it according to your own will, and on your own terms, rather than submitting to her wishes.
-
Good point about the addition of Ukraine.
As you say, if there is a consecration and it works, I'd have to reassess my view of Jorge.
Really? I would just get suspicious of the whole affair.
-
Good point about the addition of Ukraine.
As you say, if there is a consecration and it works, I'd have to reassess my view of Jorge.
No, it won't "work" ... especially given that it's not being done together with all the world's bishops. Pius XII already did that once.
Now, if it WERE done by him together with the world's bishops, mentioning Russia only, as Our Lady requested, then it would be because Our Lady respected the color of title of the office he holds, and for no other reason. And then the very first effect of it would be the conversion of Bergoglio himself.
Third Secret was about Vatican II and the subversion/infiltration of the papacy. So if Bergoglio were to actually perform the consecration according to Our Lady's wishes, he would probably be immediately struck dead on the spot, to cleanse the papacy of his heresy.
-
Really? I would just get suspicious of the whole affair.
By March 25th, it's very likely that the Russian invasion will be over and done with.
Unless Vatican II were rolled back and Russia completely converted to the Catholic faith, and the entire world converted, then that would be a fail. When the consecration is properly performed by a legitimate pope, that is what I would understand by it "working" ... the restoration of the Church. Until that happens, it will not have "worked".
-
Agree on all points, Lad.
Still hoping… consecration, conversion, and/or struck dead.
:incense:
-
V2 heretics and Freemasons and all the tangents to a sphere of garbage. Noli me tangere.
-
As you say, if there is a consecration and it works, I'd have to reassess my view of Jorge.
He's still alive and could always repent and convert. God only knows what's going on in his head. I truly hope it works and he converts, it would be a miracle for sure. Maybe the fears of nuclear war or his own mortality have finally gotten to him?
Pray, hope, but don't hold your breath.
-
1980s Sister Lucy was a fake.
The real Sr Lucy was alive in the 80s and she was asked at some point, by letter, if JPIIs consecration was sufficient. She said it did not fulfill Our Lady's request but that God was pleased with the generalized, consecration of the world. New-rome was telling everyone that Fatima was over, while the real Sr Lucy said it wasn't. The fake Sr Lucy wouldn't have contradicted new-rome, so we know it was the real Sr Lucy who responded.
Also, to consecrate Russia AND Ukraine is an insult to Our Blessed Mother in that it deliberately avoids doing what she requested. Russia needs to be called out individually. There's nothing to prevent him from consecrating both, but Russia must be consecrated specifically in one act, and the Ukraine in another. None of this I consecrate "Ukraine and Russia" business.
Of course, this is not exactly what She requested at Fatima, but God can still bless the world because of this act. Be positive!
-
I would like to say that I find it interesting that it coincides with our 54-day novena, which ends Laetare Sunday :incense:
Keep praying for the papacy, and pray for his conversion.
Of course, this is not exactly what She requested at Fatima, but God can still bless the world because of this act. Be positive!
Yes! :pray:
-
The real Sr Lucy was alive in the 80s and ...
No, she wasn't.
-
Noli me tangere.
MC Hammer sez: "Cain't touch dis!"
-
Ladislaus, why would the fake Sr Lucy contradict new-rome, both in 1984 (post JPII consecration) and also in 1989, confirming that Fatima's request were not fulfilled? Makes no sense. Why would new-rome fabricate a fake Sr Lucy and then allow her to contradict their story?
Certainly, there is evidence that there was a fake Sr Lucy, but i've not seen any concrete evidence to suggest that the real Sr Lucy died before 1984?
-
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250674/pope-francis-to-consecrate-ukraine-and-russia-to-immaculate-heart-of-mary
From that link above:
In a letter written in 1989, Sister Lucia confirmed that Pope John Paul II satisfied Our Lady’s request for Russia’s consecration in 1984. Other authorities, including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also have affirmed the consecration was completed to Sister Lucia’s satisfaction.
-
Ladislaus, why would the fake Sr Lucy contradict new-rome, both in 1984 (post JPII consecration) and also in 1989, confirming that Fatima's request were not fulfilled? Certainly, there is evidence that there was a fake Sr Lucy, but i've not seen any concrete evidence to suggest that the real Sr Lucy died before 1984?
So that's your reasoning? Speculation about what reasons she may have had?
This is contradicted by a mountain of evidence ... https://sisterlucytruth.org/
Nor would Our Lady have let the real Sister Lucy remain alive and have her attend the New Mass ... and not warn the world about it.
-
Sister Lucy, on March 19, 1983 was again visited by Dr. Lacerda who witnessed the same Papal Nuncio again converse with Sister Lucy in the Pope’s name. She answered clearly: “The consecration of Russia has not been done as Our Lady requested.” She explained that was because ‘Russia’ was not clearly the object of the consecration, and because each bishop had not made in his own cathedral a public and solemn ceremony of consecration of RUSSIA. The text which Sister Lucy had prepared for the Papal Nuncio ended as follows: "The Consecration of Russia has not been done as Our Lady has requested. I was not able to make this statement (before) because I did not have the permission of the Holy See."
Sister Lucy was asked if the 1984 consecration of the world was acceptable. On July 20,1987 Sister Lucy, bound by Portuguese law left her cloister to vote in the national election. Upon her leaving the car, the Argentine journalist Enrique Romero met her and asked her about the consecration of Russia. She confirmed to him that it had not been done and that unless there was a spiritual turnaround featuring prayer and sacrifice, every nation would fall under Communist dictatorship (This was reported in the early August edition of Para Ti published in Argentina.)
In May 1989 Cardinal Law of Boston visited Sister Lucy. He was told by Sister Lucy that the March 25, 1984 consecration of the world by Pope John Paul II did not fulfill Our Lady's requests. Her exact reply was: “The Holy Father speculates that it has been done, done in the best possible way under the circuмstances. Done on the narrow road of the collegial consecration that She [Our Lady of Fatima] has demanded and has been wanting? No, that has not been done.”
-
So that's your reasoning? Speculation about what reasons she may have had?
This is contradicted by a mountain of evidence ... https://sisterlucytruth.org/
Nor would Our Lady have let the real Sister Lucy remain alive and have her attend the New Mass ... and not warn the world about it.
-
She claimed in that letter that the 1982 consecration done by Wojtyla was "not fully efficacious" but then writes:
“I come to answer your question, ‘If the consecration made by Pope John Paul II on March 25, 1984 in union with all the bishops of the world, accomplished the conditions for the conversion of Russia, according to the request of Our Lady in Tuy on June 13 of 1929’? Yes it was accomplished, and since then I have said that it was made. And I say that no other person responds for me, it is I who receive and open all letters and respond to them.”
-
Both Sr Lucy's were alive at the same time, the only logical explanation for the multiple contradictions over the years. Until someone can prove that the real Sr Lucy died before the 1980s, then we must assume she was alive.
-
Both Sr Lucy's were alive at the same time, the only logical explanation for the multiple contradictions over the years. Until someone can prove that the real Sr Lucy died before the 1980s, then we must assume she was alive.
No, we must assume no such thing. Given the existence of an imposter, unless evidence is presented that she remained alive, the contrary should be assumed. If the true Sistery Lucy finished the last 50 years of her life attending the NOM, then both her and the Fatima apparitions are thoroughly discredited. Thus the presumption must be that she was elminated by the Modernists (unless she somehow died a natural death).
-
1. There's no evidence she died before the 80s.
2. There's no evidence she attended the new mass, except from the obvious imposter. She hardly ever left her convent; how would anyone know what mass she attended?
Suit yourself. I knew there'd but a TON of negativity about this topic. I'm just surprised at who is being negative.
-
These are photos from 1967!
(http://judaism.is/images/voz%20da%20fatima%206-13-1967.jpg?crc=3790730368)
(http://judaism.is/images/official%20image%20lucia%20and%20paul%20vi.jpg?crc=3792014827) (http://judaism.is/images/paul%20vi%20-%20lucia%20fake%20photo.jpg?crc=4250510405)
Note both the impostor Lucy and the obviously altered image of Montini's hands.
-
But I don't believe that God will allow him to pretend to make a consecration that will seem ineffectual, thereby impugning the honor of Our Blessed Mother.
If Bergoglio actually sets about to do it on March 25, I fully expect him to drop dead before that can happen.
Imprecatory (turn or burn) prayer time? If it's good enough for practicing abortionists why would it not be good enough for Bergoglio?
-
Dear Friends of the Kolbe Center,
Pax Christi!
I am writing this urgent message because Pope Francis has announced that he will join with a papal envoy to Ukraine, Cardinal Krajewski, in Fatima, to consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on March 25, in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. According to a report from the Catholic News Agency:
Pope Francis will consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Vatican announced on Tuesday.
The Holy See press office said on March 15: “On Friday, March 25, during the Celebration of Penance at which he will preside at 5 p.m. in St. Peter’s Basilica, Pope Francis will consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”
“The same act, on the same day, will be carried out in Fatima by His Eminence Cardinal Krajewski, Apostolic Almoner, as envoy of the Holy Father.”
Cardinal Konrad Krajewski was one of two papal envoys sent to Ukraine last week in an expression of the pope’s concern for the war-torn country’s population.
March 25 was the day in 1984 that Pope John Paul II consecrated Russia and the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It is also the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord.
Ukraine’s Latin Rite Catholic bishops asked Pope Francis earlier this month to consecrate Ukraine and Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
In a letter to the pope, the Ukrainian bishops said that they were writing “in these hours of immeasurable pain and terrible ordeal for our people” in response to many requests for the consecration.
“Responding to this prayer, we humbly ask Your Holiness to publicly perform the act of consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary of Ukraine and Russia, as requested by the Blessed Virgin in Fatima,” said the letter, published on the bishops’ website on Ash Wednesday, March 2.
I am writing to ask all readers of this newsletter to urge you or anyone known to you who has any influence with his local Ordinary or with any other Ordinary to please implore the Bishops to ask the Pope to invite Pope Benedict XVI and all of the Bishops of the world to join him in the consecration on March 25th "to avert a Third World War." It would be very easy for Pope Francis to send an invitation to all of the Bishops of the world, inviting them to join him in making the Consecration of Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
But time is short.
If the Pope does not invite the Bishops to join him (as Our Lady of Fatima requested), individual Bishops could still consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in their own cathedrals on March 25, as an act of solidarity with the Pope. Ideally, if Pope Francis does not invite the Bishops of the world to join with him in consecrating Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, individual Bishops could still inform him of their intention to unite with him in making the consecration and respectfully request that he invite the rest of the Bishops to join them.
In the three days that remain before the Feast of St. Joseph, Guardian of the Church, let us ask him to obtain the grace of an invitation by Pope Francis to Pope Benedict XVI and to all of the Bishops to participate in the consecration on March 25—and the added grace of a generous response by all of the Bishops. Then we would see at last the complete fulfillment of Our Lady of Fatima’s promise: “In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph, the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, Russia will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”
Yours in Christ through the Immaculata in union with St. Joseph,
Hugh Owen
-
please implore the Bishops to ask the Pope to invite Pope Benedict XVI and all of the Bishops of the world to join him in the consecration on March 25th "to avert a Third World War." It would be very easy for Pope Francis to send an invitation to all of the Bishops of the world, inviting them to join him in making the Consecration of Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Hedging his bets just in case Ratzinger is still actually the pope? :laugh1:
I don't agree that the intent is "to avert a Third World War". It's about the restoration of the Catholic Church.
PS -- I do like Hugh Owen. I think he does great work.
-
…Pope Francis has announced that he will join with a papal envoy to Ukraine, Cardinal KraJєωski, in Fatima, to consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on March 25, in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.
Wow! Jorge is starting his "signs and wonders" with bi-locating in Fatima and Rome.
-
Tin foil theory: Francis's NWO handlers told him to do a "consecration" so that it corresponds with the next phase of their contrived Russia v. Ukraine conflict. A false sign is performed, and the elect are deceived as World War III has miraculously been averted!
"For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect."
[Matthew 24:24]
Edit: I see Mark is on the same page! :laugh1:
-
Lots of conservative Conciliarists believe that the 1991 "fall" of the Soviet Union and Iron Curtain were the result of Wojtyla's consecration. Dimonds believe that it was caused by the Pius XII consecration.
I don't believe either. I believe that God's intent here is for there to be such an obvious, immediate, and dramatic effect so that the entire world will almost be forced to acknowledge her intercession as well as the papacy and the Catholic Church in general. That will coincide with the Triump / Restoration of the Church.
For all we know, Bergoglio got tipped off by his Globhomo buddies that Russia intends to withdraw from Ukraine on March 25th or March 26th, so that Berogoglio could take credit for it.
But unless Bergoglio converts and restores the Traditional Church, abolishes Vatican II, etc. etc. ... it won't be a genuine consecration accepted by God and Our Lady. Third Secret of Fatima was about the "apostasy that begins at the top", and not merely about wars.
-
Tin foil theory: Francis's NWO handlers told him to do a "consecration" so that it corresponds with the next phase of their contrived Russia v. Ukraine conflict. A false sign is performed, and the elect are deceived as World War III has miraculously been averted!
"For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect."
[Matthew 24:24]
Edit: I see Mark is on the same page! :laugh1:
You beat me to it by one minute [EDIT: more like 30 seconds], and 2Vermont also hinted at this scenario.
That's why, as I said above, unless there's a conversion of Bergoglio and restoration of the Traditional Church, there will have been no consecration accepted by God and Our Lady.
-
Lots of conservative Conciliarists believe that the 1991 "fall" of the Soviet Union and Iron Curtain were the result of Wojtyla's consecration. Dimonds believe that it was caused by the Pius XII consecration.
Anyone who believes that the "fall" of the Soviet Union was anything but the opening of the floodgates for Communism in the West is utterly naive at this point.
You beat me to it by one minute, and 2Vermont also hinted at this scenario.
That's why, as I said above, unless there's a conversion of Bergoglio and restoration of the Traditional Church, there will have been no consecration accepted by God and Our Lady.
Yes indeed. I'm holding out hope that he is in the motions of making some miraculous conversion to Catholic tradition. But, again, I won't hold my breath.
-
Ann B: The Consecration of Russia must be done BY THE POPE. Antipope Bergoglio isn’t the Pope, never was and never will be. For Antipope Bergoglio to ape the Consecration of Russia would be worse than doing nothing. Pope Benedict MUST BE VISIBLY PRESENT. (https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/03/15/the-consecration-of-russia-must-be-done-by-the-pope-antipope-bergoglio-isnt-the-pope-never-was-and-never-will-be-for-bergoglio-to-ape-the-consecration-of-russia-would-be-worse-than-doing-nothing/)
"If Antipope Bergoglio apes the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Pope Benedict IS NOT THERE VISIBLY PRESENT, not only will it be invalid, it will be a satanic aping of the Consecration, and one should expect nuclear war to be the eventual result."
-
No doubt the news that Pope Francis is to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary will go world-wide. Fatima will once again come under the attention of the world. Indeed, Catholicism itself will be on display to the world. The very credibility of Catholicism and Fatima will be put to the test. A simple cease-fire agreement will not suffice as a miracle. It will need something 'miraculous' to convince people that there was divine intervention. What that must be who knows. Here then, Francis is putting Catholicism to the test. If it works, conversions will result. If it doesn't it will result in some losing faith in Fatima and even Catholicism itself. As we see already on this subject some are already giving reasons why it wont work, in case it doesn't, but if it did then there will be a lot to discuss about as already seen on this subject.
-
No doubt the news that Pope Francis is to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary will go world-wide. Fatima will once again come under the attention of the world. Indeed, Catholicism itself will be on display to the world. The very credibility of Catholicism and Fatima will be put to the test. A simple cease-fire agreement will not suffice as a miracle. It will need something 'miraculous' to convince people that there was divine intervention. What that must be who knows. Here then, Francis is putting Catholicism to the test. If it works, conversions will result. If it doesn't it will result in some losing faith in Fatima and even Catholicism itself. As we see already on this subject some are already giving reasons why it wont work, in case it doesn't, but if it did then there will be a lot to discuss about as already seen on this subject.
Those who would be deceived will buy into the "cease-fire agreement". Traditional Catholics expect much more from Our Blessed Mother, because we don't sell her short.
-
Those who would be deceived will buy into the "cease-fire agreement". Traditional Catholics expect much more from Our Blessed Mother, because we don't sell her short.
The greatest miracle would be the death of Bergoglio and the succession of an orthodox Pope.
-
Ann B: The Consecration of Russia must be done BY THE POPE. Antipope Bergoglio isn’t the Pope, never was and never will be. For Antipope Bergoglio to ape the Consecration of Russia would be worse than doing nothing. Pope Benedict MUST BE VISIBLY PRESENT. (https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/03/15/the-consecration-of-russia-must-be-done-by-the-pope-antipope-bergoglio-isnt-the-pope-never-was-and-never-will-be-for-bergoglio-to-ape-the-consecration-of-russia-would-be-worse-than-doing-nothing/)
"If Antipope Bergoglio apes the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Pope Benedict IS NOT THERE VISIBLY PRESENT, not only will it be invalid, it will be a satanic aping of the Consecration, and one should expect nuclear war to be the eventual result."
No, Ann, his mere visible presence wouldn't suffice, nor would a consecration done without all the bishops of the world participating.
-
The greatest miracle would be the death of Bergoglio and the succession of an orthodox Pope.
Absolutely. Or, alternatively, a miraculous conversion of Bergoglio. Honestly, a conversion of Bergoglio into a St.-Pius-X-caliber pope would be a bigger miracle than the instant conversion of Russia to the Catholic faith.
I don't believe that Our Lady chose June 13, 1929 on accident while mentioning the Kings of France (who were deposed 100 years to the day that the Sacred Heart requested the consecration of France).
I believe that the 100 years will pass and a great chastisement will ensue on June 13, 2029.
-
These are photos from 1967!
(http://judaism.is/images/voz%20da%20fatima%206-13-1967.jpg?crc=3790730368)
(http://judaism.is/images/official%20image%20lucia%20and%20paul%20vi.jpg?crc=3792014827)
(http://judaism.is/images/paul%20vi%20-%20lucia%20fake%20photo.jpg?crc=4250510405)
Note both the impostor Lucy and the obviously altered image of Montini's hands.
yeah- the original photo had no Sister Lucy ll in it- they cut and pasted her in
-
No doubt the news that Pope Francis is to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary will go world-wide. Fatima will once again come under the attention of the world. Indeed, Catholicism itself will be on display to the world. The very credibility of Catholicism and Fatima will be put to the test. A simple cease-fire agreement will not suffice as a miracle. It will need something 'miraculous' to convince people that there was divine intervention. What that must be who knows. Here then, Francis is putting Catholicism to the test. If it works, conversions will result. If it doesn't it will result in some losing faith in Fatima and even Catholicism itself. As we see already on this subject some are already giving reasons why it wont work, in case it doesn't, but if it did then there will be a lot to discuss about as already seen on this subject.
Indeed he is. Which is why he *knows* it won't work.
-
No, Ann, his mere visible presence wouldn't suffice, nor would a consecration done without all the bishops of the world participating.
(Assuming Benedict was a real Pope....)
Re: All of the Bishops in the world- there really aren't as many as most think- All of the Bishops consecrated after 1968 in the new rite would have a real problem.
How many Traditionally consecrated Bishops ,(consecrated by a real Bishop) are there?
Benedict was ordained a true Priest before 1968 so possibly he could be a real Pope (Siri dead in 1987 so Bene may have had a valid conclave), but Bergoglio wasn't even validly ordained as a priest (1969 NO)- Maybe there is a possibility if Benedict somehow stepped in miraculously and true Bishops complied.
-
If Bergoglio is the pope he should be commanding/ordering the bishops under the pain of excommunication to obey him and not inviting them if indeed he does actually invite any of them to join him.
If your home is being invaded you don't invite the one invading to leave. Does the policeman invite the person committing a heinous crime to refrain from his act or does he order him to stop? The examples are endless. This business of Consecration by invitation is ludicrous. Reminds me of the 10 Commandments being presented as the 10 Suggestions or 10 Invitations to not do this or nor do that. It's like the Field Marshal turning to his Generals and inviting them to join him in the battle, knowing ahead of time that a good number of them would not likely be willing to comply with an invitation.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/iMNk3nL.png)
-
Nah, it's much more likely that he thinks this will put him in good graces with those who question his authority.
I'm not buying this for one second.
I'm afraid I have to concur with your assessment, 2V.
(https://i.imgur.com/CrE22AW.png)
-
Emile,
I have to say,
That Red October Meme is one of the best I've ever seen.
-
(Assuming Benedict was a real Pope....)
Re: All of the Bishops in the world- there really aren't as many as most think- All of the Bishops consecrated after 1968 in the new rite would have a real problem.
How many Traditionally consecrated Bishops ,(consecrated by a real Bishop) are there?
Benedict was ordained a true Priest before 1968 so possibly he could be a real Pope (Siri dead in 1987 so Bene may have had a valid conclave), but Bergoglio wasn't even validly ordained as a priest (1969 NO)- Maybe there is a possibility if Benedict somehow stepped in miraculously and true Bishops complied.
Even then, I don't think that Benedict's mere "visilble presence" would suffice. He's have to actually perform the consecration. There are some valid Eastern Rite bishops, and they would have to participate as well.
-
I'm afraid I have to concur with your assessment, 2V.
(https://i.imgur.com/CrE22AW.png)
:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
-
Novus Ordo Watch weighing in:
https://novusordowatch.org/2022/03/francis-to-consecrate-russia-and-ukraine/
-
Novus Ordo Watch weighing in:
https://novusordowatch.org/2022/03/francis-to-consecrate-russia-and-ukraine/
As expected. Not sure if they believe that the Pius XII consecration "counted" ... as the Dimonds do.
One thing I never noticed before about the Pius XII consecration. He consecrated the "peoples of Russia" ... and not "Russia".
There's a difference between the nation itself and the peoples of a nation (as we have seen amply demonstrated all these years).
WHY can't these popes to PRECISELY as Our Blessed Mother asked?
-
Emile,
I have to say,
That Red October Meme is one of the best I've ever seen.
Thanks, Shrewd. I was wondering if anyone would remember where it was from.
-
Even then, I don't think that Benedict's mere "visilble presence" would suffice. He's have to actually perform the consecration. There are some valid Eastern Rite bishops, and they would have to participate as well.
Yes, of course . B16 would actually have to do the consecration , if indeed he was (is) a legitimate Pope.
-
Even then, I don't think that Benedict's mere "visilble presence" would suffice. He's have to actually perform the consecration. There are some valid Eastern Rite bishops, and they would have to participate as well.
But if he is indeed a bishop, then he would have to be part of the collegial consecration. Did Our Lady mean "only diocesan ordinary bishops" or did she mean every Catholic bishop, even retired, co-adjutor, auxiliary, and so on? Does anybody know?
-
If I had to guess, I'd say he is consecrating both Russia and Ukraine to keep from appearing to take sides. And certainly Putin regards Ukraine as part of Russia.
I don't suppose he's going to throw in Belarus, for the sake of completeness. According to Russian thinking, all three make up "Russia" proper.
-
But if he is indeed a bishop, then he would have to be part of the collegial consecration. Did Our Lady mean "only diocesan ordinary bishops" or did she mean every Catholic bishop, even retired, co-adjutor, auxiliary, and so on? Does anybody know?
Our Lady said the following, June 13, 1929:
The moment has come when God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.
She didn't specify.
-
Our Lady said the following, June 13, 1929:
She didn't specify.
I would then take "all" literally.
Just thinking out loud, do you suppose Bishops Williamson, Faure, Zendejas, et al, will participate? So far as I'm aware, they're not sedevacantists.
-
I wonder if the SSPX is going to perform their own consecration in union of Jorge. They got nothing to lose. If peace happens, then they look very providential. If no peace, then they get another gold star from Jorge.
-
As expected. Not sure if they believe that the Pius XII consecration "counted" ... as the Dimonds do.
NOW's article repeatedly referred to the fact that Our Lady asked "in union with all of the bishops", and even emphasized it in Her words. They were quite clear that that did not happen with Pius XII. I think the point is that if doing it without the bishops is going to be considered a true consecration, then it was already done. NOW isn't saying it is already done.
-
The antipope, Jorge Bergoglio, won't effect any positive change to Russia by his "consecration".
-
I think the point is that if doing it without the bishops is going to be considered a true consecration
I hope nobody on this site thinks that a consecration without all the bishops is legit. Only the fake/indult crowd would go along with that.
-
I would then take "all" literally.
Just thinking out loud, do you suppose Bishops Williamson, Faure, Zendejas, et al, will participate? So far as I'm aware, they're not sedevacantists.
Generally the Church has taken the term all as a moral unanimity. You can say that something is a "universal" practice or belief of the Church ... even if you find an occasional exception here or there. In any group, you can always find an imbalanced person. So, for instance, the Church universally recognized St. Pius X as the true pope, but I bet that if you dug enough, you could find some nutcase who concluded otherwise.
-
Question...let's say B16 is still the legit pope. And let's say that only 25% of bishops are legit. What if B16 and the legit bishops do the consecration "in union" with Francis......
What happens?
-
I think Pope Pius X1 was the pope Our Lady was asking to consecrate Russia and it was meant to be done in the early 30's to prevent WW2 and the takeover of the world by communism following the war. Obviously, for whatever reason, he didn't do it unfortunately. For that reason, he was not a good pope.
For 'pope francis' to do this now is just an insult and mockery of Fatima and Our Lady.::)
-
I think Pope Pius X1 was the pope Our Lady was asking to consecrate Russia and it was meant to be done in the early 30's to prevent WW2 and the takeover of the world by communism following the war.
Yes, it was meant to be done long ago. No, Pope Pius XI was not the only pope who had the duty to do it. Our Lord told Sr Lucy in the 30s that (paraphrasing) "As long as it took the kings of France to do their consecration, so the popes will also delay." France was consecrated 100 years to the day from when Our Lord asked. 100 years from Fatima's "ask" is 2029. The Fatima request is still applicable to our times...
-
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5893-pope-to-consecrate-russia-to-immaculate-heart-of-mary-here-we-go-again
-
Fr. Jenkins on Francis's upcoming "consecration", starts at about 41 minutes in.
https://rumble.com/vxipb9-what-catholics-believe-3152021.html
-
Yes, it was meant to be done long ago. No, Pope Pius XI was not the only pope who had the duty to do it. Our Lord told Sr Lucy in the 30s that (paraphrasing) "As long as it took the kings of France to do their consecration, so the popes will also delay." France was consecrated 100 years to the day from when Our Lord asked. 100 years from Fatima's "ask" is 2029. The Fatima request is still applicable to our times...
apparition at Rianjo 1931:
Apparition at Rianjo 1931
"It is never too late to recourse to Jesus and Mary"'
https://fatima.org/the-apparition-at-rianjo-1931/
-
https://soundcloud.com/novusordowatch/tradcast-express-151
Tradcast about the Francis and the consecration
-
Fr. Jenkins on Francis's upcoming "consecration", starts at about 41 minutes in.
https://rumble.com/vxipb9-what-catholics-believe-3152021.html
I agree with the points Fr. Jenkins made about Francis needing to publicly repent of his errors before his "consecration" would give this more legitimacy among those who believe he is the Supreme Pontiff, and not just an act of the Pope of the New Order, which would be fruitless.
-
I hope nobody on this site thinks that a consecration without all the bishops is legit. Only the fake/indult crowd would go along with that.
It sure sounded up thread that there are posters who think that.
-
Without the bishops, it won’t be THE consecration but it’ll be A consecration. I don’t see any downside so I hope it happens. Even if +Francis intends to mock God by this, the consecration act itself is good. So God can thereby still bless good Catholics, for acts done by their bad leaders. Gods omnipotence and eternal wisdom allows Him to bring good out of evil and to use bad men for good purposes. Let us not despair!
-
Without the bishops, it won’t be THE consecration but it’ll be A consecration. I don’t see any downside so I hope it happens. Even if +Francis intends to mock God by this, the consecration act itself is good. So God can thereby still bless good Catholics, for acts done by their bad leaders. Gods omnipotence and eternal wisdom allows Him to bring good out of evil and to use bad men for good purposes. Let us not despair!
I don't think any consecration performed by a non-Catholic has any value other than perhaps towad their own personal conversion. Francis has no actual authority before God to make the consecration, and its value comes from a POPE consecrating Russia to Our Lady. In other words, he is NOT our "leader" and therefore cannot represent us before God.
-
Yes, it was meant to be done long ago. No, Pope Pius XI was not the only pope who had the duty to do it. Our Lord told Sr Lucy in the 30s that (paraphrasing) "As long as it took the kings of France to do their consecration, so the popes will also delay." France was consecrated 100 years to the day from when Our Lord asked. 100 years from Fatima's "ask" is 2029. The Fatima request is still applicable to our times...
Without the bishops, it won’t be THE consecration but it’ll be A consecration. I don’t see any downside so I hope it happens. Even if +Francis intends to mock God by this, the consecration act itself is good. So God can thereby still bless good Catholics, for acts done by their bad leaders. Gods omnipotence and eternal wisdom allows Him to bring good out of evil and to use bad men for good purposes. Let us not despair!
1. I don't get it. How can things be stretched out another seven years considering the way they are and how they're going? Will Putin spend 7 more years slowly dissembling NATO until he finally goes into Germany a la Irlamir? Look what Covid did in just a couple years? How do we get another 7 out of the world?
2. Every consecration that is not THE consecration just muddies the waters further. It's going to look like a fad that both liberal and conservative popes engage in whenever they need a moral boost.
-
I don't think any consecration performed by a non-Catholic has any value other than perhaps towad their own personal conversion. Francis has no actual authority before God to make the consecration, and its value comes from a POPE consecrating Russia to Our Lady. In other words, he is NOT our "leader" and therefore cannot represent us before God.
The only real positive that could come from it, which I believe Pax already stated, was the publicity that it might bring to Catholicism. As many would start looking into Fatima and the message, which would lead them to places like the Fatima Center and others who have made connections between the lapse of faith in the world with the failure to consecrate Russia by past Popes and anti-Popes.
Anecdotally, this is the exact path I went down to traditional Catholicism, as I later noticed that I made the decision to convert on the 100th anniversary of the final apparition of Fatima: October 13, 2017.
It may not be millions, but the few who are converted are a boon to Jesus Christ and His Church.
-
Yes, it was meant to be done long ago. No, Pope Pius XI was not the only pope who had the duty to do it. Our Lord told Sr Lucy in the 30s that (paraphrasing) "As long as it took the kings of France to do their consecration, so the popes will also delay." France was consecrated 100 years to the day from when Our Lord asked. 100 years from Fatima's "ask" is 2029. The Fatima request is still applicable to our times...
Pax, you have your dates mixed up. The consecration took place 103 years later. King Louis lost his power exactly 100yrs.
Our Lords request for the Consecration to the Sacred Heart = June 17,1689
King Of France stripped of power = June 17, 1789
King Louis XVI made a private consecration as prisoner of his own palace = 1792
King Louis XVI was beheaded before making the another consecration public = 1793
Our Lord said that the Popes will make a similar mistake. And they have. We know this because the Consecration was to prevent the spread of Russian Errors. It is pretty obvious that consequences from that warning have already started a long time ago, especially immediately post WW2. Pius XII did the consecration with a few bishops in attendance but it was late. Our Lord was never specific what "late" means. Is it 2, 25, or 100 years, anyone can speculate. But since we have dealing with the impact of communism on a global scale since WW2, the spreading of errors has already surrounded us. If the 100years has any relevance, it would mirror the carnage and persecution of the French Revolution but on a global scale.
By the way, even Sr. Lucy had hopes that Pius XII was sufficient. She didn't hold such a strong opinion compared to others who armchair Fatima quaterbacks.
-
Comrade,
Late would mean late relative to the consummation of the prophesy. In this case, the annihilation of nations, spiritually and physically.
That is why we are seeing the stirrings or beginning of WWIII as we approach the century mark. The abomination of desolated nations and the triumph of Communism, NWO, or Satanism would be the analog the the French Revolution.
-
There was a reason that Our Lady appeared on June 13, 1929. I believe that it's a sign that some great chastisement will begin on June 13, 2029. Our Lord Himself likened this consecration to the French scenario, so I beleive that we'll see an exact parallel.
Some great chastisement will begin in June of 2029. 3.5 years later would put us into 2023, which is also 75 years after the papacy was usurped from Pope Gregory XVII and he was replaced by Roncalli. Pope Leo XIII saw in his vision that the Lord would give Satan 75 years of power.
"Errors of Russia" infecting the entire world is as much a reference to Vatican II as it is to Communism spreading. It was Communist agents/plants among the Cardinals who ousted Pope Gregory at the 1958 conclave.
Cardinal Ciappi read the Third Secret and said that it refers to an apostasy that would "begin at the top".
Sister Lucy said that the Third Secret would become much clearer in 1960.
All the dots point to the same thing, that Fatima and the Third Secret were mostly about the Vatican II apostasy.
-
Comrade,
Late would mean late relative to the consummation of the prophesy. In this case, the annihilation of nations, spiritually and physically.
That is why we are seeing the stirrings or beginning of WWIII as we approach the century mark. The abomination of desolated nations and the triumph of Communism, NWO, or Satanism would be the analog the the French Revolution.
Right. If Our Lord compalined already in 1931 (just two years after Our Lady's request) that the Pope had not yet complied. Had the Pope done it right away in 1929 or 1930, none of this would have happend. No Vatican II, no nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, none of the stuff you list.
-
I honestly have no idea what was wrong with these men, Pius XI and Pius XII. Were I Pius XI, I would have performed the consecration the next day or, rather, as soon as I could arrange to order all the bishops of the world to do it also. I would have declared any bishop who does not comply ipso facto deposed, and therefore every bishop of the wordl will have performed the consecration.
Pius XII claims that he personally witnessed the Miracle of the Sun in the Vatican gardens FOUR TIMES. If that wasn't a message to him, then I don't know what could get through his skull.
-
All the dots point to the same thing, that Fatima and the Third Secret were mostly about the Vatican II apostasy.
Which makes sense that John 23 would have set the Third Secret aside upon reading it, given what he and his cohorts had planned.
Imagine: Had the consecration been done in full measure, rather than half-measure by Pius XII in 1952, Gregory XVII would have reigned in an era of peace for probably 30 years given that he died in '89.
Speculation aside, blessed be God for the way things have turned out. As it will make Our Lady's triumph and the age of peace that much more glorious given how far the world has fallen.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
(https://paintingvalley.com/images/our-lady-of-fatima-painting-11.jpg)
-
Speculation aside, blessed be God for the way things have turned out. As it will make Our Lady's triumph and the age of peace that much more glorious given how far the world has fallen.
Agreed. God of course knew all along how it would turn out. O Felix Culpa.
Had Pius XII done the consecration in, say, 1950, the conversion of the world would have been much less miraculous. 1950 was like heaven on earth compared to the bottomless pit of moral sewage that the entire world has turned into.
It's patently obvious to all of us that nothing but the most profound miracle could reverse this horror.
-
I honestly have no idea what was wrong with these men, Pius XI and Pius XII. Were I Pius XI, I would have performed the consecration the next day or, rather, as soon as I could arrange to order all the bishops of the world to do it also. I would have declared any bishop who does not comply ipso facto deposed, and therefore every bishop of the wordl will have performed the consecration.
Pius XII claims that he personally witnessed the Miracle of the Sun in the Vatican gardens FOUR TIMES. If that wasn't a message to him, then I don't know what could get through his skull.
As to the efficient cause of the failure, that is very difficult to pin down; but the material cause would be the unworthiness of the world in general ,and the Church Militant in particular.
-
Agreed. God of course knew all along how it would turn out. O Felix Culpa.
Had Pius XII done the consecration in, say, 1950, the conversion of the world would have been much less miraculous. 1950 was like heaven on earth compared to the bottomless pit of moral sewage that the entire world has turned into.
"Thou hast brought forth, O Lord, my soul from hell: thou hast saved me from them that go down into the pit."
[Psalms 29:4]
-
Has Vigano chimed in on this yet?
-
I honestly have no idea what was wrong with these men, Pius XI and Pius XII. Were I Pius XI, I would have performed the consecration the next day or, rather, as soon as I could arrange to order all the bishops of the world to do it also. I would have declared any bishop who does not comply ipso facto deposed, and therefore every bishop of the wordl will have performed the consecration.
Pius XII claims that he personally witnessed the Miracle of the Sun in the Vatican gardens FOUR TIMES. If that wasn't a message to him, then I don't know what could get through his skull.
I have wondered the very same thing many, many times.
-
Does the pope even know HOW to consecrate ukraine/russia?
-
Pius XII claims that he personally witnessed the Miracle of the Sun in the Vatican gardens FOUR TIMES. If that wasn't a message to him, then I don't know what could get through his skull.
Wow, I’ve never heard this!
Still I see no downside. +Francis declared a global day of penance/fasting early in his papacy (Sept 7, 2013) and there was a surprising peace declared in Syria soon after. I remember watching John Kerry and other war-hawks on the news announce the deal with Assad. You could see the surprise on their faces. It was real. The global media was taken aback that peace was reached. They wanted war between the US and Russia (who backed Assad), just like now.
Call me a simpleton but even if +Francis is only the temporal head of the Church (with his spiritual teaching powers impounded) I still say he has some special role, which no other man on earth has, to lead/affect the Church, and society.
-
Does the pope even know HOW to consecrate ukraine/russia?
Yeah, he will probably forget to bring a statue of Our Lady. But conveniently have the Pachamama ready to fill in.
-
Comrade,
Late would mean late relative to the consummation of the prophesy. In this case, the annihilation of nations, spiritually and physically.
That is why we are seeing the stirrings or beginning of WWIII as we approach the century mark. The abomination of desolated nations and the triumph of Communism, NWO, or Satanism would be the analog the the French Revolution.
Haven't we seen the annihilation of nations already since WW2? Even the moral culture of pre-WW2 USA appears to be non-existent. Legal child sacrifice is obvious proof.
What did Sr. Lucy think of Pius XII consecration? Did she call it imperfect? This is my point, we are dealing with the aftermath of Pius XII's late consecration.
-
Haven't we seen the annihilation of nations already since WW2? Even the moral culture of pre-WW2 USA appears to be non-existent. Legal child sacrifice is obvious proof.
What did Sr. Lucy think of Pius XII consecration? Did she call it imperfect? This is my point, we are dealing with the aftermath of Pius XII's late consecration.
Those are some good questions. As the world certainly did suffer for Pius XI's failure to consecrate Russia. And even having nations annihilated is right in line with what not only the Soviet Union did to half of Europe, but also the low-key racial genocide of European stock due to abortion and immigration. I'm one who thinks that Pius XII did do it, but too late and imperfectly, and we are now suffering the outcome. Because the spiritual desolation is far more harrowing than the physical chastisements that the world has already suffered in the 20th century.
-
I'm one who thinks that Pius XII did do it, but too late and imperfectly, ...
I totally disagree. He didn't do it. And the fact that he shorted Our Lady was almost an insult to her.
Pius XII did nothing but preside over the destruction of the Church. He's responsible for Vatican II more than any other single individual (apart from Satan himself).
Not only did he fail to avert it by making a very simple act of consecration, but he ...
1) installed, during his lengthy reign, nearly every bishop that would go on to bring us the glories of Vatican II,
2) opened the door (and the floodgates) to evolution and atheistic science in general
3) opened the floodgates to "Catholic birth control" by condoning NFP (even for "eugenic" reasons)
4) started tampering with the Sacred Litrugy (set Bugnini in motion, approved the Holy Week changes, promoted Dialog Masses, and allowed liturgical experimentation like the "Mass of the Future")
5) failed to condemn Cardinal Cushing (and defend Father Feeney), thereby presiding over the complete collapse of faith in EENS and in Catholic ecclesiology ... leading directly to Vatican II
6) sponsored some of the first Ecuмenical gatherings
7) many people try to pretend this is just a modern problem, but the Lavender Maffia was becoming well entrenched already during the reign of Pius XII. Many credible accusations of priestly pedophilia go back to the 1950s.
8) when he found out about Montini ratting out clerics behind the Iron Curtain (leading to their executions), he punished Montini severely by ... sending him to Milan, only without a Cardinal cap.
We can probably think of more ... much more.
Apart from defining the Dogma of the Assumption, which had little practical impact on the Church, what did this man do but destroy and set the stage for destruction?
Was he spending way too much of his time (scandalously) with the Popessa? (that entire thing was a terrible scandal, whether or not anything sinful happened there. St. Pius X wouldn't ride in a carriage with his own sister lest he cause scandal among those who didn't know they were related).
-
I believe one who consecrates needs Sanctifying Grace. IF not, they do not abide in God, now does God abide in them.
It won't happen.
-
No need to contrive scandal implying he was unchaste.
I'm not saying that he was a model Pope, as it is clear he not only inherited the Modernists from the laxity of Benedict XV and Pius XI, but also appeared to lack the constitution to stand up to them. Yet, he still did an imperfect consecration in Sacro Vergente Anno. And it being imperfect is why things still turned out the way they did.
Fr. Jenkins, in the video I posted above, points out that Pius XII was surrounded by Modernist bishops so there would have been no way to get them on-board to meet the demands of Our Lady. If you want to point the finger, point it at Pius XI for failing to do the consecration in 1929, or even Benedict XV for choosing to play ball with the Modernists rather than censuring them like St. Pius X.
In the end, we can point to what he did and did not do and go crazy speculating on his motivations.
Further, NOW shows (https://novusordowatch.org/2022/03/francis-to-consecrate-russia-and-ukraine/)that Pius XII still fits the bill as the "Fatima Pope"
In very truth, Pope Pius XII is the “Pope of Fatima”, and not only because of his consecration of Russia in 1952.
In 1917, Pope Benedict XV selected then-Mgr. Eugenio Pacelli to become a bishop, and the date picked for the consecration was May 13. It turned out that Pacelli was consecrated “at the very hour” that Our Lady’s first apparition at Fatima took place, by the very Pope whom Jacinta would miraculously see in a vision “in a very large house” as “kneeling before a little table, weeping, with his head between his hands” (see Walter H. Peters, The Life of Benedict XV [Milwaukee, WI: Bruce Publishing, 1959], pp. 141, 217. Disclaimer: commissions earned).
Not only was Pope Pius XII made a bishop on the same day and hour of the first Fatima apparition, however: In 1944 he introduced the feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to the universal Roman calendar (August 22), he consecrated the people of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1952, as noted, and he personally witnessed a repeat of the miracle of the sun in the Vatican Gardens, not once or twice, but as many as four times, in late October and early November 1950, around the time he solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption. (The original Miracle of the Sun took place on Oct. 13, 1917, before tens of thousands of people.)
If anyone deserves the title “Fatima Pope”, it is Pius XII.
-
No need to dig up scandal implying he was unchaste.
No, he created scandal by hanging out with a young nun since 1917 and constantly having her by his side. He's responsible for all of it, including the scandal. There's no evidence one way or the other, but he created scandal with that whole situation. There's plenty of need to call him out for that garbage.
In a Church with 10s of thousands of priests, he couldn't find one to serve as a suitable personal assistant, or an older nun if he needed a housekeeper?
What would you say if a Traditional priest dragged a young nun with him from one assignement to another? Let's say an SSPX had a younger (and attractive) nun who he had as his secretary at a rectory and then when he got transferred, he took her with him.
-
Yet, he still did an imperfect consecration in Sacro Vergente Anno.
That "imperfect consecration" was an insult to Our Lady. She asked for A and he gave her B. It might as well be an outright rejection of her request.
-
Fr. Jenkins, in the video I posted above, points out that Pius XII was surrounded by Modernist bishops ...
He APPOINTED MOST OF THOSE MODERNIST BISHOPS. He could on a whim remove any single one of them. Come on, now. He's the Pope, and the Pope is a monarch in the Church, an absolute ruler.
St. Pius X called bishops into his office regularly to depose them.
-
Further, NOW shows (https://novusordowatch.org/2022/03/francis-to-consecrate-russia-and-ukraine/)that Pius XII still fits the bill as the "Fatima Pope"
Pius XII was the non-Fatima pope. This is ridiculous. He refused to do the consecration as requested by Our Lady and that among all his other actions listed above brought on the destruction of Vatican II.
Apart from doing the consecration, his chief duty was to find and appoint good Traditionally-minded bishops, and he appointed a gaggle of scuм and villainy to the episcopacy all over the world.
-
No, he created scandal by hanging out with a young nun since 1917 and constantly having her by his side. He's responsible for all of it, including the scandal. There's no evidence one way or the other, but he created scandal with that whole situation. There's plenty of need to call him out for that garbage.
In a Church with 10s of thousands of priests, he couldn't find one to serve as a suitable personal assistant, or an older nun if he needed a housekeeper?
What would you say if a Traditional priest dragged a young nun with him from one assignement to another? Let's say an SSPX had a younger (and attractive) nun who he had as his secretary at a rectory and then when he got transferred, he took her with him.
It's beyond the point here, as you're still talking about the last legitimate Supreme Pontiff who deserves respect, not the accusations of what may or may not have occurred behind closed doors with an assistant.
That "imperfect consecration" was an insult to Our Lady. She asked for A and he gave her B. It might as well be an outright rejection of her request.
Hindsight is 20-20, as I already said we are suffering for his insult today.
Again, he was already neck-deep in a swamp by the 50s, yet he still followed through with what he did and I'm seeing a consecration of Russia here and the intent to do so, despite the lack of all the bishops and despite nit-picking about it being "the peoples of Russia" rather than just "Russia":
We, therefore, in order that our prayers and yours may be more easily answered, and to give you a singular attestation of Our special benevolence, as a few years ago we consecrated the whole world to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mother of God, so now, in a very special way, we consecrate all the peoples of Russia to the same Immaculate Heart, in the sure confidence that with the most powerful patronage of the Virgin Mary the vows will be happily fulfilled as soon as possible, we consecrate all the peoples of Russia to the same immaculate Heart, confident that with the most powerful patronage of the Virgin Mary, the vows which we, you, and all good people make for true peace, fraternal concord, and due freedom for all, and first of all for the Church, will be fulfilled as soon as possible; so that, through the prayer which We raise together with you and all Christians, the saving kingdom of Christ, which is “the kingdom of truth and life, the kingdom of holiness and grace, the kingdom of justice, love and peace” [Preface of Christ the King], in every part of the earth may triumph and be firmly established.
-
The consecration has not been accomplished!
1. Where is the triumph of the Immaculate Heart?
2. Where is the end of Modernism, and Vatican II?
3. Where is the conversion of Russia?
4. where is the period of real peace?
5. Where is the Grace and virtue and the conversion of sinners?
Pacamama reigns in the eternal city, not Mary!
In the book of Ecclesiasticus, God both promises and threatens the chosen people. Those who believed in Christ, then and now, got the promises. Those who didn't, then and now, got the doom. Both things happened. The same thing is going to happen with Fatima. We will see the Triumph of Mary, but not until the hard-hearted have brought us the literal, physically annihilation of one or more nations. It's ALL going to happen because it was foretold, good and bad. It always does. Until the real, final consecration happens, we have to consecrate ourselves, our lives, and whatever is in our power, so that WE at least are saved.
-
The consecration has not been accomplished!
1. Where is the triumph of the Immaculate Heart?
2. Where is the end of Modernism, and Vatican II?
3. Where is the conversion of Russia?
4. where is the period of real peace?
5. Where is the Grace and virtue and the conversion of sinners?
Pacamama reigns in the eternal city, not Mary!
In the book of Ecclesiasticus, God both promises and threatens the chosen people. Those who believed in Christ, then and now, got the promises. Those who didn't, then and now, got the doom. Both things happened. The same thing is going to happen with Fatima. We will see the Triumph of Mary, but not until the hard-hearted have brought us the literal, physically annihilation of one or more nations. It's ALL going to happen because it was foretold, good and bad. It always does. Until the real, final consecration happens, we have to consecrate ourselves, our lives, and whatever is in our power, so that WE at least are saved.
The Consecration did happen but unfortunately it was late. Our Lord even foretold it. It should be of no surprise that they failed. Don't forget that Stalin dies about a year after the consecration. I would call that an answer to our prayers.
What if Pius XII got all the bishops except for one? Would it still be imperfect?
What does conversion of a nation really mean? Especially of a nation that is large and has an extreme negative attitude toward the Catholic Church. If they simply stop persecuting the Catholic Church and stop interfering, that would be a pretty impressive miracle. I think most people think that every Russian would become practicing Catholics and the world would be an utopia.
I have witness a lot of conversions. Within my small circle alone I have seen over a dozen people convert to the Catholic Faith in last 10 years.
-
What does the conversion of a nation really mean!?
What is truth?
Bishop Williamson was right. We don't realize how liberal we are.
-
Further, NOW shows (https://novusordowatch.org/2022/03/francis-to-consecrate-russia-and-ukraine/)that Pius XII still fits the bill as the "Fatima Pope"
:laugh1: :facepalm: No, the pope who ACTUALLY fulfills Our Lady's requests, to the letter, will be the Fatima pope.
you're still talking about the last legitimate Supreme Pontiff who deserves respect
No. He deserves respect for the good he did and he deserves criticism for the bad he allowed.
-
It's beyond the point here, as you're still talking about the last legitimate Supreme Pontiff who deserves respect, ...
He deserves respect only to the extent that respect is owed to his office. Do we respect personally the Borgia popes who went from mistress to mistress and destroyed the reputation of the Church?
Stephen VI, the successor of Boniface VI, influenced by Lambert and Agiltrude, sat in judgment of Formosus in 897, in what is known as the Cadaver Synod. The corpse was disinterred, clad in papal vestments, and seated on a throne to face all the charges from John VIII. The verdict was that the deceased had been unworthy of the pontificate. The damnatio memoriae was applied to Formosus, all his measures and acts were annulled, and the orders conferred by him were declared invalid. The papal vestments were torn from his body, the three fingers from his right hand he had used in blessings were cut off, and the corpse was thrown into the Tiber, later to be retrieved by a monk.
We also had the cases of Liberius and Honorius.
Not every pope deserves to be honored for their personal conduct while holding office. Some saints have suggested that if a Pope isn't a saint, he's likely in hell.
-
What does the conversion of a nation really mean!?
What is truth?
Bishop Williamson was right. We don't realize how liberal we are.
Good questions. I agree that we don't realize how liberal we are. Very true! Bishop Williamson is correct.
Most don't care about being liberal. Fitting in with the world is a good thing to many trads, IMO. It can be tiresome to always be at odds with the modern world. Most give in, to a certain extent. It's simply fallen human nature, which trads don't really don't have a safeguard against.
-
:laugh2:
-
He deserves respect only to the extent that respect is owed to his office. Do we respect personally the Borgia popes who went from mistress to mistress and destroyed the reputation of the Church?
We also had the cases of Liberius and Honorius.
Not every pope deserves to be honored for their personal conduct while holding office. Some saints have suggested that if a Pope isn't a saint, he's likely in hell.
:laugh1:
-
:laugh2:
Trads are not better than conciliar Catholics. One look at this forum will confirm this.
-
The alleged case against Il Papa Honorius is a Big Hoax...
I cant recall the controversy re: Liberius... :popcorn:
-
Trads are not better than conciliar Catholics. One look at this forum will confirm this.
La Papessa ha parlato.
-
E rev around S...:popcorn:
-
No need to contrive scandal implying he was unchaste.
It's the first I've heard of it. I'm wondering why it was necessary to "disclose" myself.
-
2 Kings
8And when Eliseus, the man of God, had heard this, to wit, that the king of Israel had rent his garments, he sent to him, saying: Why hast thou rent thy garments? let him come to me, and let him know that there is a prophet in Israel. 9So Naaman came with his horses and chariots, and stood at the door of the house of Eliseus: 10And Eliseus sent a messenger to him, saying: Go, and wash seven times in the Jordan, and thy flesh shall recover health, and thou shalt be clean. 11Naaman was angry, and went away, saying: I thought he would have come out to me, and standing, would have invoked the name of the Lord his God, and touched with his hand the place of the leprosy, and healed me. 12Are not the Abana, and the Pharphar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel, that I may wash in them, and be made clean? So as he turned, and was going away with indignation, 13His servants came to him, and said to him: Father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, surely thou shouldst have done it: how much rather what he now hath said to thee: Wash, and thou shalt be clean? 14Then he went down, and washed in the Jordan seven times, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored, like the flesh of a little child: and he was made clean.
In other words, the consecration must be done exactly as required.
-
E rev around S...:popcorn:
Wrong thread.
-
I'm wondering why it was necessary to "disclose" myself.
I didn't know either, but I never spent the time to know much about Pius XII. If Ladislaus knows about this scandal, who lives halfway across the world, then it's considered public knowledge.
-
I didn't know either, but I never spent the time to know much about Pius XII. If Ladislaus knows about this scandal, who lives halfway across the world, then it's considered public knowledge.
"La Popessa", as she was called, evidently had so much power that she controlled who could see Pius XII. She was quite famous. There's a book out there called "La Popessa". Now, certainly we don't know that anything grave took place between them, but she was a young attractive nun that Pius XII chose as his personal assistant in 1917, and she stayed glued to him wherever he went until he passed away in 1958. It was highly inappropriate ... even if nothing transpired between them.
Pacelli was in his early 40s and she was in her early- to mid- 20s when she glommed onto him. Pacelli was also known to throw lavish glitzy parties when he was Apostolic Nuncio to Germany.
But my biggest issue with Pius XII was that list of 7-8 items I posted before.
-
I never heard of "la popessa" either. I never thought very highly of Pius X12 because he was the pope who prepared the way for Vat 2 and the takeover of the Church. I suspect he was also a crypto Jew and infiltrator like Montini etc. Sorry if that offends anyone, just my opinion !
-
Ann B: The Consecration of Russia must be done BY THE POPE. Antipope Bergoglio isn’t the Pope, never was and never will be. For Antipope Bergoglio to ape the Consecration of Russia would be worse than doing nothing. Pope Benedict MUST BE VISIBLY PRESENT. (https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/03/15/the-consecration-of-russia-must-be-done-by-the-pope-antipope-bergoglio-isnt-the-pope-never-was-and-never-will-be-for-bergoglio-to-ape-the-consecration-of-russia-would-be-worse-than-doing-nothing/)
"If Antipope Bergoglio apes the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Pope Benedict IS NOT THERE VISIBLY PRESENT, not only will it be invalid, it will be a satanic aping of the Consecration, and one should expect nuclear war to be the eventual result."
So the "real pope" doesn't actually have to do the consecration? He merely has to be physically present? Where does she get this nonsense?
-
Louis V posted his take on the upcoming "consecration":
https://akacatholic.com/breaking-russia-signed-off-on-march-25-consecration/
First, why is the proposed consecration being done, not just in Rome, but also in Fatima? Why there?
Obviously, the Bergoglians are wont to convince naïve and the ill-informed Catholics that the upcoming consecration of Russia and Ukraine is somehow related to the request delivered by Our Lady of Fatima. Even they don’t believe that! The orchestrators of this mockery know damned well that there is no relation between the two whatsoever.
In other words, it’s a marketing ploy cooked up by Jorge’s PR team, i.e., it’s all part of the counterfeit church’s effort to appear Catholic, and even some tradervatives are swooning.
While nearly every tradservative is clear-headed enough to recognize that the March 25 event as proposed won’t even come close to fulfilling Heaven’s request, there is a sizable segment of persons among them who seem to believe that the Bergoglians are operating in good faith and genuinely want to appease Our Lord and His Mother.
-
AKA Catholic's Louie Verrecchio nails it!!!
BREAKING: Russia signed off on March 25 “consecration”
March 17, 2022
(https://akacatholic.com/)
On March 15, Catholic social media exploded as the big news spread like wildfire…
For example, a headline on the website of the “new” Fatima Center blared (see screen shot above):
THIS JUST IN! Pope Francis to Consecrate Russia… On March 25th
Earlier in the day, the Unholy See Press Office had issued a bulletin, stating:
On Friday, March 25, during the Celebration of Penance at which he will preside at 17.00 in Saint Peter’s Basilica, Pope Francis will consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The same act, on the same day, will be carried out in Fatima by His Eminence Cardinal Krajewski, Apostolic Almoner, as envoy of the Holy Father.
The reaction of Catholic commentators was immediate, ranging from incredulous to giddy. As one popular tradservative theologian put it in his initial (subsequently amended) Facebook post, “I never thought he [Bergoglio] would take a step that not a single one of his predecessors was ever willing to take.”
Truth be told, the unceremonious thumbing of the papal [alleged] nose at the Blessed Virgin is a revered pastime in the halls of Occupied Rome. It’s one of the few things that passes for tradition in that wretched place.
To be more precise, it is an impious custom that actually predates the conciliar revolution as neither Pius XI nor Pius XII found it necessary to fulfill Almighty God’s very simple request for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
– In 1952, Pius XII issued the Apostolic Letter, Carissimis Russiae Populis, wherein he states:
…just as not many years ago We consecrated the entire world to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mother of God, in a most special way, so now We dedicate and consecrate all the peoples of Russia to that same Immaculate Heart…
Though some have argued that this fulfilled the request delivered by Our Lady, the issuance of an Apostolic Letter is not even close to a collegial act including the bishops of the world. One notes as well that Fatima is not even mentioned in the text, i.e., there is no indication that this consecration was intended to serve as an attempt to fulfill the request.
– John XXIII decided that the Third Secret of Fatima wasn’t relevant to his time, despite Our Lady’s insistence to the contrary. In his opening address to the Second Vatican Council, he even took a shot at the Fatima seers, obliquely referring to them as “prophets of doom,” a designation that makes of Our Lady a veritable chicken little.
– Paul VI picked up where Roncalli left off, also ignoring the warnings set forth in the Third Secret, as he plowed full speed ahead with the conciliar revolution. He also has the distinction of being the first of his lot to prance around in public with the FAKE Sr. Lucy. (See the magnificent investigative work (https://sisterlucytruth.org/) undertaken by Dr. Peter Chojnowski.)
– John Paul II performed a series of consecrations to the Immaculate Heart – in 1981, 1982, and 1984 – that failed to meet the meager demands of God’s simple request. He went on to stage two interfaith abominations at Assisi as if to suggest that he had a better idea for obtaining world peace than the plan presented by Our Lady.
It was also during Wojtyla’s watch that the occupants of the Vatican published the vision attached to the Third Secret of Fatima in the year 2000, along with an absurd interpretation that placed the Polish former actor at its center.
– Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was intimately involved in the aforementioned Third Secret deception. As the man-in-charge he didn’t even bother to perform an inadequate consecration of Russia.
You get the point.
Having established that the upcoming Bergoglian charade is just one in a long line of shameful acts of disrespect for Our Lady conducted by men of dubious faith, the recent announcement of the Unholy See Press Office raises a number of questions. This is by far the more interesting aspect of the proposed consecration.
The same act, on the same day, will be carried out in Fatima by His Eminence Cardinal Krajewski, Apostolic Almoner, as envoy of the Holy Father.
First, why is the proposed consecration being done, not just in Rome, but also in Fatima? Why there?
Obviously, the Bergoglians are wont to convince naïve and the ill-informed Catholics that the upcoming consecration of Russia and Ukraine is somehow related to the request delivered by Our Lady of Fatima. Even they don’t believe that! The orchestrators of this mockery know damned well that there is no relation between the two whatsoever.
In other words, it’s a marketing ploy cooked up by Jorge’s PR team, i.e., it’s all part of the counterfeit church’s effort to appear Catholic, and even some tradervatives are swooning.
While nearly every tradservative is clear-headed enough to recognize that the March 25 event as proposed won’t even come close to fulfilling Heaven’s request, there is a sizable segment of persons among them who seem to believe that the Bergoglians are operating in good faith and genuinely want to appease Our Lord and His Mother.
They’re flooding social media with embarrassing memes that bleat:
“Please, Hoy Father, consecrate Russia as Our Lady instructed!”
One of the more obvious questions that few seem willing to ask is whether an overfed heretic in a pope costume – a man who publicly suggested that Our Lady accused God of lying – can efficaciously consecrate anything to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
All of that said, we now arrive at the most intriguing aspect of the story:
Why did the masterminds of newchurch decide to recruit the assistance of Cardinal Krajewski? Why not have the Fatima end of the performance be conducted by José Ornelas Carvalho, the resident bishop of Leiria-Fatima?
A cardinal is more senior, it delivers a stronger message! Bleat, bleat…
OK, if sending a cardinal to Fatima is more desirable, why Krajewski of all people?
While no one else is reporting as much (as far as I know), the choice of the so-called “papal almoner” provides at least a small glimpse into the dark recesses the diabolical Bergoglian mind.
Krajewski was profiled in an April 2020 article in Crux (https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2020/04/alms-need-to-hurt-papal-almoner-explains-call-for-vatican-prelates-to-donate-during-crisis) that reads in part:
The Papal Almoner is a traditional position at the Vatican, concerned with giving alms within the pope’s diocese. Much of its income comes from processing the numerous requests that come from around the world for papal blessings. The almoner’s role has risen to new prominence under Francis, who has backed Krajewski’s efforts to make the charitable efforts of the Vatican more hands-on and visible…
Get that? Make the charitable efforts of the Vatican more hands-on and visible…
How utterly Bergoglian! In other words, how positively opposed to the authentic Catholic spirit!
Recall the words of Our Lord:
But when thou givest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth. That thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. (Mt. 6:3-4)
The Paparazzi Papa model is built upon a very different operating platform:
But when thou givest alms, or invite the homeless to a meal, kiss the feet of strangers, go to confession, ride in a compact car, or even when though dost something hip like visiting a local record shop late at night, be certain that thy media members and their camera crews are present so that thy left hand, thy right hand, and the entire globe will know just how humble thou art. (Bergoglio 6:66)
The Crux story continues:
Krajewski told Crux the idea for asking the nearly 250 members of the papal chapel to donate their salary when he meditated on the idea that an act of mercy could substitute for the Real Presence this year, when so many people are missing Mass due to the lockdown.
Not only did this creep, Krajewski, run to the media to report his request for donations, thus sending the message to the members of the papal chapel that he is prepared to have the media smear those who decline to be extorted, he blasphemously equated the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament to a basket full of cash. Does Judas come to mind?
This is how the humanist hierarchy in Occupied Rome thinks, starting with the Heretic-in-Chief. From this perspective, the choice of Krajewski seems to make sense inasmuch as he has made his bones as one of their own. But it’s more than that, much more…
In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph, the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me. Russia will be converted, and a period of peace shall be given to mankind. – Our Lady speaking to the seers at Fatima, July 13, 1917
You see, as everyone well versed in the Fatima message knows, the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as requested is, first and foremost, ordered toward spiritual ends – the conversion of that nation. Make no mistake, this conversion means one thing and one thing alone, making of Russia a Catholic nation as traditionally understood.
As for the temporal consequences of the consecration – the promised period of peace – this follows the spiritual fruits.
Needless to say, the charlatans in Rome have no such faith. They dwell in a purely temporal world wherein supernatural means and ends are of little regard.
Faithful Catholics (like regular reads here) know that, but the Occupied Vatican understands very well just how important it is, as a matter of diplomacy, for Russian leaders to know that as well.
The inclusion of Krajewski – a veritable NGO operative who heads up the Vatican’s earthbound campaign to eradicate poverty and hunger – is deliberately intended to underscore the notion that the March 25 consecration is strictly a humanitarian effort, i.e., it’s all about food, shelter, life and limb, nothing more.
My confidential contact in Rome, a person with close ties to the Vatican Secretariat of State, has confirmed that exactly this sort of assurance was delivered to Russian authorities via diplomatic back channels over a week before the proposed consecration was announced. In fact, it is only after Russian authorities gave their consent that the decision was made to go forward with it. I fully expect other Catholic media outlets to issue similar confirmation soon (if they haven’t already).
Anyone wondering why the Vatican Secretariat of State would find it critical to gain Russia’s OK would do well to consider the following comments made by Vladimir Putin in a 2019 docuмentary (https://rumble.com/vwywfq-revealing-ukraine.html?mref=93r5b&mc=1rfdi) on Ukraine (17:00 mark):
I believe that Ukrainians and Russians are virtually one people. Well, in fact, this is one nation… When these lands which are the core of Ukraine were joined to Russia, these were only three regions – Kiev region, north region and south. No one considered himself something other than Russian. Because it was based on what? Religious affiliation. This attitude… everyone was Orthodox and considered themselves Russian. And they did not want to be part of the Catholic world, where they were being dragged by Poland.
These words not only provide great insight into Putin’s aims, they magnify some very important truths:
For one, the idea that Russia has been consecrated and its conversion has already taken place is patently absurd.
Secondly, and most importantly, until the consecration is done as requested, conflict is inevitable and there will be Hell to pay on earth.
Lastly, the scheming Argentinian heretic in Rome, with his staff of diplomatic strategists, is in no way qualified to do it.
-
No pope has yet consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary according to all the requests of Our Lady of Fatima.
Fatima: A Spiritual Light for Our Times: The Great Secret of Fatima (vol. 3) (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=6456) by Fr. Karl Stehlin (https://knightlibrary.wordpress.com/), ch. 3 "The Refusal of the Consecration of Russia", pp. 64-66:
On the 13th of July 1917, She announces: "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". She doesn't say "my request", but "my requests", that is both requests. On the 13th of June 1929, in Tuy, Our Lady gives 4 conditions for the consecration of Russia. She requires the Pope:
- 1. to unite "with all the bishops of the world"
- 2. to make the consecration
- 3. of Russia
- 4. to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
On the 13th of May 1930, Sister Lucia explains further the will of Heaven and adds 2 conditions: - 5. "a solemn act of reparation and consecration of Russia to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary"
- 6. "the promise that upon the ending of this persecution [the persecution of the Church by those following the errors of Russia] he will approve and recommend the practice of the reparatory devotion already described."
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/7BS0h.png)
Note 1: Paul VI gave no order to the bishops. John-Paul II simplysaid his act was in "spiritual union" with the bishops.
Note 2: the term used during these acts was "entrust" and not "consecrate".
Note 3: the formula used by Pius XII was: "especially for the peoples who profess for you a particular devotion and among whom there was no home which would not have honoured your venerable icon." Those used by John-Paul II are: "the nations who particularly need this offering (donatio) and this consecration" and "the peoples from whom you are expecting the consecration and offering".
-
La Papessa ha parlato.
Of course she means to exclude herself.
-
In 1917 Communism was rampant in Russia and Catholicism was the faith of Europe. To dedicate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary made sense in that Russia did indeed spread ite errors of Communism as a political and anti-religious entity as it spread into Europe. But that really ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall times. So maybe the consecrations up to then sufficed for Heaven, that it was done. A period of peace did prevail in Europe after that.
In 2022, anti-Christianity now flourishes in the rest of the world while Russia is more Christian in many aspects of the faith.
I asked Goodle 'Is Russia with a population of 124,000,000, still a Christian country?' It answered
Christianity in Russia is the most widely professed religion in the country. The largest tradition is the Russian Orthodox Church. According to official sources, there are 170 eparchies of the Russian Orthodox Church, 145 of which are grouped in metropolitanates.
Religion Number %
Christianity 67,720,000 47.4
–Russian Orthodox Church 58,750,000 41.1
–Other Orthodox Churches 2,140,000 1.5
–Old Believers' Orthodoxy 460,000 0.3
It seems to me, if we reason that the consecration was accepted by Heaven, and is no longer a viable consecration as asked by Sister Lucy because the Satanic errors of 1917 Communist Rusasia are no longer doing what the did then, to consecrate the Immaculate Heart of Mary to the anti-Christian errors of the West would be more in keeping with common Catholic sense that pretending Russia is still the bad guy and Ukraine and the west, including the USA, are the good guys in Our Lady's current asperations for the world.
-
The Vision of the Most Holy Trinity and Our Lady of Fatima at Tuy, Spain, June 13, 1929
It was at this time, at the most solemn apparition of the whole series of Fatima apparitions, that Our Lady said to Sister Lucy:
“The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to make, and to order [not to invite] that in union with him and at the same time, all the bishops of the world make the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to convert it because of this day of prayer and worldwide reparation.”
… Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, The Whole Truth About Fatima — Vol. II, p. 555.
-
In 1917 Communism was rampant in Russia and Catholicism was the faith of Europe. To dedicate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary made sense in that Russia did indeed spread ite errors of Communism as a political and anti-religious entity as it spread into Europe. But that really ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall times. So maybe the consecrations up to then sufficed for Heaven, that it was done. A period of peace did prevail in Europe after that.
In 2022, anti-Christianity now flourishes in the rest of the world while Russia is more Christian in many aspects of the faith.
I asked Goodle 'Is Russia with a population of 124,000,000, still a Christian country?' It answered
Christianity in Russia is the most widely professed religion in the country. The largest tradition is the Russian Orthodox Church. According to official sources, there are 170 eparchies of the Russian Orthodox Church, 145 of which are grouped in metropolitanates.
Religion Number %
Christianity 67,720,000 47.4
–Russian Orthodox Church 58,750,000 41.1
–Other Orthodox Churches 2,140,000 1.5
–Old Believers' Orthodoxy 460,000 0.3
It seems to me, if we reason that the consecration was accepted by Heaven, and is no longer a viable consecration as asked by Sister Lucy because the Satanic errors of 1917 Communist Rusasia are no longer doing what the did then, to consecrate the Immaculate Heart of Mary to the anti-Christian errors of the West would be more in keeping with common Catholic sense that pretending Russia is still the bad guy and Ukraine and the west, including the USA, are the good guys in Our Lady's current asperations for the world.
Then again, maybe Pope Francis should consecrate Rome to the immaculate heart of Mary.
-
The Vision of the Most Holy Trinity and Our Lady of Fatima at Tuy, Spain, June 13, 1929
It was at this time, at the most solemn apparition of the whole series of Fatima apparitions, that Our Lady said to Sister Lucy:… Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, The Whole Truth About Fatima — Vol. II, p. 555.
Yes, I noticed how Bergoglio is merely "inviting"....
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAD0RpBwmSw
He's doing it with the Bishops of the world
-
1. to unite "with all the bishops of the world"
2. to make the consecration
3. of Russia
4. to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
5. "a solemn act of reparation and consecration of Russia to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary"
6. "the promise that upon the ending of this persecution [the persecution of the Church by those following the errors of Russia] he will approve and recommend the practice of the reparatory devotion already described."
Conditions not fulfilled:
#3: "of Russia," not "of Russia & Ukraine" (Bergoglio's trying to seem impartial.), nor "of the whole world"
#5 & #6: What public act of reparation is requested?
-
Conditions not fulfilled:
#3: "of Russia," not "of Russia & Ukraine" (Bergoglio's trying to seem impartial.), nor "of the whole world"
#5 & #6: What public act of reparation is requested?
You forgot the most glaring one, #1 (in union with all the bishops of the world).
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAD0RpBwmSw
He's doing it with the Bishops of the world
No he's not. [There's a rumor that] he "intends" to "invite" them to join him. Even if he follows through on said "intention," you'd probably be lucky to get 20% of them joining in. That doesn't count as "all the bishops" of the world.
-
I kind of wish he would do it with ALL the bishops of the world and ask the entire Church to make public reparation.
Then when nothing happens, that'll be further proof of his illegitimacy. In fact, I could then see ...
1) World War III immediately erupting (or some other catastrophe, like a global economic collapse) OR
2) God would strike him dead before he has the chance to do it.
God has thus far allowed him to simulate being the Pope to teach heresy to the entire world, causing scandal to the world by misrepresenting the mind of His Church, so I can't guess whether it would be His will for him to allow the deceptioin to culminate in a fake consecration.
But we'll get maybe a handful of bishops participating (only due to the political situation), and I'd be shocked if the expression "Immaculate Heart of Mary" shows up in the text of his consecration formula.
-
I kind of wish he would do it with ALL the bishops of the world and ask the entire Church to make public reparation.
Then when nothing happens, that'll be further proof of his illegitimacy. In fact, I could then see ...
1) World War III immediately erupting (or some other catastrophe, like a global economic collapse) OR
2) God would strike him dead before he has the chance to do it.
God has thus far allowed him to simulate being the Pope to teach heresy to the entire world, causing scandal to the world by misrepresenting the mind of His Church, so I can't guess whether it would be His will for him to allow the deceptioin to culminate in a fake consecration.
But we'll get maybe a handful of bishops participating (only due to the political situation), and I'd be shocked if the expression "Immaculate Heart of Mary" shows up in the text of his consecration formula.
One of the things running through my mind is...why are they even doing this if it's meant to be "THE" Consecration. Didn't the Vatican say in the past that JPII already did the consecration?
-
One of the things running through my mind is...why are they even doing this if it's meant to be "THE" Consecration. Didn't the Vatican say in the past that JPII already did the consecration?
Yes, this occurred to me also. It exposes the past Vatican narrative as a lie. Maybe they think they can do it again? This is clearly a political exercise to stop the Russian invasion and has nothing to do with the errors of Russia, which Bergoglio (the Commie) heartily endorses and promotes. First response of Heaven to stop the errors of Russia would be to strike Bergoglio dead with lightning the minute he pronounces the words.
-
I kind of wish he would do it with ALL the bishops of the world and ask the entire Church to make public reparation.
Then when nothing happens, that'll be further proof of his illegitimacy.
Of course the other possibility is that he does it as requested, the world converts, and the sedevacantists are proven wrong once and for all. And that is what will happen if he performs the consecration, since without the slightest doubt the sedevacantist are all definitely wrong. As are the Beneplenists. Francis is the Pope, and God is about to prove it.
The only question in my mind is if nuclear war will happen before next Friday and prevent him from performing the act.
-
Of course the other possibility is that he does it as requested, the world converts, and the sedevacantists are proven wrong once and for all. And that is what will happen if he performs the consecration, since without the slightest doubt the sedevacantist are all definitely wrong. As are the Beneplenists. Francis is the Pope, and God is about to prove it.
The only question in my mind is if nuclear war will happen before next Friday and prevent him from performing the act.
And if it doesn't, you'll come up with some sad excuse why it didn't work even though you still believe he is truly pope. Suddenly it won't fit the bill.
-
Francis is the Pope, and God is about to prove it.
The only question in my mind is if nuclear war will happen before next Friday and prevent him from performing the act.
:confused:
Seems rather contradictory, RT. If God intends to demonstrate that Francis is Pope via this consecration, couldn't He prevent a nuclear exchange?
-
Of course the other possibility is that he does it as requested, the world converts, and the sedevacantists are proven wrong once and for all. And that is what will happen if he performs the consecration, since without the slightest doubt the sedevacantist are all definitely wrong. As are the Beneplenists. Francis is the Pope, and God is about to prove it.
The only question in my mind is if nuclear war will happen before next Friday and prevent him from performing the act.
Bergoglio is no more pope than I am. I'm looking forward to the truth being revealed so that (amont other reasons) people like you could eat crow.
But it doesn't look as if he's going to conform with Our Lady's request in its entirety.
-
To assert that the blaspheming impious apostate Jorge is the pope is nothing short of blasphemy against Our Lord, as His Promises to safeguard the papacy and the Church from error would be rendered meaningless.
-
The only question in my mind is if nuclear war will happen before next Friday and prevent him from performing the act.
Well, if it does, I just hope I make a good confession this weekend and have enough foresight to stay home from work with my family before they drop.
-
To assert that the blaspheming impious apostate Jorge is the pope is nothing short of blasphemy against Our Lord, as His Promises to safeguard the papacy and the Church from error would be rendered meaningless.
Perhaps there will be the devastation of war following his mockery of God and Our Lady, and his conversion and repentance will be of him as that "bishop in white" walking among the dead in Rome before being gunned down in the supposed vision of the third secret?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e6/60/33/e66033d8fe6eb5f3e9ba8f2e3efd28b1.jpg)
-
You forgot the most glaring one, #1 (in union with all the bishops of the world).
Why won't that one be satisfied?
-
In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph, the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me. Russia will be converted, and a period of peace shall be given to mankind. – Our Lady speaking to the seers at Fatima, July 13, 1917
This "period of peace" seems similar to the heresy of millenarianism/chiliasm, that there will be a thousand years of peace before the Second Coming or that Christ will reign bodily for a thousand years. It reeks of a judaized conception of the Messiah, that He's a worldly leader, not that His "kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=50&ch=18&l=36-#x)).
-
This "period of peace" seems similar to the heresy of millenarianism/chiliasm
No, not at all.
1. Our Lady is the one who promised this peace; it's not an "interpretation".
2. Many, many of the Church Fathers talked about a devastation to the Church, followed by a period of restoration, then a falling away, which leads to antichrist.
3. A plethora, of plethora of prophecies predict a restoration of the Church (i.e. a period of peace) which happens after a long period of heresies and persecutions.
-
Diplomatic ruse confirmed: https://akacatholic.com/nuncio-confirms-the-ruse-a-diplomatic-consecration/ (https://akacatholic.com/nuncio-confirms-the-ruse-a-diplomatic-consecration/)
Already we see a problem for those who would suggest that the March 25 act could possibly fulfill the request of Our Lady of Fatima:
Even apart from the fact that the proposed consecration will not name Russia alone, the context is entirely different. It has nothing whatsoever to do with addressing, and making reparation for, Russia’s guilt before God – guilt that extends well beyond current events – as an exercise of His justice.
In fact, as the Nuncio’s letter makes plain, the March 25 event is focused on Ukraine first and foremost!
-
ANYONE WHO IS ARGUING THAT THIS CONSECRATION WILL FULFILL FATIMA'S REQUEST....IT WON'T. THIS IS CLEAR. MOVE ON.
-
1. Our Lady is the one who promised this peace; it's not an "interpretation".
2. Many, many of the Church Fathers talked about a devastation to the Church, followed by a period of restoration, then a falling away, which leads to antichrist.
3. A plethora, of plethora of prophecies predict a restoration of the Church (i.e. a period of peace) which happens after a long period of heresies and persecutions.
Good points. Thanks.
-
The NEO-SSPX is losing its mind over this. It is like they have died and gone to heaven. The groveling over an apostate and layman(Bergolio)consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart is just the ticket they need to get more Novus Ordos to come to their chapel. This will keep the coffers filled so that they can continue building monuments. Meanwhile, the actual Novus Ordo sect could care less about what Bergolio says. You can make this stuff up. The SSPX is on their hands and knees over his, while the NO is entirely indifferent.
-
https://novusordowatch.org/2022/03/francis-to-consecrate-russia-and-ukraine/
-
Astonishing how many here think they are more important and/ or more educated than Il Papa Pius XII... :laugh1:
-
Bergoglio, in lockstep with and likely a member of Globohomo, just condemned Russia, while never making a peep about the murder of ethnic Russian civilians in Eastern Ukraine in 2014.
One more reason to support Russia.
-
ANYONE WHO IS ARGUING THAT THIS CONSECRATION WILL FULFILL FATIMA'S REQUEST....IT WON'T. THIS IS CLEAR. MOVE ON.
Not as currently planned.
1) throwing Ukraine into the mix is to blur Our Lady's message, that it would be the errors of Russia.
2) context is totally political
3) I await the text of his consecration, and there's a good chance that "Immaculate Heart of Mary" will appear nowhere (it'll be some circuмlocution because that term is offensive to separated brethren)
4) There's only a rumor thus far that he's "considering" "inviting" bishops to join him.
5) He's constantly deriding Our Blessed Mother, and the offenses and blasphemies against the Immaculate Heart of Mary, for which this is supposed to be a reparation, ... this will come down on his head first and foremost. If I were God, I'd send a bolt of lightning to obliterate him the moment he tried to open his blasphemous mouth to do the consecration.
https://novusordowatch.org/2019/12/bergoglio-blasphemes-the-immaculate/
6) He's not the Pope but an imposter, and he'll be simulating this consecration just as he's been simulating the entire papacy.
-
I've been informed that even a Resistance bishop, Bp. Tomás de Aquino, is going to "consecrate" with Bergoglio. That's kinda funny, even more because Bp. Tomás de Aquino refused to sing Te Deum along members of the SSPX some time ago for occasion of Benedict XVI doing something. Ironic.
-
I've been informed that even a Resistance bishop, Bp. Tomás de Aquino, is going to "consecrate" with Bergoglio. That's kinda funny, even more because Bp. Tomás de Aquino refused to sing Te Deum along members of the SSPX some time ago for occasion of Benedict XVI doing something. Ironic.
Any idea if Bishop Williamson and other Resistance bishops are going to join in with this consecration?
-
Any idea if Bishop Williamson and other Resistance bishops are going to join in with this consecration?
Well, he wrote this at the bottom of his latest EC:
What remains to us is to pray to Our Lady of Fatima – “Only I can help you now” – to obtain for us the mitigation of the now inevitable Chastisement. She has wonderful plans for the future of Russia, as soon as the Catholic Pope and bishops perform its long requested Consecration to her Immaculate Heart.
But who does he think is "the Catholic Pope"?
-
Suppose for a minute that the consecration is done with the pope and all of the bishops, let's say it is all done perfectly and validly - what are the events in the Church and world that you think might occur afterwards?
Personally I have no clue and don't spend much time thinking about it, but it would seem to me one of the first events might be that a purgation of biblical proportions would be necessary, which will mean a lot of bƖσσdshɛd in both the Church and the world.
-
Why won't that one be satisfied?
It’ll be satisfied because there’s a rumor that Bergoglio is considering inviting bishops to join him? That doesn’t sound like it even morally would satisfy “all”. I agree that the Pope would at the very least have to command it and possibly even impose ipso facto deposition on those who fail to comply.
-
Good points. Thanks.
My understanding is the promised period of peace was a generation , maybe 20 or 25 years. That's how Bishop Williamson describes it in keeping with Blessed Holzhauer's prophecies.
-
ANYONE WHO IS ARGUING THAT THIS CONSECRATION WILL FULFILL FATIMA'S REQUEST....IT WON'T. THIS IS CLEAR. MOVE ON.
Let's wait and see. I am privy to things that are taking place behind the scenes, and one thing I can reveal is that a consecration formula that is being considered perfectly fulfills the request of Our Lady of Fatima.
-
The consecration of Russia, asked at Fatima in 1917, was to stop atheism from spreading to other nations. That consecration never happened then and Russia spread its atheism. Pope John Paul II did a part-consecration on 25th March, 1984. Gradually after that Communism eroded in Europe and by 1989 many had eliminated Communism from their countries in Europe.
Since then Europe and the USA have become as anti-Catholic as the Soviet Union was and Russia now has a 75% Christian population. The latter change, could be credited to Our Lady. Archbishop Vigano has pointed out it is Russia that is now trying to prevent the great Satanic reset.
So, what exactly is this consecration all about? The errors of Fatima in 1917 were spiritual and doctrinal. So maybe it is the west and the USA that should be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. What this pope is doing is pitting Our Lady of the Catholic Church against Russia as though she was asked to assist the now anti-Catholic NATO and UN propaganda. Moreover, when nothing happens but more deaths of Ukrainian and Russian people, Catholicism itself could become the laughing stock of the anti-Catholic west.
-
The consecration of Russia, asked at Fatima in 1917, was to stop atheism from spreading to other nations. That consecration never happened then and Russia spread its atheism. Pope John Paul II did a part-consecration on 25th March, 1984. Gradually after that Communism eroded in Europe and by 1989 many had eliminated Communism from their countries in Europe.
Since then Europe and the USA have become as anti-Catholic as the Soviet Union was and Russia now has a 75% Christian population. The latter change, could be credited to Our Lady. Archbishop Vigano has pointed out it is Russia that is now trying to prevent the great Satanic reset.
So, what exactly is this consecration all about? The errors of Fatima in 1917 were spiritual and doctrinal. So maybe it is the west and the USA that should be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. What this pope is doing is pitting Our Lady of the Catholic Church against Russia as though she was asked to assist the now anti-Catholic NATO and UN propaganda. Moreover, when nothing happens but more deaths of Ukrainian and Russian people , "Catholicism itself could become the laughing stock of the anti-Catholic west."
Maybe this is why they are doing it? ::)
-
The consecration of Russia, asked at Fatima in 1917, was to stop atheism from spreading to other nations. That consecration never happened then and Russia spread its atheism.
See, I hold that there's a little more to it than Russia spreading materialistic atheism. I believe that it was Russian agents in the 1958 conclave who displaced the legitimately-elected Gregory XVII (Siri) and installed Komrad (Nikita) Roncalli. Montini was also a Communist agent, ratting out Catholic clerics behind the Iron Curtain. Wojtyla was a "Pax" priest, a Communist co-operator, who was freely travelling the world while truly Catholic prelates were under house arrest or being tortured. Wojtyla was only made a bishop because he was the ONLY one who wasn't vetoed by the head Communist official in Poland. He was way down the list of those proposed by the Church in Poland, but the Commie official insisted that he would "only accept Wojtyla". Bergoglio is an open Communist and nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr operative. Ratzinger I'm not sure about other than that he was an extreme Modernist and was somehow associated with nαzιs. Luciani I don't know much about either, but there are rumblings that he too was a Commie.
THESE are the "errors of Russia".
That's why Sister Lucia said that the Third Secret "would become much clearer" in 1960, and Cardinal Ciappi, who read it, famously stated "In the Third Secret, it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." Hmmm. What's "the top" of the Church? Padre Pio said that Masonry had made it to the "loafers of the pope," i.e. that Montini was a Mason (and Communist).
Wake up and smell the coffee, RomanTheo ... these people have bene Communist Masonic agents the entire time delibrately destroying the Church. Vatican II has Masonic fingerprints all over it, "liberte, egalite, fraternite". Roncalli's first papal docuмent referred to a "mysterious force" rising, and mysterious force is the old name for Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (just Google it). His election was hailed by all the Commie and Masonic periodicals. Roncalli knew he would be elected before the conclave. Roncalli fraternized with Communists and had a Mason install the red cap on his head when he was made Cardinal. Montini, apart form ratting out the Iron Curtain clerics, also was regularly seen in public wearing the "ephod of Caiaphas" (a Masonic symbol), and his mother's grave has Masonic symbols all over it. Just look at the Demonic decoration of the "Paul VI audience hall" and the self-portrai favored by Montini that had Luciferian symbolism all over it. I've already gone into Wojtyla, and Bergoglio is an obvious Communist.
That is why the Conciliar Church lacks the marks fo the True Church, because it's not. It's an imposter created by the Masons to eclipse the true Catholic Church and lead countless souls to hell. It couldn't have done more damage if they had tried ... and that's precisely BECAUSE that's exactly what they were doing, TRYing to destroy the Church.
-
See, I hold that there's a little more to it than Russia spreading materialistic atheism. I believe that it was Russian agents in the 1958 conclave who displaced the legitimately-elected Gregory XVII (Siri) and installed Komrad (Nikita) Roncalli. Montini was also a Communist agent, ratting out Catholic clerics behind the Iron Curtain. Wojtyla was a "Pax" priest, a Communist co-operator, who was freely travelling the world while truly Catholic prelates were under house arrest or being tortured. Wojtyla was only made a bishop because he was the ONLY one who wasn't vetoed by the head Communist official in Poland. He was way down the list of those proposed by the Church in Poland, but the Commie official insisted that he would "only accept Wojtyla". Bergoglio is an open Communist and nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr operative. Ratzinger I'm not sure about other than that he was an extreme Modernist and was somehow associated with nαzιs. Luciani I don't know much about either, but there are rumblings that he too was a Commie.
THESE are the "errors of Russia".
That's why Sister Lucia said that the Third Secret "would become much clearer" in 1960, and Cardinal Ciappi, who read it, famously stated "In the Third Secret, it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." Hmmm. What's "the top" of the Church? Padre Pio said that Masonry had made it to the "loafers of the pope," i.e. that Montini was a Mason (and Communist).
Wake up and smell the coffee, RomanTheo ... these people have bene Communist Masonic agents the entire time delibrately destroying the Church. Vatican II has Masonic fingerprints all over it, "liberte, egalite, fraternite". Roncalli's first papal docuмent referred to a "mysterious force" rising, and mysterious force is the old name for Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (just Google it). His election was hailed by all the Commie and Masonic periodicals. Roncalli knew he would be elected before the conclave. Roncalli fraternized with Communists and had a Mason install the red cap on his head when he was made Cardinal. Montini, apart form ratting out the Iron Curtain clerics, also was regularly seen in public wearing the "ephod of Caiaphas" (a Masonic symbol), and his mother's grave has Masonic symbols all over it. Just look at the Demonic decoration of the "Paul VI audience hall" and the self-portrai favored by Montini that had Luciferian symbolism all over it. I've already gone into Wojtyla, and Bergoglio is an obvious Communist.
That is why the Conciliar Church lacks the marks fo the True Church, because it's not. It's an imposter created by the Masons to eclipse the true Catholic Church and lead countless souls to hell. It couldn't have done more damage if they had tried ... and that's precisely BECAUSE that's exactly what they were doing, TRYing to destroy the Church.
There are so many dots here that even Stevie Wonder can see what's going on.
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/54193402.jpg)
-
Good post Ladislaus. What we need is Rome to be consecrated to the Immaculate heart of Mary.
-
Good post Ladislaus. What we need is Rome to be consecrated to the Immaculate heart of Mary.
I believe it would suffice to consecrate Russia as Our Lady requested, and she would then miraculously undo the damage that had been done to the Church by the Communist through their papal usurpers. IF Bergoglio were the Pope or even if his material occupation of office were to suffice in performing the consecration, the very first effect would IMO be his immediate demise.
She wanted the consecration performed before 1960, before the damage would start, but alas Pius XI and Pius XII refused to do it.
I'm actually really looking forward to the consecration to see how God responds to it. Perhaps He strikes Berogoglio dead before attempting to simulate the consecration or else strikes Him down immediately afterward as a sign of His displeasure. Or perhaps nothing happens. Or perhaps it's coordinated by Bergoglio with his Globalist brethren that Russia will suddenly withdraw to fool people into believing it had worked. I only know one thing, that with Vatican II it's obvious that "an enemy hath done this".
-
Maybe +Francis knows he's dying (I mean, he's in bad shape, for sure) and he's trying to repent. Deo Gratias if true!
There have been reports that Francis had 12 inches of his colon removed in that abdominal operation. He also has had a lot of trouble walking recently. He'll be 86 years old in December.
The Four Last Things come to the forefront of a person's awareness in these circuмstances, one would hope. Very few of us are dismissive of our coming judgment, very few.
-
I believe it would suffice to consecrate Russia as Our Lady requested, and she would then miraculously undo the damage that had been done to the Church by the Communist through their papal usurpers. IF Bergoglio were the Pope or even if his material occupation of office were to suffice in performing the consecration, the very first effect would IMO be his immediate demise.
She wanted the consecration performed before 1960, before the damage would start, but alas Pius XI and Pius XII refused to do it.
I'm actually really looking forward to the consecration to see how God responds to it. Perhaps He strikes Berogoglio dead before attempting to simulate the consecration or else strikes Him down immediately afterward as a sign of His displeasure. Or perhaps nothing happens. Or perhaps it's coordinated by Bergoglio with his Globalist brethren that Russia will suddenly withdraw to fool people into believing it had worked. I only know one thing, that with Vatican II it's obvious that "an enemy hath done this".
Yes, it has to be Russia that gets consecrated in order to comply to the request told to us by Sister Lucia. I too look forward to such a consecration just to see if anything out of the normal happens. Indeed it really will put Fatima and even Catholicism to the test. If somethine divine happens, it will confirm God exists and can change the world. If nothing happens, get ready for an assault on Catholic belief and the excuses that will be offered as a reason why nothing divine happened.
-
We all know that Bergoglio's intention is that Globohomo would prevail and that the world would be made safe for LGBTQ and for the West to spread degeneracy and sodomy freely throghout the world, and that they can continue to force the immoral abortion-stained jab on all the "freed" people of the world. He'll also ask Our Lady to suppress once and for all the Tridentine Mass and dispel those evil Traditionalists.
Undoubtedly, if he consecrates and nothing happens, he'll shake his fist at God and exclaim "it was all a pack of lies" (as he blasphemously claims Our Lady may have done).
(http://www.scarrablog.com.au/resources/uploads/2018/06/Francis-1-The-Angry.jpg)
-
I do not know if anyone posted this, I have not read anything on this thread but here it is:
From - Pope's Consecration, Ukraine & Good Excommunication (traditioninaction.org) (https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B999_M386-Pop.html)
Here are the actual words of the Vatican newspaper:
"Friday March 25, during the Celebration of Penance that he will preside over at 5:00 pm in St. Peter's Basilica, Pope Francis will consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The same act, on the same day, will be made in Fatima by Cardinal Konrad Krajewski, the Papal Almoner, as a representative of the Pope."
This was declared yesterday afternoon by the Director of the Holy See Press Office Matteo Bruni.
Therefore, sadly there is no basis in reality to imagine that this Consecration of Russia will fulfill the requirements of Our Lady.
Certainly, it will be a Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary; however, it will not be made in union with all the Bishops of the world in their own Dioceses.
It will be one more pious act made by a Pope, the latest addition to the many other consecrations that also did not fulfill those requirements.
To wit, the various previous consecrations, as reported by the same news of L'Osservatore Romano, were the following:
- Pius XII - October 31, 1942;
- Pius XII - July 7, 1952;
- Paul VI - November 21, 1964, during the Second Vatican Council in the presence of the Bishops of the entire world;
- John Paul II - June 7, 1981;
- John Paul II - May 13, 1982;
- John Paul II - March 25, 1984.
Unfortunately, unless a miracle occurs, the announced Consecration by Pope Francis will not be the one all of us long and pray for.
-
I've been unable to substantiate the rumor that Fr. Gruner predicted Benedict XVI's successor would perform a valid consecration according to all Our Lady of Fatima's requests.
Who knows of Francis I is even Benedict XVI's successor…
-
I've been unable to substantiate the rumor that Fr. Gruner predicted Benedict XVI's successor would perform a valid consecration according to all Our Lady of Fatima's requests.
Who knows of Francis I is even Benedict XVI's successor…
It wasn't Father Gruner per se, but some alleged stigmatist, Antonio Ruffini.
"No, it’s not John Paul. It will not be his immediate successor either, but the one after that. He is the one who will consecrate Russia.”
Father Kramer seems to have reported this by word of mouth. Of course, around the same time, the Fatima Crusader had also predicted that World War III would begin in 2008 (based on word from a German priest who was allegedly a "mystic" of some kind).
Father Kramer, of course, would say, that Berogoglio is not the successor of Benedict XVI ... since he's a Bennyvacantist.
-
https://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping1474.html
Father Kramer some years ago wrote these comments with regard to Antonio Ruffini: “I myself knew Ruffini for many years. In the early 1990s Ruffini was asked point blank in his home: “Is John Paul II the Pope who is going to do the Consecration of Russia ?” He answered: “No, it’s not John Paul. It will not be his immediate successor either, but the one after that. He is the one who will consecrate Russia."
So it sounds like he didn't hear it, but this was told to him by someone else. Good luck tracking down the source.
-
Interestingly, by the time Our Lady came to request the consecration of Russian in 1929, there was no Russia as a country. USSR was established in 1922. So that was probably a hint that the consecration wouldn't actually take place until "Russia" was a country again.
-
Interestingly, by the time Our Lady came to request the consecration of Russian in 1929, there was no Russia as a country. USSR was established in 1922. So that was probably a hint that the consecration wouldn't actually take place until "Russia" was a country again.
Hmmm. Interesting. In fact, the USSR came to be in November, 1917 [Edit: I'm finding different info on the date...1917, 1921, 1922].
Could this be why the pre-Vatican II popes did not do the consecration by naming the country of "Russia"? Maybe that's why they held off?
-
I've been unable to substantiate the rumor that Fr. Gruner predicted Benedict XVI's successor would perform a valid consecration according to all Our Lady of Fatima's requests.
Who knows of Francis I is even Benedict XVI's successor…
Fr. Guner speaks at 1:15 in. https://rumble.com/vxsoqs-did-fatima-priest-fr.-gruner-predict-francis-consecration-of-russia.html (https://rumble.com/vxsoqs-did-fatima-priest-fr.-gruner-predict-francis-consecration-of-russia.html)
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/did-fatima-priest-fr-gruner-predict-francis-consecration-of-russia/ (https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/did-fatima-priest-fr-gruner-predict-francis-consecration-of-russia/)
-
Hmmm. Interesting. In fact, the USSR came to be in November, 1917 [Edit: I'm finding different info on the date...1917, 1921, 1922].
Could this be why the pre-Vatican II popes did not do the consecration by naming the country of "Russia"? Maybe that's why they held off?
Might explain why Pius XII said "peoples of Russia", as it didn't exist as a nation at that time.
And if this is the case, then it would also explain why Our Lady said it would be done "late" because Russia did not exist as a nation until after 1991, and perhaps won't completely exist until the Ukraine is obtained.
But, this seems like splitting hairs and Bergoglio most likely isn't formally the Pope.
-
The consecration of Russia, asked at Fatima in 1917, was to stop atheism from spreading to other nations. That consecration never happened then and Russia spread its atheism. ... So, what exactly is this consecration all about?
The Consecration would have prevented Russia from spreading its errors had it been accomplished when requested, and it may well prevent a nuclear war and the annihilation of Nations if it is done next week, but the conversion of Russia and the period of peace will follow whenever it takes place. In 1931, Christ said the consecration would happen until after Russia had spread her errors:
“They did not wish to heed My request. Like the king of France, they will repent and do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecutions of the Church; the Holy Father will have much to suffer.”»
Commenting on the words, "In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The holy father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted and a certain period of peace will be granted to the world," Frere Michele wrote: "Just as He is faithful, God is inflexible in His commands. He does not change His designs to cater to the capriciousness of men. No, He will not change His plan. He absolutely wills the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as a preliminary condition for its miraculous conversion."
As far as what the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart will entail, Frere Michele wrote:
The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. 3:
THE MYSTERY OF THE THIRD SECRET
In effect we have good reasons to think that Our Lady of Fatima, appearing at the dawn of this century, at the very hour when the first Beast of the Apocalypse was taking shape – a Beast which She came to designate and denounce by name – announced equally, in Her third Secret, the events corresponding to the third image of the triptych in chapters 12 and 13 of the Apocalypse.
If Sister Lucy could declare that the third Secret was in the Apocalypse, would it not correspond precisely to this passage concerning the apostasy of the pastors of the Church, placing themselves at the service of an impious political power – chapter 13, verses 11 to 18? The fact that the first two parts of the Secret correspond, in an astonishing manner, to the preceding verses strongly inclines us to think so.
As the Secret in its entirety describes the final combat of the forces of Evil against the Immaculate Virgin, we would find there the three satanic powers described by Saint John: in the first part, the devil himself and the vision of hell corresponding to the Dragon of the Apocalypse; in the second part, the hegemony of Russian communism corresponds to the first Beast; finally, in the third part, the apostasy and treason of many pastors of the Church correspond to the description of the false lamb, the false prophet in the service of the Beast.
Moreover, in perfect coherence with our previous demonstrations on the most probable contents of the third Secret, its conclusion, full of an invincible hope and announcing a decisive victory, confirms us in this hypothesis. After the revelation of the third Secret, the Blessed Virgin continues:
«In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a certain period of peace will be granted to the world.»
Such a triumph, announced so solemnly – and which, as we will see, is not without an evocation of the future Jerusalem, the Christendom of tomorrow, of Chapters 21 and 22 of the Apocalypse: “and I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of Heaven from God...” (Apoc. 21:2) – such a triumph of itself indicates above all the spiritual significance of the tragic battle preceding it. And its temporal expression – «in the end» – so heavy with implications, allows us to guess the furious struggle, no doubt even the reversals and seeming total defeat that will come before the final victory of the New Eve. Does not this triumph come to close a battle which was above all Her own, the one announced in the proto-Gospel? «She shall crush thy head.» Yes, it is She who will overcome the diabolical wave sweeping over the Church, the impiety installed even in the sanctuary, and all the obscure forces which foment apostasy. For clothed with the power of the Most High, She is more fearsome than an army in battle array: "Fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in battle array», according to the words of the Canticle of Canticles (Ct. 6:10).
In short, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary undoubtedly refers much more to the third Secret than even the second. For the recovery of peace will be a gift from Heaven, but it is not, properly speaking, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Her victory is of another order, supernatural, and then temporal by addition. It will first be the victory of the Faith, which will put an end to the time of apostasy and the great shortcomings of the Church’s pastors.
This will be the final triumph of the Woman of the Apocalypse, the Mother of the faithful and the Queen of Apostles, crowned with twelve stars,1196 Her decisive victory over the Prince of lies, instigator of all heresy, all schism, all impiety and apostasy: “Cunctas haereses tu sola interemisti in universo mundo!” You alone, O Mary Immaculate, Virgin Most Faithful and indestructible rampart of eternal Truth, have destroyed all heresies in the whole world.
250 years before the Fatima apparitions, Ven. Mary of Agreda wrote the following about the destruction "of all the heresies and sects" through the intercession of the Blessed Mother:
“I have been informed of a great mystery, which affords us consolation in this conflict of the holy Church against her wicked enemies. Namely, on account of this triumph of most holy Mary and on account of another, which She gained over the demons after the Ascension of our Lord, the Almighty, in reward of Her battles, decreed, that through Her intercession and virtue all the heresies and sects of the world against the holy Church were to be destroyed and extinguished. The time appointed for this blessing was not made known to me; probably, the fulfillment of this decree is dependent upon some tacit and unknown condition.”
The "tacit unknown condition" is the Consecration of Russia, as later revealed at Fatima.
In addition to the conversion of Russia and the era of peace, Christ revealed another purpose of the Consecration to Sr. Lucy. When she asked Him why Russia would not be converted without it, He replied: “Because I want My whole Church to recognize this consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so as to extend its cult and place devotion to this Immaculate Heart alongside the devotion to My Divine Heart.”
If Christ intends for the fruits of the Consecration to glorify his Mother and be recognized as the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart, how glorious should we expect these fruits to be? At Quito, the Blessed Mother described the victory as being accomplished "in a marvelous way:
“To test this faith and confidence of the just, there will be occasions in which everything will seem to be lost and paralyzed. … This night will be most horrible, for, humanly speaking, evil will seem to triumph. This, then, will mark the arrival of My hour, when I, in a marvelous way, will dethrone the proud and cursed Satan, trampling him under My feet and fettering him in the infernal abyss. Thus the Church and Country will be finally free of his cruel tyranny.” (Our Lady of Good Success).
Everything is falling into place for the Consecration and Triumph of the Immaculate Heart to begin next week, on Friday, March 25th, which corresponds to the day the first Adam was created and to the day the second Adam was Incarnated. It is also the day that Christ, by His Passion and death, redeemed mankind and restored the spiritual order. All that remains is the final defeat of Satan and the restoration of the corporeal and temporal order, brought about by the Passion of the Church (Col. 1:24) and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
-
Good point about the addition of Ukraine.
As you say, if there is a consecration and it works, I'd have to reassess my view of Jorge.
It's guaranteed to work.
Bergy is well connected... and this his miracle "show-time"!
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.tCbuoJkATrlrOwT7qVQntwHaD_%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
Project Blue Beam will generate some inexplicable apparitions and 90% of newChurch will believe it.
:facepalm:
-
That dude Bergowhat is like school in summer. No class. He can consecrate the neighborhood garbage and keep at it for a while till summer comes for all da 'hood 'round my block may care.
-
Father covered this from the pulpit today. He's cautiously optimistic about it himself, and made some good points about God using poor material for great things in regard to Francis.
I don't share this same optimism, but, the one thing I did agree with was to wait and see what fruits come from it.
-
From the Frere Michel quote posted by RomanTheo:
in the second part, the hegemony of Russian communism corresponds to the first Beast; finally, in the third part, the apostasy and treason of many pastors of the Church correspond to the description of the false lamb, the false prophet in the service of the Beast.
Hmmm. Russia is the Beast. And there will be a false prophet or prophets in service of the Beast? I wonder who those could be other than the Communist agents Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, and Bergoglio. Clearly these agents and infiltrators hijacked the Church and put it into service of the Beast, as we see that Bergoglio is in lockstep with the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Here Frere Michel is soft-pedalling and spinning "the false prophet in service of the Beast" into "many pastors of the Church". No, THE false prophet(s) are the V2 papal imposters. It's just like various neo-con Conciliar rags that attack every bishop and every priest but won't touch the one with whom the buck stops with all the apostasy, and who are spearheading the whole thing. I recall an article in "The Wanderer" attacking a bishop who participated in some Native American religious ceremony and then ignored it when Wojtyla did the same thing a few weeks later. It's a joke.
People like RomanTheo are in the service of the Beast by enabling and defending its false prophet.
Cardinal Ciappi read the Third Secret and said that it's about the Great Apostasy beginning "at the top". What happened here is absolutely clear and obvious. It's mind-boggling that Catholics who have the faith can't see through this. Our Blessed Mother basically came out and told us.
-
https://www.france24.com/en/20170906-hardline-colombia-catholics-shun-false-prophet-pope
-
Father covered this from the pulpit today. He's cautiously optimistic about it himself, and made some good points about God using poor material for great things in regard to Francis.
I don't share this same optimism, but, the one thing I did agree with was to wait and see what fruits come from it.
"Poor Material"? These guys constantly understate what's going on, spinning it as if these guys are just "defective" or "weak in faith". They're deliberately destroying the Church. They are infiltrators working on behalf of the Judae-Masonic-Communist World Order.
-
"Poor Material"? These guys constantly understate what's going on, spinning it as if these guys are just "defective" or "weak in faith". They're deliberately destroying the Church. They are infiltrators working on behalf of the Judae-Masonic-Communist World Order.
Yep. That was my impression too. I get what he was saying, as why I said they were "good points" but he has to convert to Catholicism first.
Unfortunately, Father thinks sedevacantism stems from making judgments about Francis's interior forum rather than his heretical actions. It's unfortunate he's taken such a position, otherwise he's a solid priest.
-
Wait for fruits? What fruits would that be? How long do you wait? How does an apostate consecration render fruits? If the Dalai Lama did the consecration would we expect "fruits" of any sort?
-
Yep. That was my impression too. I get what he was saying, as why I said they were "good points" but he has to convert to Catholicism first.
Unfortunately, Father thinks sedevacantism stems from making judgments about Francis's interior forum rather than his heretical actions. It's unfortunate he's taken such a position, otherwise he's a solid priest.
Matthew 24:24 again came to mind while Father was talking about this supposed consecration.
"For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect."
I have a bad feeling, given the reaction of the SSPX and Fatima Center, among others, that we are being set up for a deception here. I hope I am wrong, I want to be wrong, but the suddenness of this act especially in light of TC and the persecution of tradition, makes me think speculation about this being yet another step towards the NWO is correct.
-
Wait for fruits? What fruits would that be? How long do you wait? How does an apostate consecration render fruits? If the Dalai Lama did the consecration would we expect "fruits" of any sort?
The only "fruits" I can discern is Francis being shown for the false pope that he is or being struck down publicly. Otherwise, its another play of the same magnitude as SP under Ratzinger to snare traditionalists.
-
Unfortunately, Father thinks sedevacantism stems from making judgments about Francis's interior forum rather than his heretical actions.
Sedevacantism is only secondarily about the pope at all (whether interior dispositions or heretical actions). It's about what we believe about the Catholic Church.
R&R: Church is capable of teaching grave error, of leading souls to hell, and of promulgating a Rite of Mass (Church's publish worship) that undermines faith and offends God.
SV: Church can't do that.
THIS is what the SV vs. R&R conflict is about, and often it descends down into the weeds where people lose sight of the big picture.
Conservative Novus Ordo agree with SV, while liberal Novus Ordo agree with R&R on this MAJOR (of the entire crisis).
MAJOR: Catholic Church cannot do such evil (SVs + Conservative NO) - rejected by R&R and Liberal NO
MINOR: Conciliar Church did such evils. (SVs + R&R) -- rejected by Conservative NO + Liberal NO
CONCLUSION: Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church (SVs)
*Liberal NOs like the reforms, but might think, for example, that the Church did evil in the past
-
If there had not been a Vatican II and a NOM, I could hardly care less about Bergoglio's personal heresies (either internal or external). That would not be my problem, nor my job to deal with. It only became our problem as the Conciliar Church ruined our Catholic institutions with its errors.
-
Yes- It may as well be Klaus Schwab consecrating Russia (and Ukraine). It's pretty much the same thing.
-
Sedevacantism is only secondarily about the pope at all (whether interior dispositions or heretical actions). It's about what we believe about the Catholic Church.
R&R: Church is capable of teaching grave error, of leading souls to hell, and of promulgating a Rite of Mass (Church's publish worship) that undermines faith and offends God.
With a lot of hindsight, we can see how R&R validated and extended the newChurch revolution.
It is a brilliant construct.
The SSPX laid the ground rules for R&R, embracing the Bugnini/Montini 62’ Missal and labeling any lover of tradition a schismatic or sedvacantist who dared to disagree with them.
Francis keeps a statue of Judas Iscariot in his office.
It must be a reminder to the jew-pope that there will always be holy religious who will sell out for fortune & fame.
-
Sedevacantism is only secondarily about the pope at all (whether interior dispositions or heretical actions). It's about what we believe about the Catholic Church.
R&R: Church is capable of teaching grave error, of leading souls to hell, and of promulgating a Rite of Mass (Church's publish worship) that undermines faith and offends God.
SV: Church can't do that.
Interesting how sedes view this.
From R&R point of view:
R&R: The pope is capable of teaching grave error, of leading souls to hell, and of promulgating a Rite of Mass (Church's publish worship) that undermines faith and offends God.
SV: The pope can't do that.
People that are led to hell are always led of their own free will, not one of them are forced to follow anyone to hell - or to heaven for that matter. It is by Divine design that the direction we choose to take is ultimately the result of our own free will.
You may need to contemplate that for a bit, I don't know, but use yourself and even all trads as an example of this truth. You really should cease from exempting any blame at all on all the people who of their own free will choose to be led to hell - and I think that all of your syllogisms would be a lot more interesting if you remembered this, as well as remembering that the pope is not The Church, when making them.
Conservative Novus Ordo agree with SV, while liberal Novus Ordo agree with R&R on this MAJOR (of the entire crisis).
MAJOR: Catholic Church cannot do such evil (SVs + Conservative NO) - rejected by R&R and Liberal NO
MINOR: Conciliar Church did such evils. (SVs + R&R) -- rejected by Conservative NO + Liberal NO
CONCLUSION: Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church (SVs)
*Liberal NOs like the reforms, but might think, for example, that the Church did evil in the past
R&R:
MAJOR: Catholic Church cannot do such evil. (all)
MINOR: Conciliar Church can and do such evils. (R&R and SV)
CONCLUSION: Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. (R&R and SV)
All NOers (if they ever heard of it), reject the idea of a conciliar church that's not Catholic. For that matter, there are many R&R and SV who also reject the idea of a conciliar church that's not Catholic.
-
Francis keeps a statue of Judas Iscariot in his office.
And also a painting. Not sure if Bergoglio prays to Judas, for his intercession, or whether he just keeps that stuff around to thumb his nose at the Church's EENS dogma or the very possibility that anyone could be damned, ... or if he revels in Judas' evil deed of betraying Christ even as he betrays and destroys the Church (as a Luciferian). Only God truly knows what is in that man's mind and soul, but he's certainly not recognizable as a Catholic.
-
I am of the impression that Francis is doing this upcoming act primarily, if not solely, because a tremendous amount of publicity (at least in the Catholic media) was generated when the Ukrainian Bishops formally and publicly requested him to do it and to refuse to do it would be very bad press for him. He would be caught in a real bind trying to explain his way out of refusing in light of the fact that it was the Ukrainian bishops themselves who were beseeching him to do it. It would seem quite difficult for him to beg out of it.
Query as to why the Russian bishops did not join in with their fellow Ukrainian bishops! And still have not or if they have it has not been made public. Did they even know that their Ukrainian counterparts were going to make this request? It is just one more example of how incredibly disunited the Church is.
-
Catholic Encyclopedia
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm
St. John supposes in his Epistles that the early Christians are acquainted with the teaching concerning the coming of Antichrist. "You have heard that Antichrist cometh" (1 John 2:18); "This is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh" (1 John 4:3). Though the Apostle speaks of several Antichrists, he distinguishes between the many and the one principal agent: "Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists" (1 John 2:18). Again, the writer outlines the character and work of Antichrist: "They went out from us, but they were not of us" (1 John 2:19); "Who is a liar, but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denies the Father, and the Son" (1 John 2:22); "And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God; and this is Antichrist" (1 John 4:3); "For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an Antichrist" (2 John 7). Also the time, the Apostle places the coming of Antichrist at "the last hour" (1 John 2:18); again he maintains that "he is now already in the world" (1 John 4:3).
Taylor Marshall
What if "2 Popes" do a "Double Consecration" of Russia?
4min 12sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP4PtbQ2VXs
I'm so tired of the good pope vs bad pope false paradigm.
Both Benedict and Francis went to the Wailing Wall which is a public sign of denouncing of the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus (and prayer to the female Shekhinah?) and waiting for the coming of the Moshiach (Antichrist) and building of the third temple.
What's more is that both have made many statements showing they would be considered antichrists by St John the Apostle.
Benedict said Jєωs don't need to be converted.
St John would call him an antichrist.
-
Catholic Encyclopedia
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm
St. John supposes in his Epistles that the early Christians are acquainted with the teaching concerning the coming of Antichrist. "You have heard that Antichrist cometh" (1 John 2:18); "This is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh" (1 John 4:3). Though the Apostle speaks of several Antichrists, he distinguishes between the many and the one principal agent: "Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists" (1 John 2:18). Again, the writer outlines the character and work of Antichrist: "They went out from us, but they were not of us" (1 John 2:19); "Who is a liar, but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denies the Father, and the Son" (1 John 2:22); "And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God; and this is Antichrist" (1 John 4:3); "For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an Antichrist" (2 John 7). Also the time, the Apostle places the coming of Antichrist at "the last hour" (1 John 2:18); again he maintains that "he is now already in the world" (1 John 4:3).
Taylor Marshall
What if "2 Popes" do a "Double Consecration" of Russia?
4min 12sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP4PtbQ2VXs
I'm so tired of the good pope vs bad pope false paradigm.
Both Benedict and Francis went to the Wailing Wall which is a public sign of denouncing of the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus (and prayer to the female Shekhinah?) and waiting for the coming of the Moshiach (Antichrist) and building of the third temple.
What's more is that both have made many statements showing they would be considered antichrists by St John the Apostle.
Benedict said Jєωs don't need to be converted.
St John would call him an antichrist.
(https://i.imgur.com/dSLiDhF.png)
-
With a lot of hindsight, we can see how R&R validated and extended the newChurch revolution.
It is a brilliant construct.
The SSPX laid the ground rules for R&R, embracing the Bugnini/Montini 62’ Missal and labeling any lover of tradition a schismatic or sedvacantist who dared to disagree with them.
Francis keeps a statue of Judas Iscariot in his office.
It must be a reminder to the Jєω-pope that there will always be holy religious who will sell out for fortune & fame.
Pardon me, but... WTF???
-
I am of the impression that Francis is doing this upcoming act primarily, if not solely, because a tremendous amount of publicity (at least in the Catholic media) was generated when the Ukrainian Bishops formally and publicly requested him to do it and to refuse to do it would be very bad press for him. He would be caught in a real bind trying to explain his way out of refusing in light of the fact that it was the Ukrainian bishops themselves who were beseeching him to do it. It would seem quite difficult for him to beg out of it.
Query as to why the Russian bishops did not join in with their fellow Ukrainian bishops! And still have not or if they have it has not been made public. Did they even know that their Ukrainian counterparts were going to make this request? It is just one more example of how incredibly disunited the Church is.
Assuming that he is, indeed, the Pope of the Catholic Church, and assuming that the consecration is pursuant to Our Lady's request and ends up being efficacious, I really don't care why he is doing it. If it takes the Ukrainian bishops shaming him into it, so be it, perhaps they are God's instrument to make it happen.
Let's see what happens, and how things look this time next week.
And here's something else that is going to happen on Friday. Going to be a busy day.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10634447/Biden-visit-Warsaw-Friday-meeting-Polish-President-Andrzej-Duda.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10634447/Biden-visit-Warsaw-Friday-meeting-Polish-President-Andrzej-Duda.html)
-
I am of the impression that Francis is doing this upcoming act primarily, if not solely, because a tremendous amount of publicity (at least in the Catholic media) was generated when the Ukrainian Bishops formally and publicly requested him to do it and to refuse to do it would be very bad press for him. He would be caught in a real bind trying to explain his way out of refusing in light of the fact that it was the Ukrainian bishops themselves who were beseeching him to do it. It would seem quite difficult for him to beg out of it.
Query as to why the Russian bishops did not join in with their fellow Ukrainian bishops! And still have not or if they have it has not been made public. Did they even know that their Ukrainian counterparts were going to make this request? It is just one more example of how incredibly disunited the Church is.
Because there's 3 bishops in a country of 150 million and 12 time zones. Russia has no Catholic presence, so it's entirely possible that they didn't know.
-
Catholic Encyclopedia
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm
St. John supposes in his Epistles that the early Christians are acquainted with the teaching concerning the coming of Antichrist. "You have heard that Antichrist cometh" (1 John 2:18); "This is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh" (1 John 4:3). Though the Apostle speaks of several Antichrists, he distinguishes between the many and the one principal agent: "Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists" (1 John 2:18). Again, the writer outlines the character and work of Antichrist: "They went out from us, but they were not of us" (1 John 2:19); "Who is a liar, but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denies the Father, and the Son" (1 John 2:22); "And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God; and this is Antichrist" (1 John 4:3); "For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an Antichrist" (2 John 7). Also the time, the Apostle places the coming of Antichrist at "the last hour" (1 John 2:18); again he maintains that "he is now already in the world" (1 John 4:3).
Taylor Marshall
What if "2 Popes" do a "Double Consecration" of Russia?
4min 12sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP4PtbQ2VXs
I'm so tired of the good pope vs bad pope false paradigm.
Both Benedict and Francis went to the Wailing Wall which is a public sign of denouncing of the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus (and prayer to the female Shekhinah?) and waiting for the coming of the Moshiach (Antichrist) and building of the third temple.
What's more is that both have made many statements showing they would be considered antichrists by St John the Apostle.
Benedict said Jєωs don't need to be converted.
St John would call him an antichrist.
Someone downvoted me without rebutting the evidence or argument.
It's really not my argument but the definition put forth by St John the Apostle.
What would St John say?
These are but a few examples. There are many more.
Is this not denying Jesus is the Christ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_the_Jєωs#:~:text=Pope%20Benedict%20XVI%20in%20his,%27%20at%20the%20proper%20time.%22
Pope Benedict XVI in his book Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week[4] (2011) has suggested that the church should not be targeting Jєωs for conversion efforts, since "Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time."[5]
Catholics Should Not Try To Convert Jєωs, Vatican Commission Says
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/10/459223058/catholics-should-not-try-to-convert-Jєωs-vatican-commission-says
Jєωs don't need to be redeemed
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2007-07-27-0707260165-story.html
https://novusordowatch.org/2018/09/controversy-after-benedict16-essay-judaism/
https://novusordowatch.org/2018/11/benedict16-no-mission-to-jews-just-dialogue/
How can someone who denies Christ consecrate anything to His Mother Mary?
-
The wailing wall is the perfect litmus test as to who is compromised, and who is not.
-
The wailing wall is the perfect litmus test as to who is compromised, and who is not.
Agreed. That almost seems like a Jєωιѕн ritual that’s the equivalent of dropping those grains of incense to the emperor ... only on the altar of Judaism. I’ve seen pictures of nearly every leader doing it.
-
Assuming that he is, indeed, the Pope of the Catholic Church, and assuming that the consecration is pursuant to Our Lady's request and ends up being efficacious, I really don't care why he is doing it. If it takes the Ukrainian bishops shaming him into it, so be it, perhaps they are God's instrument to make it happen.
Let's see what happens, and how things look this time next week.
And here's something else that is going to happen on Friday. Going to be a busy day.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10634447/Biden-visit-Warsaw-Friday-meeting-Polish-President-Andrzej-Duda.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10634447/Biden-visit-Warsaw-Friday-meeting-Polish-President-Andrzej-Duda.html)
I disagree. It depends on how it’s worded. If they make two separate consecrations, then there would be no issue. Otherwise, twisting what Our Lady asked for due to politics would be dubious at best.
Also, there should be mention of making reparation for blasphemies against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Nevertheless, Bergoglio is no pope but a chief blasphemer of Our Lady and thus far no indication that “all” the bishops of th world will comply.
This is from one who hopes he would meet all the other conditions ... since Our Lady’s response could involve purging the entire Modernist hierarchy ... even if he’s not the Pope ... including of Bergoglio himself, possibly bringing on the scenario of a (material pope ... aka “dressed in white [who] seemed to be the pope]” fleeing over the dead bodies of Cardinals.
-
Sedevacantism is only secondarily about the pope at all (whether interior dispositions or heretical actions). It's about what we believe about the Catholic Church.
R&R: Church is capable of teaching grave error, of leading souls to hell, and of promulgating a Rite of Mass (Church's publish worship) that undermines faith and offends God.
SV: Church can't do that.
THIS is what the SV vs. R&R conflict is about, and often it descends down into the weeds where people lose sight of the big picture.
Conservative Novus Ordo agree with SV, while liberal Novus Ordo agree with R&R on this MAJOR (of the entire crisis).
MAJOR: Catholic Church cannot do such evil (SVs + Conservative NO) - rejected by R&R and Liberal NO
MINOR: Conciliar Church did such evils. (SVs + R&R) -- rejected by Conservative NO + Liberal NO
CONCLUSION: Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church (SVs)
*Liberal NOs like the reforms, but might think, for example, that the Church did evil in the past
I grant that SV's think this is the logical conclusion of R and R but I'm not sure its what R and R usually/always says.
I guess the difference seems to be that in the R and R scheme its possible for a pope to take non infallible magisterial action WITHOUT that action representing the Church. Along with this sometimes would come the whole notion that the same Pope is the head of two different societies, the Catholic and the Conciliar, with all the non infallible heresy only being directed at the former.
I'm not saying it isn't a stretch, just trying to be fair to it.
You need more premises to make your point. I think the argument might look something like
1: If a true Pope, even in a non infallible capacity, attempts to bind Catholics to a heretical teaching, this destroys the indefectibility of the Catholic Church
2: The Catholic Church is Indefectible
3: The Conciliar Popes have, at least in a non infallible capacity, attempted to bind Catholics to a heretical teaching.
4: The Conciliar Popes cannot be true popes
So I think you argue as if R and R denies 2, but I think what they actually deny is 1, which you think logically leads to 2 (which might be true, but isn't the same as denying 2.)
-
Interesting, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Died: March 25, 1991, Martigny, Switzerland.
-
I guess the difference seems to be that in the R and R scheme its possible for a pope to take non infallible magisterial action WITHOUT that action representing the Church.
That's why I prescinded from making the argument about "the Pope" and the precise limits of infallibility. You have to look at the bigger picture about what the Conciliar Church has become in its official teaching and its official public worship. It's more about indefectibility of the Church, the notes and marks of the True Church, rather than quibbling about the precise limits of infallibility regarding a specific act.
If it were just a question of one or two problematic statements in Vatican II and there had been no New Mass, there would be no Traditional movement at all. This is primarily about the New Mass. Very few Catholics become Traditional Catholics after reading the docuмents of Vatican II. They become Traditional Catholics after they see what's going on with the Novus Ordo Mass and see the Modernist theology being taught far and wide by the Conciliar Church.
That is in fact the one place where private judgment does come into play, in recognizing (or not recognizing) that the institution (as a whole) called the Conciliar Church has the marks and notes of the one True Church of Christ. Archbishop Lefebvre clearly and repeatedly stated that it does not. He then prescinded from dealind with the papacy, deferring to official judgment of the Church. He clearly articulated the principle that the Papacy is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit and cannot falter like this, but then says that he cannot make a solid conclusion about how this happened. He entertains a number of possible explanations. Was the pope drugged? Was the pope being controlled? Was the pope replaced by a double? [He didn't ask: was the Pope blackmailed?] He dismisses these as absurd. Then he asks whether the See could be vacant? And he concludes that it's quite possible, but defers to the judgment of the Church to eventually draw that conclusion.
Archbishop Lefebvre did not subscribe to Modern dogmatic R&R, which holds that indeed it's possible for the Papacy to go corrupt to this degree. He always rejected that. His was more a "sede-doubtist" type of position, where he felt he did not have the authority to decide the question and simply left it there. This was also echoed by the then-Superior-General Father Schmidberger, who held the "benefit of the doubt" position [melior est conditio possidentis]. Modern dogmatic R&R (such as held here by Stubborn) falsely claims to be supported by Archbishop Lefebvre, whereas nothing could be farther from the truth. Either you believe that the Papacy is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit or you don't.
-
Normally, the legitimacy of a Pope is held to be dogmatic fact, i.e. known with the certainty of faith. But Archbishop Lefebvre regulalry questioned it. It's not possible to question or doubt a matter of dogma. He clearly did not believe that the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants was dogmatic fact.
-
Interesting, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Died: March 25, 1991, Martigny, Switzerland.
That is interesting.
-
It appears to confirm what we already suspected:
That there are real Catholics still in the Ukraine and in Russia there are not…
-
It appears to confirm what we already suspected:
That there are real Catholics still in the Ukraine and in Russia there are not…
What appears to confirm this? I don't follow.
-
And how many bishops would have to participate before it could be qualifed as "all" the bishops? 51%? 100%? Our Lady used the term "all" very deliberately. She could have just said "in union with the bishops of the world," and in that case I think that an "invitation" to the world's bishops might qualify. But that's a huge stretch for "all".
She didn't ask for Ukraine to be consecrated. Nor did she ask for "humanity, especially Russia and Ukraine" to be consecrated.
I await with bated breath the Beroglian consecration formula. I would be shocked if the phrase "Immaculate Heart of Mary" as such appears anywhere in the formula. That type of terminology is offensive to the Modernists. There might be some reference to Our Lady's "heart" somewhere, something about her compassionate heart. But I wonder if the word "immaculate' will appear anywhere. Again, not a term favored by Berogoglio as he regularly has smeared Our Lady as "after all ... human" (therefore capable of accusing God of lying to here).
-
Mentioning Ukraine is to limit (and mischaracterize) the scope of the consecration also. He is consecrating Russia top stop the invasion of Ukraine, and not to stop the "errors" that will spread around "the [entire] world". Nor does it have anything to do with reparation for the blasphemies (including Bergoglio's) against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
-
If anyone finds the consecration prayer, please post it. Thx.
-
If anyone finds the consecration prayer, please post it. Thx.
AFAIK, it hasn't been released yet. I've been keeping an eye out for it.
-
Interesting, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Died: March 25, 1991, Martigny, Switzerland.
There is an ancient tradition in the Church's history that held that our Lord died on the same day He was conceived -- March 25th!
-
There is an ancient tradition in the Church's history that held that our Lord died on the same day He was conceived -- March 25th!
I've seen some historical studies which pretty solidly conclude that Our Lord rose from the dead on April 5, although not sure if that would be Julian or Gregorian calendar, so that Good Friday would have been April 3. Interestingly of my 6 children, 3 of them were born in that timeframe: April 2, April 4, and April 5. First week of April is always rough for us (I call it "birthday week"). It's quite possible that that would have been March 25 on the other calendar.
-
I think it was Bl Anne Catherine Emmerich who said that March 25 is the holiest day of the year:
1. Day that Adam was created
2. Feast of the Annunciation
3. Good Friday
Quite a lot of symbolism there, if true.
-
This may have you in hysterics as you listen to how jumbled up, erroneous and even inconsistent date wise they are in their presentation about Fatima! https://www.trunews.com/stream/petro-dollar-fatima-saudis-to-sell-oil-in-yuan-pope-to-consecrate-russia-to-virgin-mary (https://www.trunews.com/stream/petro-dollar-fatima-saudis-to-sell-oil-in-yuan-pope-to-consecrate-russia-to-virgin-mary)
-
A valid consecration to the Immaculata this will not be, as Bergoglio is not the Pope. Certainly, it will consecrate the world to demons and the Kabbalah, but not the sacred Immaculate Heart of the Mother of Our Lord.
-
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-invites-all-to-join-in-solemn-act-of-consecration-of-humanity/ Francis won't consecrate Russia validly after all. I am not surprised
-
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-invites-all-to-join-in-solemn-act-of-consecration-of-humanity/ Francis won't consecrate Russia validly after all. I am not surprised
That settles it.
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/70f27a29e3dd9c49ccf2b442e6136c0f/tenor.gif?itemid=16805749)
-
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-invites-all-to-join-in-solemn-act-of-consecration-of-humanity/ Francis won't consecrate Russia validly after all. I am not surprised
And John Henry of LifeSiteNews will be interviewing John Salza regarding the whole fiasco: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pope-francis-courting-catastrophe-by-fudging-wording-on-fatima-consecration/ (https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pope-francis-courting-catastrophe-by-fudging-wording-on-fatima-consecration/)
-
That settles it.
I called that out minutes after it was released. Also, the intention is to obtain peace (end the current invasion of Ukraine). But Our Lady asked for it to be an act of reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for blasphemies. There's no reparatory intent here whatsoever. It's just a prayer of petition to bring peace. Completely worthless.
So the kind of peace Bergoglio wants is the freedom for Globohomo to spread perversion and sodomy throughout the world ... and to keep pushing and forcing the abortion-stained jab?
-
Sedevacantism is only secondarily about the pope at all (whether interior dispositions or heretical actions). It's about what we believe about the Catholic Church.
R&R: Church is capable of teaching grave error, of leading souls to hell, and of promulgating a Rite of Mass (Church's publish worship) that undermines faith and offends God.
SV: Church can't do that.
THIS is what the SV vs. R&R conflict is about, and often it descends down into the weeds where people lose sight of the big picture.
Conservative Novus Ordo agree with SV, while liberal Novus Ordo agree with R&R on this MAJOR (of the entire crisis).
MAJOR: Catholic Church cannot do such evil (SVs + Conservative NO) - rejected by R&R and Liberal NO
MINOR: Conciliar Church did such evils. (SVs + R&R) -- rejected by Conservative NO + Liberal NO
CONCLUSION: Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church (SVs)
*Liberal NOs like the reforms, but might think, for example, that the Church did evil in the past
Not so. R&R believes that the Church is holy, but have weak/evil/fallible men misusing their authority without infallibly binding the faithful. SV sees both the office and the person holding the person as infallible. This is similar to the Pharisees sitting on the chair of Moses.
-
I've been informed that even a Resistance bishop, Bp. Tomás de Aquino, is going to "consecrate" with Bergoglio. That's kinda funny, even more because Bp. Tomás de Aquino refused to sing Te Deum along members of the SSPX some time ago for occasion of Benedict XVI doing something. Ironic.
The NEO-SSPX is losing its mind over this. It is like they have died and gone to heaven. The groveling over an apostate and layman(Bergolio)consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart is just the ticket they need to get more Novus Ordos to come to their chapel. This will keep the coffers filled so that they can continue building monuments. Meanwhile, the actual Novus Ordo sect could care less about what Bergolio says. You can make this stuff up. The SSPX is on their hands and knees over his, while the NO is entirely indifferent.
All part of The Great Reset as re-setting narratives back to 2008-2014 is part of the goal. I hope Dom Tomás doesn't go through with the consecration.
-
Not so. R&R believes that the Church is holy, but have weak/evil/fallible men misusing their authority without infallibly binding the faithful. SV sees both the office and the person holding the person as infallible. This is similar to the Pharisees sitting on the chair of Moses.
No. No we do not. This shows you don't even understand the SV position. It is the fact that these heresies and errors have come through the universal ordinary magisterium, which is impeccable and infallible and protected by the Holy Ghost, that we conclude that these men cannot possibly be legitimate Popes. Not because they are capable of sin, error and abuses themselves.
The Syllabus of Errors:
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
R&R's follow this error^
The Pope is infallible on definitions of faith and morals, that's it. And this is due to his authority being bound up in the magisterium. He isn't impeccable, we've never argued that. Alexander VI, along with the other Borgia Popes abused the powers of the papal office but NEVER pronounced heresy through the universal ordinary magisterium like these post-conciliar popes have.
-
No. No we do not. This shows you don't even understand the SV position. It is the fact that these heresies and errors have come through the universal ordinary magisterium, which is impeccable and infallible and protected by the Holy Ghost, that we conclude that these men cannot possibly be legitimate Popes. Not because they are capable of sin, error and abuses themselves.
DL, what the pope teaches is not always the teachings of the Church's Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.
(1) When we say "Universal" we always mean since the time of the Apostles and for all time,
(2) When we say "Magisterium", we mean teachings of the Church that enjoy the full authority of the Church,
(3) When we say "Ordinary", we mean all teachings of the Church taught in the usual, day to day manner through the Church's hierarchy, priests, nuns, parents, teachers, and so on.
The Church's Universal Magisterium, which is indeed always infallible, is not the pope, or the pope and bishops, or a Council. The duty of the pope is to protect, preserve and promulgate the Church's teachings, i.e. the Church's Magisterium, but he is not divinely protected from not doing his duty or promulgating corrupted doctrines.
The Syllabus of Errors:
Quote
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
R&R's follow this error^
The Pope is infallible on definitions of faith and morals, that's it. And this is due to his authority being bound up in the magisterium. He isn't impeccable, we've never argued that. Alexander VI, along with the other Borgia Popes abused the powers of the papal office but NEVER pronounced heresy through the universal ordinary magisterium like these post-conciliar popes have.
No, it is altogether ridiculous to say R&R follow the condemned error. To be clear, the pope is infallible only when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, beyond that he can do exactly what the conciliar popes have done, and worse if he chooses to do so.
The error of the sedes is the idea that the infallibility that protects the Church in all that concerns faith or morals, also protects it from every and all error detrimental to the Church and Faith. This apparent irremediable error is one of the fundamental errors of sedeism.
-
(3) When we say "Ordinary", we mean all teachings of the Church taught in the usual, day to day manner through the Church's hierarchy, priests, nuns, parents, teachers, and so on.
Right, so that must mean the Novus Ordo missae is the legitimate form of the Mass, as are the Modernist teachings, Amoris Laetitia, Traditionis Custodes, et al because they are "taught in the usual, day to day manner through the Church's hierarchy, priests, nuns, parents, teachers, and so on." Therefore, you have no right to reject anything that these prelates teach and promulgate because they are the ordinary teachings of the Church and have been since the 60s. You may as well admit the Rat's the ordinary/extraordinary distinction.
No, it is altogether ridiculous to say R&R follow the condemned error. To be clear, the pope is infallible only when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, beyond that he can do exactly what the conciliar popes have done, and worse if he chooses to do so.
But the problem here isn't just that these "popes" have chosen to do erroneous and heretical things, but that these same teachings have become part of the ordinary practice of the spotless Bride of Christ (Ordinary Magisterium). In essence, saying that the Immaculate Bride can be a harlot and offer false teachings. It admits that She can be defective, which is heresy. That is the core of the problem here, not that the Pope can err in his theological opinions.
The error of the sedes is the idea that the infallibility that protects the Church in all that concerns faith or morals, also protects it from every and all error detrimental to the Church and Faith. This apparent irremediable error is one of the fundamental errors of sedeism.
She is protected insofar as she cannot allow error and heresy to be part of Her universal ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, which is what has happened. What you say about the Pope is true and isn't even debated by sedevacantists. The whole problem here is the indefectibility of the Church.
-
And now we've got this. "Eurocentric" --- oh my horrors! Funny thing, but according to my map, the war is in Europe.
Maybe all of us evil European-descended people will end up killing each other and allow it to become a "Wonderful World of Color".
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-invites-all-to-join-in-solemn-act-of-consecration-of-humanity/?utm_source=popular (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-invites-all-to-join-in-solemn-act-of-consecration-of-humanity/?utm_source=popular)
-
Right, so that must mean the Novus Ordo missae is the legitimate form of the Mass, as are the Modernist teachings, Amoris Laetitia, Traditionis Custodes, et al because they are "taught in the usual, day to day manner through the Church's hierarchy, priests, nuns, parents, teachers, and so on." Therefore, you have no right to reject anything that these prelates teach and promulgate because they are the ordinary teachings of the Church and have been since the 60s. You may as well admit the Rat's the ordinary/extraordinary distinction.
No. "Ordinary" simply means the usual manner in which *the Church's* teachings are taught and handed down, not the way the NO teachings are perpetrated upon the lethargic faithful. Because they are NO teachings, we not only have the right, we have the obligation to reject them.
But the problem here isn't just that these "popes" have chosen to do erroneous and heretical things, but that these same teachings have become part of the ordinary practice of the spotless Bride of Christ (Ordinary Magisterium). In essence, saying that the Immaculate Bride can be a harlot and offer false teachings. It admits that She can be defective, which is heresy. That is the core of the problem here, not that the Pope can err in his theological opinions.
Impossible. The Church's Magisterium is derived from the Deposit of Faith, therefore nothing new can ever be added, taken away, or in any way "become part of" it, which means NO teachings are not part of and will never be part of the Church's Magisterium. What the new teachings of the NO in fact admit, is that they are *not* part of the Church's Magisterium, therefore they can never blemish or ever hope to destroy the spotless bride of Christ.
She is protected insofar as she cannot allow error and heresy to be part of Her universal ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, which is what has happened. What you say about the Pope is true and isn't even debated by sedevacantists. The whole problem here is the indefectibility of the Church.
The indefectibility of the Church is foundational, that She will last until the end of time is dogma. Whomever doubts this, or in any way believes otherwise concerns themselves about it for absolutely nothing.
It is impossible, absolutely impossible for error and heresy to be part of the Church's Magisterium which is *always* infallible. When we see/hear the Conciliarites preaching heresy and all manner of error, it is ipso facto that we know that those things they are teaching, are not of the Church's Magisterium.
-
Right, so that must mean the Novus Ordo missae is the legitimate form of the Mass, as are the Modernist teachings, Amoris Laetitia, Traditionis Custodes, et al because they are "taught in the usual, day to day manner through the Church's hierarchy, priests, nuns, parents, teachers, and so on." Therefore, you have no right to reject anything that these prelates teach and promulgate because they are the ordinary teachings of the Church and have been since the 60s. You may as well admit the Rat's the ordinary/extraordinary distinction.
But the problem here isn't just that these "popes" have chosen to do erroneous and heretical things, but that these same teachings have become part of the ordinary practice of the spotless Bride of Christ (Ordinary Magisterium). In essence, saying that the Immaculate Bride can be a harlot and offer false teachings. It admits that She can be defective, which is heresy. That is the core of the problem here, not that the Pope can err in his theological opinions.
She is protected insofar as she cannot allow error and heresy to be part of Her universal ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, which is what has happened. What you say about the Pope is true and isn't even debated by sedevacantists. The whole problem here is the indefectibility of the Church.
What R&R's usually do not understand that the "universality" of the Magisterium is not in time, but in space. A moral unanimity among the Pope and the Bishops around the world. That's why Popes, theologians and even saints, like St. Augustine say "The Universal Church spread in the world". It's easy.
The Church cannot teach error in Ordinary Magisterium. Tuas Libenter of Pius IX is very clear about the authority of Ordinary Magisterium. Sapientiae Christianae and Satis Cognitum of Leo XIII too. Casti Conubii (yes, the encyclical about Marriage) of Pius XI. Humani Generis of Pius XII. They all teach that you must NOT dissent the Ordinary Magisterium. And there are even more docuмents and theologians talking about that, and I can spend the day quoting them. But that's sufficient.
Now let's get back into business, the so-called "Consecration" from Francis. :incense:
-
What R&R's usually do not understand that the "universality" of the Magisterium is not in time, but in space. A moral unanimity among the Pope and the Bishops around the world. That's why Popes, theologians and even saints, like St. Augustine say "The Universal Church spread in the world". It's easy.
The Church cannot teach error in Ordinary Magisterium. Tuas Libenter of Pius IX is very clear about the authority of Ordinary Magisterium. Sapientiae Christianae and Satis Cognitum of Leo XIII too. Casti Conubii (yes, the encyclical about Marriage) of Pius XI. Humani Generis of Pius XII. They all teach that you must NOT dissent the Ordinary Magisterium. And there are even more docuмents and theologians talking about that, and I can spend the day quoting them. But that's sufficient.
The sede mind fascinates me.
-
The sede mind fascinates me.
<3
-
The sede mind fascinates me.
Not as much as R&R ignorance frustrates me.
No. "Ordinary" simply means the usual manner in which *the Church's* teachings are taught and handed down, not the way the NO teachings are perpetrated upon the lethargic faithful. Because they are NO teachings, we not only have the right, we have the obligation to reject them.
Impossible. The Church's Magisterium is derived from the Deposit of Faith, therefore nothing new can ever be added, taken away, or in any way "become part of" it, which means NO teachings are not part of and will never be part of the Church's Magisterium. What the new teachings of the NO in fact admit, is that they are *not* part of the Church's Magisterium, therefore they can never blemish or ever hope to destroy the spotless bride of Christ.
The indefectibility of the Church is foundational, that She will last until the end of time is dogma. Whomever doubts this, or in any way believes otherwise concerns themselves about it for absolutely nothing.
It is impossible, absolutely impossible for error and heresy to be part of the Church's Magisterium which is *always* infallible. When we see/hear the Conciliarites preaching heresy and all manner of error, it is ipso facto that we know that those things they are teaching, are not of the Church's Magisterium.
What Church are you even talking about here? Because you're clearly talking about two different bodies. If the "pope" and his prelates are legitimate, then their teaching is legitimate and part of the ordinary teaching of the Church. But, you're making up your own definition of what does and does not constitute ordinary magisterium. To say that the post-conciliar teachings are illegitimate additions to the deposit of faith is to say that there is some other body here aside from the Church implementing these things, as these same post-conciliar teachings are coming right from the men you claim are undoubtedly popes.
Is this the mystical hydra that R&Rs have conjured up for themselves to cope with a "non-Catholic Pope"? The single-headed, two-bodied abomination?
The post-conciliar "Catholic Church" according to R&R:
(https://external-preview.redd.it/mqd41cpjjYUkxxIjsGla8wQIbvulWsTzDebA296DLfY.jpg?auto=webp&s=b3f244db8c2a8cde14569601bea5c2281a2ce120)
-
The Papal magisterium is the only office/authority guaranteed infallibility on its own.
Universal magisterium is only infallible when it agrees with what has been taught “everywhere, always and by all”. It’s another phrase for Tradition.
There is no magisterium nor infallibility without the pope’s involvement. He either 1) solemnly teaches something as infallible or 2) he non-solemnly teaches that x, y or z is “from Tradition” and therefore has always been held as of the Faith. He can do this alone or with all of the Bishops (ie at a council). But the council ONLY has authority because the Pope approves of it.
If you argue that 1) all the bishops of the world (not including the pope) or 2) all the bishops of some country can get together and this is a “Universal magisterial act” then you either fall into the errors of 1) V2’s collegiality or 2) Greek orthodoxy, which both deny the primacy of Peter. The pope’s authority is ALWAYS required for an infallible magisterial act.
-
Prayer of consecration.
O Mary, Mother of God and our Mother,
in this time of trial we turn to you.
As our Mother, you love us and know us:
no concern of our hearts is hidden from you.
Mother of mercy, how often we have experienced
your watchful care and your peaceful presence!
You never cease to guide us to Jesus, the Prince of Peace.
Yet we have strayed from that path of peace.
We have forgotten the lesson learned from the tragedies of the last century, the sacrifice of the millions who fell in two world wars.
We have disregarded the commitments we made as a community of nations. We have betrayed peoples’ dreams of peace and the hopes of the young.
We grew sick with greed,
we thought only of our own nations and their interests,
we grew indifferent and caught up in our selfish needs and concerns.
We chose to ignore God,
to be satisfied with our illusions, to grow arrogant and aggressive,
to suppress innocent lives and to stockpile weapons.
We stopped being our neighbor’s keepers and stewards of our common home. We have ravaged the garden of the earth with war
and by our sins we have broken the heart of our heavenly Father,
who desires us to be brothers and sisters.
We grew indifferent to everyone and everything except ourselves.
Now with shame we cry out:
Forgive us, Lord!
Holy Mother,
amid the misery of our sinfulness, amid our struggles and weaknesses,
amid the mystery of iniquity that is evil and war,
you remind us that God never abandons us,
but continues to look upon us with love,
ever ready to forgive us and raise us up to new life.
He has given you to us and made your Immaculate Heart a refuge for the Church and for all humanity.
By God’s gracious will, you are ever with us;
even in the most troubled moments of our history, you are there to guide us with tender love.
We now turn to you and knock at the door of your heart. We are your beloved children.
In every age you make yourself known to us,
calling us to conversion.
At this dark hour, help us and grant us your comfort.
Say to us once more: “Am I not here, I who am your Mother?”
You are able to untie the knots of our hearts and of our times.
In you we place our trust.
We are confident that, especially in moments of trial,
you will not be deaf to our supplication and will come to our aid.
That is what you did at Cana in Galilee,
when you interceded with Jesus and he worked the first of his signs.
To preserve the joy of the wedding feast, you said to him: “They have no wine.” Now, O Mother, repeat those words and that prayer,
for in our own day we have run out of the wine of hope,
joy has fled, fraternity has faded.
We have forgotten our humanity and squandered the gift of peace.
We opened our hearts to violence and destructiveness.
How greatly we need your maternal help!
Therefore, O Mother, hear our prayer.
Star of the Sea, do not let us be shipwrecked in the tempest of war.
Ark of the New Covenant, inspire projects and paths of reconciliation. Queen of Heaven, restore God’s peace to the world.
Eliminate hatred and the thirst for revenge, and teach us forgiveness.
Free us from war, protect our world from the menace of nuclear weapons. Queen of the Rosary, make us realize our need to pray and to love.
Queen of the Human Family, show people the path of fraternity.
Queen of Peace, obtain peace for our world.
O Mother, may your sorrowful plea stir our hardened hearts. May the tears you shed for us
make this valley parched by our hatred blossom anew. Amid the thunder of weapons,
may your prayer turn our thoughts to peace.
May your maternal touch soothe those who suffer
and flee from the rain of bombs.
May your motherly embrace
comfort those forced to leave their homes and their native land. May your Sorrowful Heart move us to compassion and inspire us to open our doors
and to care for our brothers and sisters who are injured and cast aside.
Holy Mother of God, as you stood beneath the cross,
Jesus, seeing the disciple at your side, said: “Behold your son.”
In this way he entrusted each of us to you.
To the disciple, and to each of us, he said: “Behold, your Mother.”
Mother Mary, we now desire to welcome you into our lives and our history. At this hour, a weary and distraught humanity
stands with you beneath the cross, needing to entrust itself to you
and, through you, to consecrate itself to Christ.
The people of Ukraine and Russia,
who venerate you with great love,
now turn to you,
even as your heart beats with compassion for them
and for all those peoples decimated by war, hunger, injustice and poverty.
Therefore, Mother of God and our Mother,
to your Immaculate Heart
we solemnly entrust and consecrate ourselves,
the Church and all humanity,
especially Russia and Ukraine.
Accept this act that we carry out with confidence and love. Grant that war may end and peace spread throughout the world. The “Fiat” that arose from your heart
opened the doors of history to the Prince of Peace.
We trust that, through your heart, peace will dawn once more. To you we consecrate the future of the whole human family,
the needs and expectations of every people,
the anxieties and hopes of the world.
Through your intercession,
may God’s mercy be poured out on the earth
and the gentle rhythm of peace return to mark our days.
Our Lady of the “Fiat”, on whom the Holy Spirit descended,
restore among us the harmony that comes from God.
May you, our “living fountain of hope”, water the dryness of our hearts. In your womb Jesus took flesh;
help us to foster the growth of communion.
You once trod the streets of our world;
lead us now on the paths of peace.
Amen.
-
Benedict is now to join in, according to Taylor Marshall.
-
Not as much as R&R ignorance frustrates me.
Then it must be the truth that frustrates you.
What Church are you even talking about here? Because you're clearly talking about two different bodies. If the "pope" and his prelates are legitimate, then their teaching is legitimate and part of the ordinary teaching of the Church.
There is the Universal or Catholic Church, and there is it's ape, the conciliar church. The pope and his prelates are legitimate, but their teachings, being NO, are not.
But, you're making up your own definition of what does and does not constitute ordinary magisterium. To say that the post-conciliar teachings are illegitimate additions to the deposit of faith is to say that there is some other body here aside from the Church implementing these things, as these same post-conciliar teachings are coming right from the men you claim are undoubtedly popes.
I never said they are illegitimate additions to the Deposit of Faith, in fact I said the exact opposite, I said there can be no additions:
"Impossible. The Church's Magisterium is derived from the Deposit of Faith, therefore nothing new can ever be added, taken away, or in any way "become part of" it, which means NO teachings are not part of and will never be part of the Church's Magisterium."
And I repeated that when I said:
It is by their errors that it is "ipso facto that we know that those things they are teaching, are not of the Church's Magisterium."
You misunderstand what the Church's Magisterium even is. You see the pope/hierarchy as the magisterium itself, whereas the Church's Magisterium are teachings from the Deposit of Faith taught to the Universal Church. The popes or councils or whomever is not the magisterium. To continue to think this way will keep you disbelieving the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.” ... “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.
There are many other similar teachings on the Church's Magisterium. A sede poster from the past who I really liked was banned used to post them, sadly all his posts were deleted as well, but they all said the same thing as above - the Magisterium is always infallible, referring to teachings of the Church, not the pope/hierarchy.
Unless you understand it this way, you are forced to accept that the Church has indeed defected, or as Lad likes to put it, "has gone off the rails", which of course is not only impossible, it is contrary to the above papal quotes as well as the dogma of the Church's indefectibility.
-
There are many other similar teachings on the Church's Magisterium. A sede poster from the past who I really liked was banned used to post them, sadly all his posts were deleted as well, but they all said the same thing as above - the Magisterium is always infallible, referring to teachings of the Church, not the pope/hierarchy.
Here you go, old friend...
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri
“… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium
The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”
Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe
“... only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church... from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine...”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas
“... the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos
“Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to any failing health or dimming of mind or other misfortune.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
“During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”
Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea
“… Christ our God, when He took for His Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 9
“…the Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”
Pope St. Siricius, epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem
“And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His apostle.”
The Magisterium of the Church is infallible....always and forever.
-
Here you go, old friend...
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri
“… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium
The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”
Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe
“... only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church... from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine...”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas
“... the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos
“Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to any failing health or dimming of mind or other misfortune.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
“During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”
Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea
“… Christ our God, when He took for His Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 9
“…the Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”
Pope St. Siricius, epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem
“And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His apostle.”
The Magisterium of the Church is infallible....always and forever.
Thank you! I purposely left off your name (if you're him) but either way thanks and I definitely hope you stick around for good!
These teachings are the ones I was talking about, these teachings show the Church teaches that the Church and the Church's magisterium simply cannot "go off the rails," not ever, not even with puny, insignificant errors.
-
The Church that Christ founded, will remain, BUT the church that man has changed, will dissolve.
-
I think it was Bl Anne Catherine Emmerich who said that March 25 is the holiest day of the year:
1. Day that Adam was created
2. Feast of the Annunciation
3. Good Friday
Quite a lot of symbolism there, if true.
Fascinating. March 25th was a day I became quite familiar with before I returned to the Faith, as being half-Greek, I knew that date first and foremost as Greek Independence Day.
Perhaps this is an additional tie between that date and the Consecration of Russia? Remember that it was the Greek Church that initiated the Great Schism, after all. The Russians followed the Greeks in schism, but if the Consecration was done rightly, we would see a holy reversal. Russia would return to the unity of the One True Church, and Greece would follow.
It sadly seems that, as the release of the apparent text of this year's consecration attempt shows us, it will be a failure. But perhaps the real thing will take place on this date in the future?
-
With all the debate about papal infallibility - surely no one is attaching this infallibility to the upcoming consecration of Russia? There is no Church teaching involved in this. Fatima was an apparition and the request was told to the world by one of the three children who heard this request. If nothing happens then it has no reflection on the Catholic Church or faith.
-
God has the power to bring peace to believers of “nations” who repent of their many mortal sins. God is in control. Not man. Not any man.
Nations are mentioned often. One global religion of self worship or one global government of non believers is of the devil. Our world will be destroyed thanks to Sodom and Gomorrah people, if they don’t stop worshipful themselves and pagan gods and goddesses.
-
With all the debate about papal infallibility - surely no one is attaching this infallibility to the upcoming consecration of Russia? There is no Church teaching involved in this. Fatima was an apparition and the request was told to the world by one of the three children who heard this request. If nothing happens then it has no reflection on the Catholic Church or faith.
I doubt it. Something like this would not be the object of infallibility. Now, if Bergoglio WERE TO perform the consecration correctly and nothing happened (or things got worse), that would be a very clear sign that he's no pope.
-
Bishop Schneider weighs in
https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-schneider-pope-francis-consecration-russia-ukraine/ (https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-schneider-pope-francis-consecration-russia-ukraine/)
-
if Bergoglio WERE TO perform the consecration correctly and nothing happened (or things got worse), that would be a very clear sign that he's no pope.
>and nothing happened (or things got worse)
my friend the era of peace will come out of the chastisement. it's going to get much, much worse. there's no changing the hearts and minds of billions of people. only through the tempest of fire famine and plague will hearts and minds change.
i expect ww3 regardless of the validity of the consecration; yet without the consecration Russia will not convert. either way you skin it, the world is about to get wrecked
-
Worth a listen again [1 hr 23 min]
https://youtu.be/iyCofO4quEc
-
my friend the era of peace will come out of the chastisement. it's going to get much, much worse. there's no changing the hearts and minds of billions of people. only through the tempest of fire famine and plague will hearts and minds change.
i expect ww3 regardless of the validity of the consecration; yet without the consecration Russia will not convert. either way you skin it, the world is about to get wrecked
Oh, I agree. I believe that it'll be at the height of the chastisement, when all appears lost, that the consecration will take place, and then the miracle of Our Lady's intercession will be so evident that the whole world will have to recognize her, and will convert to the Catholic Church.
-
Louie V has yet another article about the upcoming "consecration", this time dissecting it to show it's Modernist core.
https://akacatholic.com/official-march-25-text-unprayable-what-to-do/ (https://akacatholic.com/official-march-25-text-unprayable-what-to-do/)
The text of the so-called consecration prayer is loaded with Bergoglian-Globalist buzzwords and phrases. For example:
– We have disregarded the commitments we made as a community of nations.
– We have betrayed … the hopes of the young.
– We thought only of our own nations and their interests.
– We stopped being our neighbour’s keepers and stewards of our common home.
– Our heavenly Father, who desires us to be brothers and sisters. (Tutti Fratelli anyone?)
– In our own day … fraternity has faded.
Every one of these assertions would fit comfortably into the rhetoric of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. Surprising? Of course not.
There is no need whatsoever for Our Lady to inspire human projects (one thinks of Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset for example). The only project that can possibly reconcile God with man, and men with one another, has been given in the Divine Commission, and it is this alone that will initiate the reign of Christ the King, thus bringing peace to the world!
Indeed, the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as requested by Our Lady of Fatima will act as a catalyst toward Our Lord’s reign, but it is a mistake – an unfortunately common one, even among so-called traditionalists – to imagine that the consecration is something of a substitute for the mission given to the Church by the Risen Christ nearly two-thousand years ago. It is not.
Agreed.
And he offers a good counter to the Modernist insult to be offered to Our Lady:
It seems to me that it would be foolish and self-defeating for us to imagine that we are somehow honoring Our Lady of Fatima, or Catholic tradition more generally, by ignoring the momentousness of this occasion when millions of people around the world will be crying out at once to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces, for her maternal protection.
We should, therefore, join our voices to theirs, but in a way that uncompromisingly reflects the one true Faith, taking into account the bitter reality of our present situation.
-
Fr. Hesse mentioned this in his talk:
https://novusordowatch.org/fatima-true-third-secret/
If the Church Secret does indeed (and I'm certain that it does) discuss an evil/wicked Council, then that's proof that the V2 papal claimants were infiltrators. They read the Third Secret and deliberately suppressed it. That means that they are intentionally promoting the evils of the Council.
-
to imagine that the consecration is something of a substitute for the mission given to the Church by the Risen Christ nearly two-thousand years ago. It is not.
Sorry, but what is Verrecchio babbling about? NOBODY believes that it's a "substitute for the mission given to the Church". Nevertheless, it's obvious that the Church is in eclipse, and it'll take the intercession of Our Blessed Mother to bring it out of that eclipse. This has the same tone as the NO babbling where they diminish the role of Our Blessed Mother.
It seems to me that it would be foolish and self-defeating for us to imagine that we are somehow honoring Our Lady of Fatima, or Catholic tradition more generally, by ignoring the momentousness of this occasion when millions of people around the world will be crying out at once to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces, for her maternal protection.
We should, therefore, join our voices to theirs, but in a way that uncompromisingly reflects the one true Faith, taking into account the bitter reality of our present situation.
This is trash too. He just finished going through how this prayer is not Catholic, and so the intention of the entire day is not Catholic. As such, it's offensive to God and an insult to Our Lady. We should not associate with non-Catholic intentions. So in honor Our Lady we're going to join in a spirit of Ecuмenism here just because many people are "crying out at once" to the Blessed Virgin. They're crying out for the wrong thing and for the wrong reasons. That's like saying, "There's a worldwide day of prayer where the entire world will be crying out to Our Lady that everyone should get the jab." and claim that we sould participate. This is subjectivist sentimental tripe, surprising from the pen of Verrecchio. He's getting caught up in the Novus Ordo sentimentality about this day, which is actually cover for the fact that this is NOT what Our Blessed Mother asked for. To someone unite ourselves to this thing is to unite with Beroglio's non-Catholic intention. It's not about people "crying out". It's about WHAT they are crying out for.
I for one intend on that day to conscrate my family to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in reparation for the blasphemies to which she is subjected, including those from one Jorge Bergoglio. Over my family is the limit of my "authority". This will be an anti-Bergoglian consecration and will not be united to his Globalist prayer of petition for peace.
I'm very disappointed in Verrecchio. He's usually on target but he's floundered badly here.
-
I for one intend on that day to conscrate my family to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in reparation for the blasphemies to which she is subjected, including those from one Jorge Bergoglio. Over my family is the limit of my "authority". This will be an anti-Bergoglian consecration and will not be united to his Globalist prayer of petition for peace.
That's not at all what I got out of it. I'm pretty sure what you're planning on doing is exactly what he was calling Catholics to do. Not to join in with Bergoglio's intentions or New-church. You yourself are "joining your voice" to those with the Catholic Faith in petitioning Our Mother's intercession contra the "Bergoglian-Globalists"
Hence why he ends his article with:
That said, I would invite you to join me in including – with the Bergoglian-Globalists in mind – the following imprecatory prayer of the Psalmist, inspired by the Holy Ghost:
But as for me in the multitude of thy mercy, I will come into thy house; I will worship towards thy holy temple, in thy fear. Conduct me, O Lord, in thy justice: because of my enemies, direct my way in thy sight. For there is no truth in their mouth; their heart is vain. Their throat is an open sepulchre: they dealt deceitfully with their tongues: judge them, O God. Let them fall from their devices: according to the multitude of their wickedness cast them out: for they have provoked thee, O Lord. But let all them be glad that hope in thee: they shall rejoice for ever, and thou shalt dwell in them. And all they that love thy name shall glory in thee: For thou wilt bless the just. O Lord, thou hast crowned us, as with a shield of thy good will. (Psalms 5:8-13)
-
The Act of Consecration will be in the context of a Celebration of Penance (whatever that may be!) to be held at Saint Peter’s Basilica at 5:00 p.m. Rome time, 12 NOON EST/EDT. The Act itself will take place about 6:30 p.m. Rome time, 1:30 p.m EST/EDT.
-
Another possibility is that something that appears to be a great peace, a great miracle, does happen (by globalist/diabolical design) and many Catholics and non-Catholics are then deceived into following after either Bergoglio or his "successor."
-
That's not at all what I got out of it. I'm pretty sure what you're planning on doing is exactly what he was calling Catholics to do. Not to join in with Bergoglio's intentions or New-church. You yourself are "joining your voice" to those with the Catholic Faith in petitioning Our Mother's intercession contra the "Bergoglian-Globalists"
Hence why he ends his article with:
Yes, this is how I took Louie's comments as well. Any bishop that prays the anti-consecration in union with the apostate Bergoglio shows their true colors.
-
“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).
-
That's not at all what I got out of it. I'm pretty sure what you're planning on doing is exactly what he was calling Catholics to do. Not to join in with Bergoglio's intentions or New-church. You yourself are "joining your voice" to those with the Catholic Faith in petitioning Our Mother's intercession contra the "Bergoglian-Globalists"
No, I disagree. If that's what he meant, he expressed it very badly and that's not what his text says. We are not in any way joining our voices with this Anti-consecration, but in opposition to it. As Bergoglio and the world cry for the freedom of Barrabas, we cry out in OPPOSITION for the freedom of Jesus. All these voices are NOT crying out to Our Lady, but are crying out AGAINST HER, desiring a peace that brings with it the freedom to spread error and to keep Christ the King shackled and off His throne.
-
"Hope" here seems like a willingness to be deceived.
https://youtu.be/JqQ5X1VXNaI
-
I heard some time ago, before the war, it was Putin who asked for Russia to be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Is there any truth in this.
I am going to my Latin Mass tomorrow and I will pray, on the anaversary of his death, that Archbishoop Lefebvre is made a saint some day. My wouldn't that bring a lot back to the Tridentine Mass? I will also pray my late wife has met the Archbishop in Heaven. She read a book about him before she died in January and told me few know how blessed a priest he was. To meet him would be heaven to her.
-
https://youtu.be/vFdq07B1M5I
https://youtu.be/8ZI_r4tpVsA
-
I heard some time ago, before the war, it was Putin who asked for Russia to be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Is there any truth in this.
This was a story told by Father Kramer. Of course, Father Kramer has told quite a few such stories, including one where WWIII was supposed to start in 2008.
As of now, I can't find any other source for this.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2u2k9t
-
This was a story told by Father Kramer. Of course, Father Kramer has told quite a few such stories, including one where WWIII was supposed to start in 2008.
As of now, I can't find any other source for this.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2u2k9t
My that is a great video. Watch it everybody, it fits exactly into the La Salette prophesy, 'Rome shall become the seat of the anti-christ.'
-
FWIW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIEQ3XEhdB4&t
https://garabandalnews.org/2021/09/08/fr-gruners-letter-about-his-meeting-with-the-russians-online/
Fr. Gruner’s letter About his meeting with The Russians online ! Update (https://garabandalnews.org/2021/09/08/fr-gruners-letter-about-his-meeting-with-the-russians-online/)
By Aviso (https://garabandalnews.org/author/defatimaagarabandal/) 09/08/2021 (https://garabandalnews.org/2021/09/08/fr-gruners-letter-about-his-meeting-with-the-russians-online/)
09 July 2019
[color=var(--color-text)]Source : From one of Fr. Gruner’s Benefactors [/color]
I Happen to know one of Fr.Gruner’s benefactors who gave me a copy of a special report sent to him from Fr. Gruner which gives additional details of this aforementioned event at the Ambassy.
Considering Fr. Gruner’s recent passing away and the fact that the world is running out of time before the commencement of the Chastisements, I feel it is an opportune time and a benefit to those interested in the Fatima message to make known some of these details.
Here is a copy of part of the Letter :
March 05, 2014
Ash Wednesday
Dear [name omitted] :
The time has come to tell you things that I have had to keep secret until now. […]
Things have been happening behind the scenes. No sooner had I returned from Rome after our attempt to make the papally promised (but unfulfilled) October 13, 2013 consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart a consecration of Russia, then I had to go back to Rome. why ?
Our office in Rome received a phone call – from the Russian Embassy!
The Russian official let it be known, in that roundabout language that diplomats use, that the Russians wanted to meet with me! He said that if I were in Rome, the embassy would welcome a visit from me.
When I found out, I wondered what it could mean.
I knew that in a few weeks time, Vladimir Putin was to meet with Pope Francis in Rome. Could the call and the meeting be connected?
I wondered what should I do, [name omitted]?
I was tired from my recent travels and the demands that our campaign in Rome had made upon my energy. I am 71 and not quite as resilient as I once was.
The apostolate was also broke from our Rome campaign and all the costs of printing and distributing 200,000 copies of L’Osservatore Fatima and our other publicity. We had no money left for such travel.
I always want to be able to respond to the opportunities Our Lady offer us, but I also have to look at our bank account and measure what we want to do against what we are able to pay for.
So I did not act immediately. I also wondered how important such a meeting might be? Would the expense be justified and where would the money come from?
THEN, OUR OFFICE RECEIVED A SECOND UNUSUAL PHONE CALL – THIS TIME FROM A VATICAN CARDINAL!
Somehow, through diplomatic channels, he had learned the Russians had approached me. This Cardinal has shown his support for our apostolate in the past. I knew him as a trusted friend.
THE CARDINAL URGED ME TO MEET WITH THE RUSSIANS WITHOUT DELAY!
I have never refused an opportunity to serve our Lady and make her Message known and obeyed. And now, it appeared plainly, an opportunity was being placed before me. Of course I went!
It is a bit intimidating to meet with powerful people and not always easy to read their expressions and know what is in their minds. And diplomats have their own coded language that is not always easy to decipher.
Still [name omitted], I went, a priest whose only claim to fame is an apostolate that has struggled for almost 36 years to keep its financial head above water so that the Message of our Lady of Fatima can be know in its fullness – and obeyed!
I sat facing a high ranking representative of one of the most powerful nations on Earth – Russia, the nation specifically mentioned by our Lady of Fatima Prophecies – and I did what I have always done :
I repeated Her Message and Her Promises.
This was apparently why I had been asked to see them.
THE RUSSIAN EMBASSY WANTED TO KNOW-THE TRUE MESSAGE OF FATIMA!
You might wonder : The Russians were in Rome – The seat of governance for the worldwide Catholic Church, with several pontifical universities, numerous scholars, scores of priests, bishops and Cardinals.
They had many sources of information available to them; many highly placed Church officials they could have consulted. BUT-
THE RUSSIANS TRUSTED THE FATIMA CENTER TO TELL THEM THE TRUTH!
And it was obvious to our Vatican based Cardinal that they wanted to hear it from me before the Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Pope Francis on Nov. 25!
I told the Russians what our Lady told us, though the seers in 1917, and in later messages given through Sister Lucy. I told them that the Pope and bishops had been requested to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
THE RUSSIANS LISTENED.
I told them that if this were done, Our Lady promised that Russia would be converted and a period of peace granted to the world.
THE RUSSIANS LISTENED.
I told them of Our Apostolate, of our decades of work, of our attempt to have the Pope and bishops do as our Lady asked, and the long history of disobedience to Her requests. And I told them of the terrible consequences of continued disobedience.
THE RUSSIANS LISTENED.
Why, I wonder, will not the leaders of the Catholic Church listen? If only I could sit down with the Holy Father and speak to him as I spoke to the Russians!
IF ONLY THE VATICAN WOULD LISTEN!
What came of my interview with the Russian officials?
I cannot say for certain. Vladimir Putin did meet of Pope Francis on November 25, 2013. He brought an Icon of our Lady as a gift, which both he and the Holy Father kissed before their talk commenced.
So we know this much [name omitted]: the meeting began with an act of reverence toward Our Lady. Her grace, Her presence was invoked. Can Her grace ever fail?
And although we do not know all of what was said, we know that peace was the mean topic. And we know that the Russians President must have been briefed by the Embassy officials in Rome before the meeting. What did they tell him about Fatima?
Busy, important people do not waste their time on frivolous interviews. If the Russians went out of their way to arrange an interview with me, they must have had their reasons for choosing to speak with me rather than the Vatican Secretary of State’s office.
How did they know about me, about our apostolate and our office in Rome? Just weeks before, we had been in Rome campaigning for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. As part of that campaign:
We hired trotters – billboards on trucks – to travel about Rome calling for the consecration of Russia on Oct. 13, as our Lady of Fatima specified. Much of Rome saw the billboards along with 1000s of our posters.
We printed and distributed 200,000 copies of L’Osservatore Fatima throughout Rome – to businesses, homes, apartments, on the street, in St. Peter’s Square.
We published a four-page advertorial calling for the consecration of Russia in Il Tempo – a large daily newspaper in Rome that was doubtless seen by 100s of 1000s of people.
I was interviewed by Oggi, the most popular news magazine in Italy which published an article about our mission in Rome!
We worked our personal contacts in Rome! We spoke to clergy, to bishops, to media people, to everyone and anyone who was willing to listen!
WE MADE ROME FATIMA – CONSCIOUS!
But in the end, the consecration did not take place. In fact, I was detained by Vatican security and questioned when I came to St. Peter’s Square. No less than the head of Vatican security told me not to go near the Pope!
So we know the Vatican was aware of our Presence. How could they not be? And we know the anti-Fatima forces were still in positions of power in the Vatican. That may explain why the promised consecration became a weak act of “entrustment.”
Not only was Russia not mentioned. The world was not mentioned! The Pope’s plans had been derailed – by whom and for what reason, we do not yet know. But something went wrong!
[Name omitted], my disappointment was great. I’ll admit. I felt heartsick. Another opportunity lost! How much longer can we delay the consecration before the most unthinkable chastisements unfold, I asked myself?
And, of course, I had to deal with the tremendous expense of our campaign. We were deep in the red. Had it been worth it? What did we accomplish, I wondered?
Then, the Russians called!
The Russians had noticed our campaign. They were watching to see what the Vatican would do. And they thought it important to learn all they could about the truth of Fatima before the President of Russia met with the Vicar of Christ!
Now, the Kremlin is Fatima-conscious!
Vladimir Putin is Fatima-conscious!
Where will it all lead? Eventually, we know, it will lead to the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope and the bishops.
Eventually, it will lead to the conversion of Russia and world peace. Our Lady has promised. We have Heaven’s word!
What role we will have played in this great drama is not for me to say. I have no way of knowing precisely. But I know this –
WE MUST DO ALL WE CAN!
WHENEVER WE ARE CALLED UPON!
TO THE UTMOST OF OUR ABILITY!
If we had not gone to Rome to work for the Consecration on October13, 2013 I don’t think the Russians would have wanted to speak to me before Putin met with the Pope. Perhaps, this was the plan of Providence all along.
The old saying, “Man proposes, God disposes” is ever relevant. We campaigned for a consecration; we got a meeting with the Russian embassy. Nothing goes to waste in the economy of salvation. Nothing happens outside of the Divine plan.
What will come of the meeting with the Russians? Perhaps it has already produced its result and is working itself out at this moment. We must have faith and be patient. After all, we are God’s servants, not his counsellors.
I am telling you about this episode now so that you will know how important it is for the Fatima Center to be able to respond to unforeseen circuмstances and opportunities.
[I’m omitting several paragraphs here which consisted of Fr. Gruner explaining the necessity of generosity of benefactors for his apostolate and to humbly request further assistance for an emergency fund for events like the one he just described]
[Name omitted], are you with me? I need your Prayers and your alms. If you stand with me, and we stand with our Lady, there is nothing we cannot accomplish when called upon. Know that I always bless you and you are in my Prayers.
Yours in Jesus, Mary and Joseph,
Father Nicholas Gruner
-
I heard some time ago, before the war, it was Putin who asked for Russia to be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Is there any truth in this.
Fr Kramer's rumormill. He also said Putin was the great catholic monarch.
don't ask me how a (((supposed))) russian orthodox would be the great catholic monarch.
but as Ladislaus said, i looked for his posts on calling Putin the GCM back in 2014-15 a week or so ago and could not find any of them. he has cleaned up after that boondoggle
-
That's not at all what I got out of it. I'm pretty sure what you're planning on doing is exactly what he was calling Catholics to do. Not to join in with Bergoglio's intentions or New-church. You yourself are "joining your voice" to those with the Catholic Faith in petitioning Our Mother's intercession contra the "Bergoglian-Globalists"
Hence why he ends his article with:
I wonder if any of the Bishops of the SSPX, SSPX Resistance, SSPV and other trad Bishops will join Bergy tomorrow?
:popcorn:
-
I wonder if any of the Bishops of the SSPX, SSPX Resistance, SSPV and other trad Bishops will join Bergy tomorrow?
:popcorn:
Good question. I would include Vigano in there as well. He's been silent on the matter so far. Actually, I haven't heard anything from any of the trad bishops either. One would think they would publicly come out clearly against joining in on it. I haven't even seen a tweet about it. I'm annoyed at best that they have not.
I know Fr Jenkins has talked against the consecration a couple of weeks in a row on his What Catholics Believe program, but I have not heard anything from his bishops.
-
I know Fr Jenkins has talked against the consecration a couple of weeks in a row on his What Catholics Believe program, but I have not heard anything from his bishops.
Do you have links to those shows?
-
Do you have links to those shows?
https://www.wcbohio.com/
Unfortunately, I don't know exact timings for that part of the discussions.
-
https://www.wcbohio.com/
Unfortunately, I don't know exact timings for that part of the discussions.
Thank you. I always enjoy listening to Father Jenkins.
-
Good question. I would include Vigano in there as well. He's been silent on the matter so far. Actually, I haven't heard anything from any of the trad bishops either. One would think they would publicly come out clearly against joining in on it. I haven't even seen a tweet about it. I'm annoyed at best that they have not.
I know Fr Jenkins has talked against the consecration a couple of weeks in a row on his What Catholics Believe program, but I have not heard anything from his bishops.
Yeah +ABV, where is he on this?
A few weeks back, Atila Guimaraes published a letter he had sent +ABV asking him if he was a sede?
Atila cited derogatory comments +ABV had made in his writings on the modernist popes, and just asked him straight, are you a sede-vacantist?
+ABV never replied.
-
And then there is this...
ARE YOU ABOUT TO BE CONSECRATED TO SATAN?
MARCH 23, 2022 (https://www.fromrome.info/2022/03/23/are-you-about-to-be-consecrated-to-satan/) EDITOR (https://www.fromrome.info/author/juniper0873/) 23 COMMENTS (https://www.fromrome.info/2022/03/23/are-you-about-to-be-consecrated-to-satan/#comments)
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
No one should participate in a religious act by a public idolator (satanist), because by consenting to such an act of being consecrated, one can in fact consent to being consecrated to Satan or a Demon.
Thus, all those pushing to participate in and consent to the act of consecration by Bergoglio better wake up fast!
This is no alarmist exaggeration, because:
- Bergoglio has TWICE publicly adored the demon, Pachamama
- Bergoglio has TWICE publicly desecrated religious sites by such adoration (Garden of St Peter’s where the dust of St. Peter and co-Martyrs was buried, and Basilica of St. Peter)
- Bergoglio is a known Freemason, all of whom are sons of Satan.
- Bergoglio is a known wearer of masonic & satanic art
Hence, if you consent to participate in the act of consecration of humanity by Bergoglio on March 25, what is to prevent him during his act, of making a mental intention of consecrating humanity to Satan, or even say it quietly during the act?
Such an act would be an act of global desecration and would be perfectly consonant with the religious motivationns and goals of every Satanist.
Is this the real trap which explains why he first announced the consecration of Russia but then extended it to all humanity?
Do you really have any rational basis to trust this man for a religious act after 8 years of heresy and apostasy?
If not, then, just as you would not enter the car of someone who deliberately got into accidents and never repented of killing others or his passengers, so you should not participate in any way, not even by passive consent, to this act.
Nor can I see how morally participation in this act is not an act of being in communion with this anti-pope and public heretic. This act is formal communicatio in sacris, which is never permitted unless the ritual is Catholic and the person is publicly known to be in the state of grace, that, is not a schismatic nor has the public reputation of being an impenitent sinner.
The latter is certainly true: he is not penitent. The former is highly probably. Therefore, prudence requires that we conclude that participation in this act is morally a grave deviation from the good.
Therefore, everyone should explicitly refuse to participate and consent to this consecration on March 25, so long as it is in communion with this public sinner, as they are putting them selves, otherwise, in grave danger, the gravest of dangers.
-
Good question. I would include Vigano in there as well. He's been silent on the matter so far. Actually, I haven't heard anything from any of the trad bishops either. One would think they would publicly come out clearly against joining in on it. I haven't even seen a tweet about it. I'm annoyed at best that they have not.
I know Fr Jenkins has talked against the consecration a couple of weeks in a row on his What Catholics Believe program, but I have not heard anything from his bishops.
The videos above from Bp. Williamson Geremia posted show that he doesn't appear to be interested in participating either, as he calls it out for the charade that it is.
I would like to see another pseudo-encyclical from Abp. Vigano on the matter. Maybe he's waiting to release a statement tomorrow?
-
Fr. Jenkins compares side by side Begoglio's anti-consecration with that of Pius XII. Starts around 48:00
https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/what-catholics-believe3-22-2022 (https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/what-catholics-believe3-22-2022)
-
I would like to see another pseudo-encyclical from Abp. Vigano on the matter.
:jester:
-
Fr. Jenkins compares side by side Begoglio's anti-consecration with that of Pius XII. Starts around 48:00
https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/what-catholics-believe3-22-2022 (https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/what-catholics-believe3-22-2022)
The part about the inclusion of "they have no wine" from Cana is extremely telling of how worldly this "consecration" prayer is. They want the party of sin and worldly debauchery to continue, as Fr. Jenkins rightly points out.
Can't we all just...get along?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eWopfEJq48
-
I wonder if any of the Bishops of the SSPX, SSPX Resistance, SSPV and other trad Bishops will join Bergy tomorrow?
:popcorn:
It out on public display now:
The Superior General, asked all to join in the consecration of Russia and the Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The text will be that which was written by Archbishop Lefebvre and modified to suit the circuмstances.
-
It out on public display now:
The Superior General, asked all to join in the consecration of Russia and the Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The text will be that which was written by Archbishop Lefebvre and modified to suit the circuмstances.
Praise God that they aren't using the Pachamama-laced "prayer" from the Vatican.
And honestly, in their blindness, the intention of the prayers aren't even the same anyway. The SSPX and other tradservatives think this is THE Fatima consecration of Russia, whereas Bergie clearly intends it to be a consecration for worldly peace with a focus on Russia and Ukraine.
-
Praise God that they aren't using the Pachamama-laced "prayer" from the Vatican.
And honestly, in their blindness, the intention of the prayers aren't even the same anyway. The SSPX and other tradservatives think this is THE Fatima consecration of Russia, whereas Bergie clearly intends it to be a consecration for worldly peace with a focus on Russia and Ukraine.
Unfortunately for the SSPX, the suspicious, ultra-right, bad-trads out discerned them again.
Bergy changed the Spanish consecration words for Our Lady, to "earth-mother", i.e., Pachamama :facepalm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMl39_sGFC4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMl39_sGFC4)
-
Of course the other possibility is that he does it as requested, the world converts, and the sedevacantists are proven wrong once and for all. And that is what will happen if he performs the consecration, since without the slightest doubt the sedevacantist are all definitely wrong. As are the Beneplenists. Francis is the Pope, and God is about to prove it.
The only question in my mind is if nuclear war will happen before next Friday and prevent him from performing the act.
You still believe that, RomanTheo?
-
You still believe that, RomanTheo?
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/81086594/bueller-bueller.jpg)