This is very interesting. The Devil really does not like Marian devotions at all and he will do anything in his power to prevent souls from practicing them. The hatred towards Our Lady is a sign of demonic activity. St. Louis Marie himself foretold that Satan would cause his treatise to be lost. True Devotion was not discovered until one hundred and twenty-six years after his death.

Good thing I found this thread this morning as it was a timely reminder to renew my own consecration:

In the presence of all the Heavenly Court I choose thee this day for my Mother and Mistress. I deliver and consecrate to thee, as thy slave, my body and soul, my goods, both interior and exterior, and even the value of all my good actions, past, present and future; leaving to thee the entire and full right of disposing of me, and all that belongs to me, without exception, according to thy good pleasure, to the greatest glory of God, in time and in eternity.

Cantarella,

If you haven't already, I would interest you in reading the opening post. It's not so much about the De Montfort Consecration, as it is about a secret hidden within it - something that, to my knowledge, has never been explained. One might think of it as a deeper understanding of the whole essence of the devotion. 

I would liken it to a deeper understanding of the Church itself. One could, for example, explain the Church in terms of it's laws, its doctrines, its practices, rituals, and structure. And this is fine. But the explanation only covers one dimension - the earthly, human one. There's a deeper dimension to the concept of the Church. More than just a group of individuals, it's an actual living, breathing, walking, talking entity created by God to continue on earth in Christ's absence. It's a creature, if you will - half human and half Divine. Sure, it just looks like a bunch of people to us, but that's because we're living in the midst of it. On the same note, if seen under an electron microscope, the human body would appear to be nothing but a bunch of atoms floating around. But were we to zoom out far enough, we would see that it is an actual living body. The same is true of the Church. There is a deeper dimension to it, and one that helps us to understand and appreciate it in a new light.

This is what I've attempted to do in regard to the Marian Consecration - that is, to reveal a deeper dimension; one that, hopefully, will help you to appreciate it in a new light. And so I would trouble you (and anyone else who hasn't already) to read through the OP. I know it's somewhat lengthy, and I apologize. But frankly, this is an important topic and needs to be explained as thoroughly as possible. 

At any rate, I'm glad to hear that you practice the De Montfort Consecration. Know that you are among the Catholic elite...

You are a liar.  Fr. feeney did not believe in baptism of desire.  And, I am not surprised that you do not believe in any (merely tolerated) manifestation of the catholic churches teaching about baptism.  Louis de montfort desecrated catholic baptism when he created a replacement baptism in the waters of the "blessed mother".  You are however passing over an important truth that all antichristian heretics deny, and that is, that mary is "ever virgin".  

Perhaps you should do some homework.

The reason why Fr. Feeney came under fire was because he upheld the ancient doctrine of BOD, as opposed to the modern one. The modern doctrine maintains that one may be saved in any religion whatsoever through "implicit desire"; whereas the ancient doctrine (which the saints believed in) made no such allowance; but instead maintained that the desire for the actual sacrament of Baptism somehow incorporated a man into the Church before his death. Ergo, they always maintained to their dying breath, that one must be a Catholic to be saved. Hence the immemorial use of the phrase: "Extra Ecclesium, Nulla Salus". This is the original doctrine of "Baptism of Desire". 

The modern version, on the other hand, is not "Baptism of Desire" at all, but the doctrine of "Religious Indifferentism", which began to spread through the Church in the first quarter of the 19th century. This is the belief that one's religion is an indifferent matter (that is, one can be theoretically saved in any religion). Despite repeated condemnations from Rome, by the late 18oo's, this doctrine was so universally held by Catholics that Pope Leo XIII referred to it as "The Great Error of the Age" (Humanum Genus, 1884). 

At some point, the Devil pulled off a very clever "Bait and Switch" tactic - convincing everyone that this new doctrine of "implicit desire"/Religious Indifferentism was actually the same belief as the "Baptism of Desire" held by the saints of old. And presto, the modern version of BOD was born. Today, everyone mistakenly thinks that the modern version is the same as the old - which is a bold-faced lie. Nevertheless, the modern version is defended so vigorously by all Traditionalists, and the Novus Ordo in general, that anyone (such as Fr. Feeney) who upholds the ancient version is condemned with anathema. 

And now you understand what "Feeneyism" is.

The catholic church has four marks.  It is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.  The catholic church is not legion, immoral, national, and queen regnant.  

The holy ghost subsists in the catholic church, where Christ calls us "servants and friends".  He does not call us "slaves and gods".  

To everyone reading this post, I would remind you that "PG" has a venomous hatred for Marian Consecration - and declares that anyone who practices it is under the influence of the devil. Just so you realize where he's coming from.

I have no hatred of marian consecration.  What I have hatred of is abuse of the Mother of God.  What I have hatred of are the teachings of the book true(false) devotion the blessed virgin mary by louis de montfort.  What I have hatred of is total consecration to a white witch.
And, contrary to louis do montfort, what I have love for is the 1st and the 5th commandments.  

sedevacantist:

As one can see then, this Consecration is quite ancient, and certainly well founded. Nonetheless, it is peculiar to note that despite its antiquity, and the fact that numerous attempts have been made to spread knowledge of its existence throughout the world, it still remains scarcely known among the general populace today; and, although many so-called Catholics are aware of its existence, it is scarcely practiced. Moreover, it would seem that even among those who do practice it, it is hardly understood. It is truly a wonder that this devotion of Consecration continues in relative obscurity to this day – yes, even among the Saints. Stranger still, is the fact that notwithstanding this obscurity, it is one of the greatest devotions in the history of Christianity.  

Sede, I think you make a remarkable contribution on this topic.  We have consecrated ourselves to the Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart of Mary to the best of our ability.  We try to say three Rosaries a day, as well.  But you're right.  Consecration to Mary, though ancient, is not practiced very widely today.  One has to wonder why.
Surely, you are acquainted with the interview granted by Sr. Lucy to Fr. Augustin Fuentes in 1957. Fr. Fuentes was postulator for the beatification and canonization of Francisco and Jacinta Marto.  When this priest reported to his superiors what Sr. Lucy had told him, he was dismissed from his post and accused of prevarication.  Later, thanks in part to the good offices of Fr. Alonso, chief expert on the Fatima apparitions, Fuentes' reputation was at least partially reinstated, and he was judged to have told the truth about his interview with Sr. Lucy, and not to have embellished it at all.
Having said that, I leave with you and other CI members, a few words from Fr. Fuentes taken directly from this 1957 interview:




Take it or leave it.  Those are words passed on to Fr. Fuentes by Sr. Lucy dos Santos, surely at the behest of Our Holy Mother and with Her full approval. 

Surely, I must be exaggerating, you say? If it’s such a great devotion, then why is it so scarcely practiced, and so little understood after so many centuries of existence? Well, I believe there are two reasons for this: First of all, because of its great importance, the devil has been trying very hard to frustrate any knowledge of this devotion. We find a classic example of this fact in the life of Blessed Louis De Montfort himself. This holy man knew better than anyone the hardships encountered by those attempting to spread this devotion. He was kicked out of every single diocese in France—with the exception of two—because he championed Consecration to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

No, you are not exaggerating at all. This devotion needs to be spread among Catholics.  I would almost say that we need to spend more time heralding this devotion, and perhaps less time, relatively, trumpeting the obvious superiority of the Tridentine Mass

In the City of God, 1st volume, Our Lady states she is to establish Her Immaculate Heart in the World. So, it is biblical.  It is prophecy!  Louis De Montfort was given mysteries-opened.  In the City of God Our Lady says there are mysteries yet to come!  Hmm!

I will stand corrected but my understanding of Fr Feeney is that he believed in BoD only for someone who lived before Jesus' arrival on planet E. 8) Hence the term 'Ancient' BoD

Very interesting.  I had briefly heard about this BoD "before Jesus" theory mentioned by the dimonds.  So, maybe this is what the member sedevacantist means by "ancient Bod", when he says he does not believe in it along with current BoD(taught by every sspx, ecclesia dei, and sspv cleric).  I don't think the church has used ancient BoD to describe this situation, but the end would be the same.  And, the end is that there were israelites of the old testament saved through their faith, HOPE, and charity in a messiah/Jesus.  What is interesting here, is that the church does teach that("ancient BoD" but not under that title).  So, for the member sedevacantist to deny that, then he would doubtfully be a catholic.  It is in the creed that christ decended into hell.  And, that descent into hell was to save/release those who obviously were not baptized yet, but hoped/desired in a messiah and heaven.  
In sum, this would make the member sedevacantist just another false convert israeli trolling CI for a rich harvest of its fully ripened variety of moon-blinked owls.

Hollingsworth - No, louis de montfort was canonized by pius xii in 1947.