Critics Of The Consecration

[BarbTherese]

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1119

 

 

It may or may not be the case that Mary is unimpressed by these consecrations of the “whole world” when she only specified Russia (at least at Fatima). It may or may not be the case that if Pope Francis could just get the precise formula correct, all manner of catastrophe could be avoided, and astounding blessings would more or less automatically ensue. But such literalism, when pressed, smacks of superstition; it reminds one of novenas promised never to fail in producing the exact result conceived by the one who prays them. And yet Mary herself linked all of these outcomes to an increasing devotion to the Rosary as a means of bringing many into unity with the will of her Son. She is not the mother of linguistic tricks but of holiness.

In any case, the main point is that it belongs to the Vicar of Christ to judge the meaning, the import, the public utility, and the timeliness of anything contained in an approved private revelation. Grave errors are possible in both accepting and following private revelations, and it is the office of Peter and the apostles, including all of their successors, to protect us from such errors. It may be that something remains still to be done publicly to respond to the message of Fatima—or it may not. But Our Lady prays for and with each of us only from the heart of the Church. The spirit of division is not her Spirit; it must be imported from Outside. Go to above link for entire article 

 

[blazeingstar]

This article lends itself to something that is better off on the debate table.

 

That said, I think that this is highly overly critical.

 

If Pope Francis consecrated the world twice, I think that'd be like striking the rock twice.  That and she asked for the Bishops, not the Pope, to consecrate Russia to the sacred heart.  Never mind the fact that it's 50+ years later.  Is there any evidence that this was not done?  And if it was done was it by 

 

That on October 15 we don't see any evidence of the peace spoken of is a bit on the "magical fluffy Harry Potter spell" like mindset.

 

The other ridiculous thing...criticizing the formula?  Really?  Do we really have set-in-stone rubrics for consecrating the globe to the immaculate heart of Mary?

 

My feelings is this is someone addressing a non-believing world about why the promises of Mary aren't coming true instantly.

[CountrySteve21]

http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr83/lf173insert.pdf

[blazeingstar]

http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr83/lf173insert.pdf

 

 

It won't open for me.  Can you give me the jist

[tinytherese]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

 

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

 

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

 

 

 

In layman's terms, no individual is required to believe that particular private revelations (e.g. apparitions of Our Lady, Our Lord, etc.) actually happened. However, we are to acknowledge that there are certain private revelations that the Church has officially recognized to be true.

 

The Church isn't even obligated to perform this consecration, so why bother arguing on how it was carried out?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

 tiny therese if a surgeon doing open heart surgery cuts the artery the wrong way you can kill the patient. This is serious business saving the world and needs to be done right. I agreed with everything you said except that last comment.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Though of course i understand surgeons do make mistakes, one would hope rarely. But also i believe we are getting better and better at surgery and saving the world as time goes on, alleluia. 

[BG45]

Moved to Debate Table because it's a bit combative in the first article for Transmundane, and Fatima Crusader being linked is bound to draw up some debate as well, given its ban in some parishes (such as my home parish).

 

It won't open for me.  Can you give me the jist

It opened for me.  Basically that Mary only said Russia, so it needs to be Russia, and the Popes and Bishops need to publicly and at the same time, consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

[KnightofChrist]

When ever this topic comes up two questions  always come to mind. What were the "errors of Russia"? Did these errors spread as Our Lady said they would should Russia not be consecrated as she asked?

 

Also I think there have been about 6 or so consecrations of the world, and I'm fairly certain that the actual language used did not contain the word "consecration", or any mention of Russia by name.

 

Pressed into a corner to answer if Our Lady was pleased by these 'consecrations', with the Pope but without the Bishops I would say yes she would be pleased by them, indeed! I am just not sure that's what she originally wanted per se or what she asked for by name.

[Mary+Immaculate<3]

This reminds me of the issue of the Rosary. Mary's original Rosary was a 15-decade Rosary given to St. Dominic (no I'm not about to start criticizing the Luminous Mysteries). The 5-decade Rosary was a modified version made for children. Now recitation of the 5-decade is prevalent, though it wasn't Mary's original intention. The devil obviously must take the blame.
The Consecration, from the information provided, seems to have gone the same direction. There isn't nothing wrong with consecrating the world to Mary's Immaculate Hearts, but it does go off her original intent. Whether not specifically consecrating Russia will cause us to lose graces is in someone else's hands, namely, Mary Immaculate.
Although we may discuss reason for why the Pope won't specifically consecrate Russia, do we really know the Pope? His soul? His mind? He may have a very valid reason(s) to not have done so.