Even without the above excellent sermon I could not see how any American Catholic could vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. After listening to the sermon, I’d dearly love to hear from any Catholic who still intends to vote for the Democratic Party. If every priest in the USA preached like that, there would be no question whatsoever about the outcome of the November election. Therefore, let’s pray, in the remaining time, for some lights to switch on in the heads of currently less enlightened or less courageous priests. As the priest in the video says, this election is a battle for the soul of America, no less – it is, unarguably, a battle for the soul of the free world. Archbishop Fulton Sheen is quoted in the above sermon. Here’s the Archbishop again, on the charge that the Church interferes in politics…
“… Is this true? It all depends upon what you mean by politics. If by interference in politics is meant using influence to favor a particular regime, party, or system that respects the basic God-given rights and freedom of persons, the answer is emphatically No! The Church does not interfere in politics. If by interference in politics is meant judging or condemning a philosophy of life that makes the party or state, or the class, or the race, the source of all rights, and that usurps the soul and enthrones party over conscience and denies those basic rights for which the war was fought, the answer is emphatically Yes!
The Church does judge such a philosophy. But when it does this, it is not interfering with politics, for such politics is no longer politics but theology. When a state sets itself up as absolute as God, when it claims sovereignty over the soul, when it destroys freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, then the state has ceased to be political and has begun to be a counter-Church.” Ends.
This is exactly what is happening, not just in America but here in the UK as well and in particular in socialist Scotland. So, why are there so few priests speaking out to warn, educate and edify the faithful?
Pope Francis drops ‘Vicar of Christ’ title in Vatican yearbook The title ‘Vicar of Jesus Christ’ stems from Holy Scripture where Jesus grants St. Peter the power of the keys in the Church
April 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In a surprise move, Pope Francis has dropped the historic and essential title “Vicar of Christ” from the 2020 Pontifical Yearbook, the Holy See’s annual directory, relegating the title to a footnote, calling it a “historical title.”
While previous yearbooks listed the title “Vicar of Christ” and the name of the reigning Pope under that title, this year’s annual directory simply lists the name “Jorge Mario Bergoglio,” the name of the man who became Pope Francis in 2013.
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, called the change “theological barbarism.”
As the German Rome Correspondent, Guido Horst, reported today for the newspaper Die Tagespost, this new entry has astonished well-informed Vatican experts. He writes that this year’s Annuario Pontificio has “banned” the Pope’s title ‘Vicar of Christ,’ making it a “historical title” that now belongs to a footnote.
The Annuario Pontificio is published every year. It updates statistical data concerning the Catholic Church. Usually, the presentation of the members of the Church’s hierarchy – College of Cardinals, bishops of the world and the Vatican’s dicasteries – starts with the Roman Pontiff, under the title “Vicar of Jesus Christ” (“Vicario di Gesù Cristo”). Then follow the additional titles of the Pope, all of which carry a “different or even no dogmatic significance” as does the first title, according to Horst. These are: Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, and Servant of the Servants of God.
The title “Vicar of Jesus Christ,” however, “stems from Holy Scripture, in which Jesus has granted St. Peter the power of the keys in the Church,” Ar these additional titles, there usually then would come the name of the current pontiff, a short biography of him, as well as the dates of his election and inauguration.
However, the new entry about the Pope starts now – instead of the title “Vicar of Jesus Christ” – with the following title: “Jorge Mario Bergoglio.” This title is followed by a short biography and the dates of his election and inauguration. Finally – and this after a line indicating that the “footnotes” (in the words of Guido Horst) are now coming – there come, under the subtitle “historical titles”: Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, and Servant of the Servants of God.
According to Horst, such a change of the presentation of the Roman Pontiff in the Annuario Pontificio “could only have happened upon request by Francis himself.”
In comments to the Tagespost, Cardinal Gerhard Müller points out that in the new presentations of the titles of the Pope, there are mixed together titles with dogmatic significance with those that do not bear such weight and who have a historical background (such as “Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City”).
The German cardinal goes on to speak about the “embarrassment” that the Annuario Pontificio has “demeaned essential elements of the Catholic teaching on the primacy [of the Pope] as mere historical appendix.” He insisted that it is “a theological barbarism to demean as historical burden the titles of the Pope ‘Successor of Peter, Representative of Christ, and visible head of the entire Church.’” He stated that the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, “together with the ‘Successor of Peter, Representative of Christ, and visible head of the entire Church, rule the house of the Living God.” (Lumen gentium 18)
“No Pope or Ecumenical Council,” the German prelate continued, “could, with reference to their highest authority over the Church, do away with the primacy, the episcopacy, or the Sacraments, or to re-interpret them in their essence.”
A commentator quoted by Guido Horst noted that the change in the yearbook denotes a “defective understanding of the office,” pointing out that important titles such as “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles” have also been downgraded as mere historical titles.
Professor Armin Schwibach, the Rome Correspondent for the Austrian website Kath.net, commented on Twitter: “It seems that they continue to dismantle everything.”
In 2006, Pope Benedict made a change to the usual presentation of the Roman Pontiff in the Annuario Pontificio when removing altogether the papal title “Patriarch of the West.” At the time, this decision was interpreted as an act of “evidently hoping to eliminate one possible obstacle to ecumenical progress with the Orthodox world.” Source – Lifesitenews
As the final paragraph reveals, the shedding of the titles indicating papal authority, has its roots in ecumenism. These top churchmen don’t seem to get it. Nothing they can do – from destroying the Mass to make it acceptable to Protestants, to chucking out papal titles – will bring about Christian unity. Christ bequeathed unity on His Church from the beginning, when He prayed: “That they all may be one, as Thou Father in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (John 17:21)
Any “dialogue”, therefore, with our separated brothers and sisters (or should that be “sisters and brothers” 😀 ) must take the tried and tested missionary form of inviting them to return to the Church founded by Christ. If Pope Francis can’t see that, and instead continues on the senseless path of trying to destroy what is left of Catholicism, we can only reflect on those sobering words of St Paul: “God will not be mocked.” (Galatians 6:7)
Retired Pope Benedict XVI has issued a defence of priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church as his successor considers easing a ban on married men serving as priests.
Pope Benedict made the appeal in a book co-authored with Cardinal Robert Sarah.
It comes in response to a proposal to allow married men to be ordained as priests in the Amazon region.
Pope Benedict, who retired in 2013, said he could not remain silent on the issue.
In the book, Pope Benedict says celibacy, a centuries-old tradition within the Church, has “great significance” because it allows priests to focus on their duties.
The 92-year-old says “it doesn’t seem possible to realise both vocations [priesthood and marriage] simultaneously”.
It is rare for Pope Benedict, who was the first pontiff to resign in almost 600 years, to intervene in clerical matters.
The Vatican is yet to comment on the book, which was previewed in part by French newspaper Le Figaro before its full publication on Monday.
Vatican commentators have reacted with surprise to Benedict’s intervention, suggesting it breaks with convention.
“Benedict XVI is really not breaking his silence because he (and his entourage) never felt bound to that promise. But this is a serious breach,” Massimo Faggioli, a historian and theologian at Villanova University, tweeted.
The comments by Pope Benedict were described as “incredible” by Joshua McElwee, a journalist for the National Catholic Reporter… Twitter post by @joshjmac…
As I digest this, I’m realizing how incredible it is. A former pope speaking in public about something his successor is currently in the process of considering. (118 7:17 PM – Jan 12, 2020) …
For many, celibacy is a key part of being a Catholic priest. A priest is supposed to be married to God and not be distracted by what some consider to be worldly concerns like a wife or a family.
For traditionalists, this is about the direction in which Pope Francis is taking the Church.
It’s downright hilarious to read the shocked comments of the alleged “Vatican experts/commentators” who speak of a “serious breach” and describe as “incredible” the fact that the previous Pope, Benedict XVI, should actually speak out to defend Catholic Tradition, in this case, the traditional teaching on celibacy. Talk about “diabolical disorientation” – writ large! Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
Far from keeping silence and “obeying” this horrendous pope, Benedict should have spoken out a long time ago. In fact, of course, he should not have resigned/abdicated in the first place. He, as much as Pope Francis, will be called to account for the scandals, indeed the near destruction of the Church in human terms, in these times. Both before and AFTER his resignation/abdication. Better late than never, however, he is to be congratulated on this occasion. Agreed?
Austen Ivereigh, the British journalist and biographer of Pope Francis, has stated that the circle surrounding Pope emeritus Benedict — which he said includes the Vatican’s former doctrine head Cardinal Müller — must be brought under “control” since it is a source of “scandal and of division.”
Ivereigh made these comments in an August 10 interview to the Chilean newspaper La Tercera, in which he speaks about his upcoming book on Pope Francis, titled The Wounded Shepherd.
Speaking about those who he holds as resisting Pope Francis, Ivereigh points especially to the circle around Pope emeritus Benedict XVI, and most especially to Cardinal Gerhard Müller — the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — whom he describes as a “leader” of the opposition.
“We have to find a way to control his [Benedict’s] court, which is at this moment a source of scandal and of division,” he said.
Ivereigh singled out Cardinal Müller as one of the most senior voices of opposition against the way Pope Francis is leading the Catholic Church. He mentioned a “very vociferous and potent” group of Catholics which launches “a missile every month,” trying to “discredit him [the Pope]”. Click here to read rest of this report on the outrageous Ivereigh.
“We have to find a way to control Benedict’s court…” Outrageous! Just who does this guy think he is? And what’s with this “Benedict’s court”? We don’t have a “court” for Pope Benedict. If there are still people in the Vatican who cling to some Catholic beliefs, that’s great. If they happen to be friendly with Benedict, that’s interesting but not surprising. Pope Francis doesn’t like Catholicism. He has made that clear. So anyone who continues to believe in the “old Faith” better keep quiet around Papa Francis. Hardly breaking news. As for trying to discredit the Pope – priceless! He’s done that all by his little Argentine self; he really doesn’t need any help in that department.
Arrogance personified, Austen Ivereigh came to fame as the co-founder ofCatholic Voices, an organisation of lay people set up in 2010 to provide speakers on request from the media, prior to the visit to the UK of Pope Benedict. They were there, we kept hearing, to provide competent lay people, representatives who could explain the Church’s teaching in news broadcasts, discussions etc. They were not officially linked to the Bishops’ Conference but the group had the Bishops’ blessing, which tells you all you need to know about the likelihood of their orthodoxy. Indeed, it was painful watching them in action with one gaffe following another in various TV programmes. Catastrophically, Ivereigh, along with his co-founder Jack Valero, showed unbelievable ignorance about Catholic sexual morality in a series of TV interviews following Pope Benedict’s unfortunate comments about condoms. Read SPUC’s response –Jack Valero and Austen Ivereigh need remedial training in Catholic teaching on sexual ethics
Then there was the much publicised case against the Daily Mail – click here to read about that sorry episode…
All in all, Ivereigh strikes me as a decidedly unsavoury character, and an opportunist. He leapt, for example, at the opportunity to spread dissent through the creation of the Catholic Voices group, so, opportunist or not, he has to be given credit for not missing and hitting the wall, as the saying goes.
And his devotion to this shocker of a pontiff is something else. He has already written one book in praise of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer (just look at the names of those who are delighted with it…) and now he’s writing another which, judging by the title (The Wounded Shepherd) has moved Francis out of the “Great Reformer” category into victim mould. Poor Papa Francis! Being criticised for trying to overturn the Commandments, especially the one on adultery which is just tooooooo difficult; and his efforts to end “homophobia” are just not appreciated by those nasty, bigoted, Catholics who want to live in a museum Church… I can just imagine it but will apologise profusely if I’m on the wrong track. Whatever, we can be certain that Ivereigh will not be joining the ranks of those of us deeply concerned about the damage which Pope Francis is doing to the Church – that’s a given.
As for his assault on Pope Benedict, dressed up as criticism of Benedict’s “circle” or “court” – how dare he! My advice to Ivereigh is to educate himself in the Catholic Faith so that he sees the truth about Pope Francis who is the person doing the wounding. He is wounding the faith of countless Catholics, ordained and lay, by undermining doctrine and morality. If he entitles his next book Francis: Worst Pope in History, I’ll feel there may be hope for him after all. Until then, I’ll keep working on my book about Austen Ivereigh – entitled Clueless About Catholicism…
What would your book title be, if you decided to write about Mr Ivereigh? Keep it printable and non-actionable, please and thank you!
V. Regina caeli, laetare, alleluia. Queen of heaven, rejoice, alleluia.
R. Quia quem meruisti portare, alleluia, For he whom you did merit to bear, alleluia,
V. Resurrexit, sicut dixit, alleluia. Has risen as he said, alleluia.
R. Ora pro nobis Deum, alleluia. Pray for us to God, alleluia.
V. Rejoice and be glad, O Virgin Mary, alleluia. R. For the Lord has truly risen, alleluia.
Let us pray. O God, who gave joy to the world through the resurrection of Thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, grant we beseech Thee, that through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, His Mother, we may obtain the joys of everlasting life.
Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
Our Blogger, Margaret USA, asked me to post this commentary of Bishop Schneider about the fire at Notre Dame – I’d just placed a headline in our forthcoming May newsletter about the fire at Notre Dame being a metaphor for the destruction (humanly speaking) of the Church when it arrived in my inbox, so it was well timed. Those of our newsletter readers who are not online will draw some comfort from it, no doubt. What about you?
The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei Suppressed by Pope Francis January 19, 2019 By fsspx.news
On January 17, 2019, Pope Francis suppressed the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which had been created in 1988 by his predecessor Pope John Paul II.
The Apostolic Letter in the form of the Pope’s motu proprio was published at noon on January 19 by the Holy See Press Office and inserted in L’Osservatore Romano. From now on, the Commission’s responsibilities will be placed entirely in the hands of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which will designate a special section to take over its activities. This transfer, explains the Sovereign Pontiff, comes in response to a need expressed during a meeting of this dicastery on November 15, 2017, approved by him on November 24, and validated in a plenary session in January 2018.
The pope recalls how, over thirty years ago, the day after the episcopal consecrations in 1988, John Paul II wished to facilitate the “full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Lefebvre”. The goal was to help them “remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their own spiritual and liturgical traditions”. This preservation of the spiritual and liturgical traditions was ensured in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.
This historical reminder of Pope Francis has the merit of showing how this Pontifical Commission was originally founded on the condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre and his work. In its thirty years of existence, it mostly limited itself to liturgical questions, with the intention of responding to the “sensitivity” of conservative priests and faithful, and of countering the Society of St. Pius X’s growth throughout the world…
But after the supposed excommunications of the bishops of Tradition were lifted in 2009, Benedict XVI believed that the ongoing doctrinal issues were a good reason to attach the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The goal was to begin doctrinal discussions with the Society of St. Pius X.
The Primacy of the Doctrine of the Faith
Today, Pope Francis writes that the religious communities that belong to the Pontifical Commission have acquired stability both in their numbers and their activities; they ensure the celebration of the Mass in its “extraordinary form”. But, he points out, “the questions dealt with by the same Pontifical Commission were of a primarily doctrinal nature.” These objections and questions are clearly irrelevant to these communities. It is indeed with the Society of St. Pius X that they continue to be an issue.
This is what the cardinals pointed out on November 15, 2017, when they “formulated the request that dialogue between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X be conducted directly by the aforementioned Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith], as the questions being dealt with are of a doctrinal nature.”
One conclusion is evident: as the so-called Ecclesia Dei communities have preserved “their spiritual and liturgical traditions”, they clearly do not count in this discussion. If they remain attached to a section of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is incidental. They can have the Mass, the “spiritual and liturgical traditions”, but not the whole doctrine that goes along with them.
That has always been the Society of St. Pius X’s great reproach against Dom Gérard [founder of the Benedictine monastery at Le Barroux who worked with Archbishop Lefebvre until 1988] and all those who thought they should break the unity of Tradition in order to negotiate a purely practical agreement. The crisis of the Church cannot be reduced to a spiritual or liturgical question alone. It is deeper, for it touches the very heart of the Faith and the doctrine of Revelation, Christ the King’s right to reign here below over men and over societies.
Is this, as some commentators fear, anticipating this suppression, the beginning of the end for Summorum Pontificum? Is the Pope about to attempt to suppress the ancient Mass?
As the homosexual priest scandal once again erupts around the world (including therevelation that fully half of the cardinals and bishops of the Netherlands are implicated in the cover-up of sexual abuse), the ex-President of the Italian Senate, Marcello Pera, was interviewed by La Fede Quotidiana concerning Pope Francis’ continuing silence in the face of Archbishop Viganò’s historic indictment of the Pope’s own role in the cover-up of homosexual corruption at the highest levels of the Church.
“It seems to me that the Pope does not intend to give a response, or perhaps thinks that others will respond, a dilatory tactic that, instead of promoting serenity and clarity contributes to general disconcert and confusion,” said Pera. “[I]t seems to be the same thing that happened with the Dubia of the cardinals,” Pera continued.
Respecting the attempts to demonize Viganò, Pera observes that he has “the sensation that the Pope trusts in that wing of the press that is always and everywhere favorable. He knew that he would be defended a priori by certain important journalists” who would be willing to shoot the messenger by way of character assassination. But, Pera rightly observes, “I am not interested in the motives that have driven Viganò but only in whether his allegations are true or not.”
Pera is also a renowned philosopher whose work focuses on the problems of cultural relativism, the post-modern denial of objective reality and “deconstructionism,” which reduces all truth claims to mere interpretations rather than statements of objective fact. Hence Pera knows whereof he speaks when he says that in his view Francis is symptomatic of the crisis of a “tragic and alarming diminution of the Christian conscience in Europe. Bergoglio substitutes for catholicity a secular humanism. From this step a schism can arise.”
Asked whether he knows the “Pope Emeritus” well, Pera replied that he does but that “I have not spoken to him in a long time.” As to whether he thinks Benedict is worried about the state of the Church under this pontificate, Pera answered simply: “I imagine so.”
Last July, Pera voiced even stronger criticism of the current occupant of the Chair of Peter. Concerning Francis’ insistence on “welcoming” unlimited numbers of Muslim immigrants into Italy, most of them military age males not helpless “refugees,” Pera told Il Mattino: “I do not understand this Pope. What he says is beyond all rational comprehension. Why does he insist on total acceptance? The Pope does it because he detests the West, aspires to destroy it and does everything to achieve this end…” What Francis preaches, says Pera, “is not the Gospel but only politics. Francis is little or not at all interested in Christianity as a doctrine, on the theological aspect. […] His statements seem based on Scripture, in reality they are strongly secularist.” It is hard to dispute that opinion given the many indications that we have a Pope who doesn’t “do” Catholicism. As for example his recent refusal to give an Apostolic Benediction to a crowd of young people in Palermo because their number included “other Christians and religious traditions and even some agnostics.” Instead, the Vicar of Christ, refusing to mention Christ, invoked a generic “Lord God” for the intention of “blessing the seeds of disquiet in their souls” because “they want to make a better world” as “searchers for goodness and happiness” and travelers on “the road to dialogue and encounter with the other.”
A Vicar of Christ who studiously refrains from mentioning the light of Christ to those in need of it for their salvation, lest anyone in the audience be offended. What sort of Pope is this? One the likes of which the Church has never seen before, not even in the midst of the ecclesial tumult of the past 50 years. Source
“The pedophile scandal in the Catholic Church is not a pedophile scandal. The vast majority of victims are post-pubescent teens and young men. The real problem in the Church that everyone sees and few will say out loud: gay priests.” (Matt Walsh, Twitter)
I’m taking some heat on Twitter today because I said that the real problem in the Catholic Church isn’t pedophilia but gay priests. As the statistics clearly show, the vast majority of predators in the clergy were homosexual and the vast majority were not pedophiles. The same study that reported those figures did try to absolve gay priests by claiming that their homosexuality had nothing to do with anything. But this is an assumption — I think a plainly absurd and unprovable assumption — that is not born out by their own statistics.
And the problem goes beyond sex abuse of minors. As Rod Dreher has been reporting, and liberal publications agree, homosexuality runs rampant in the modern priesthood. Sexual activity between priests, and between priests and seminarians, is not uncommon. I think it is rather difficult to separate these facts from the fact that teen boys were so often sexually victimized. Is it just a coincidence that gay priests exist in such large numbers, protected by gay cabals within the Church, and at the same time there happen to be a bunch of priests molesting pubescent boys? Are these two realities entirely separate from one another?
Take the case of the scummy Cardinal McCarrick. He has been accused of preying upon young boys. But most of the stories that have come out about him revolve around his sexual exploits with seminarians. Grown men, in other words. Yet we are told that the fact of his homosexuality is irrelevant. How could it be? If he were not a homosexual, he would not have molested boys. Who could dispute this? I’m not claiming that all homosexuals molest boys. I am claiming that only homosexuals molest boys. A non-homosexual, by definition, is not attracted to males.
I will be told that sex abuse is about “power” not sex, but of course this is ridiculous. It is about both. If all you seek is power over someone, there are other ways to achieve that aim without sexually assaulting them. If you choose sex as your means, then it would follow that you are sexually attracted to your victim.
80% of the victims in the Church have been males. Is it difficult to see how thousands of boys may have been spared this experience if there had not been so many homosexuals in the priesthood? Or are we going to pretend that even a heterosexual may attempt to get his thrills by molesting a 15 year old boy? If so, I have no idea what the words heterosexual and homosexual mean anymore.
I have been accused of focusing on this issue because it implicates gays while ignoring abuse perpetrated by heterosexuals. That couldn’t be further from the truth. I have written extensively about the epidemic of (mostly heterosexual) abuse in the public school system. There is very little public interest in this problem, and I have not been able to generate much through my own efforts, but not for lack of trying. As I have observed, it is probably not a great idea to have women in their 20’s teaching teenaged boys, just as it is not ideal to have men in their 20’s teaching teenaged girls. We may not always have much of a choice, but the problems inherent in such an arrangement are apparent.
In a similar way, it is not a good idea to have homosexual men living together in rectories and seminaries, and working closely with teen boys. This is not a homophobic theory I am positing. It is an observation I am making based on 50 years worth of data. It is nothing but moral cowardice to refuse to face the facts. Source – The Daily Wire
Given the above facts, the criteria already set out by the Vatican document Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders (S. C. Rel., 2 Feb., 1961) which contains the following warning, is worth noting: Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
This prohibition on ordaining homosexuals is repeated in 2005 here so, there can be no possible justification for seminaries to continue accepting and ordaining homosexual men,: “… the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”. Source
Or, must we ignore the facts, and opt for political correctness to “move with the [ever-changing] – and ever-more sexually permissive – times”?
A: It is a ceremony by which a person, group of persons, or thing is set apart as sacred and dedicated to the service of God or another sacred purpose.
2. What is meant by “the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary”? A: At Fatima, on July 13, 1917, Our Lady told Sister Lucy that “God is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the Communions of reparation and for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart … In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”
Our Lady’s request is very simple: Russia—the fount of so much evil in the 20th Century—must be set apart and made sacred by its consecration to the Mother of God.
3. Why is it necessary to consecrate Russia in particular? A: Because God wills it. As Our Lady told Sister Lucy at Fatima: “Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation …”
And as Sister Lucy disclosed in her published memoirs and letters, Our Lord Himself confided to her that He would not convert Russia unless the consecration were done, “Because I want My whole Church to recognize that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so that it may extend its cult later on, and put the devotion to this Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart.”
Sister Lucy has explained that because Russia is a well-defined territory, the conversion of Russia after its consecration to the Immaculate Heart would be undeniable proof that the conversion resulted from the consecration and nothing else. The establishment in the world of devotion to the Immaculate Heart would thus be confirmed by God Himself in the most dramatic manner. Read rest of the Frequently Asked Questions about the Consecration of Russia here