Fatima: A pending matter. (Fourth part)

 

 

PART II

Why haven't they done the Consecration?

In the September 2008 issue of Inside the Vatican , my article “The Hour Has Come”, which some of you have already seen, pointed out that fear seems to be the main deciding force behind the Vatican's policy on the Consecration of Russia. . Pope John Paul II began his pontificate with an exhortation to the faithful that became, in a certain way, his motto: "Do not be afraid." But "fear" is precisely the term for the Vatican's reaction to the idea of ​​enshrining Russia by name, from the 1930s to today, it seems to indicate. Thus, we will have to ask ourselves: "But what are you afraid of?"

Six possible fears

In considering what fears may prevent the Popes from consecrating Russia as it should be or as She requested - and we can probably reduce them to no more than half a dozen - it is important to keep in mind that we are considering potential impediments on two levels. There are fears that may be a factor in the thinking of the Holy Father himself; and there are those who can motivate others in the Vatican who are in a position to promote, accelerate, delay or derail a papal action such as the Collegiate Consecration of Russia.

First fear:

We have already seen that, during the last decades, the Popes did not hesitate to associate the Church and its people with the Fatima apparitions, nor did they fear to make Consecrations in response to Our Lady's requests. It is evident that they were not afraid to expose the Church to unacceptable shame, in the case of their actions not producing results, or that the credibility of the previous Consecrations would be damaged if they did another. We do not know the extent to which these concerns, on the part of other Vatican officials, may have delayed or diluted the actions taken by the Popes, or whether doing the Consecration in a way that meticulously met all of Our Lady's requirements - consecrating Russia by his name,in a solemn and public ceremony in which all the Bishops participated - it would raise expectations to such an extent that the Holy Father or his bureaucracy would fear a loss of credibility if it did not follow a dramatic conversion of Russia. But we know that they were willing to take such risks at partial consecrations, in that the probability of a disappointing result would indeed be greater. So let's eliminate, for the moment, this first possible fear, the fear of discouraging results.this first possible fear, the fear of discouraging results.this first possible fear, the fear of discouraging results.

Second fear:

A second fear, which was probably what prevailed during the Soviet era, was the fear that, if it were to consecrate Russia publicly, a retaliation on the part of the Soviet regime would follow. Many people at that time believed, and rightly so, that the terrible persecution that the Communists did to Christians, and especially Catholics, would be even worse if the Holy See did something that provoked the Russians.

Third fear:

Now, at least supposedly, the threat from the Soviet Government no longer exists, but there is a third fear emanating from Russia and which is frequently mentioned - the fear of offending the members or hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church.

A real impediment -

But is it the real reason?

This third fear - the fear of offending the Orthodox - is more than speculation; it is probably the most generally expressed current explanation among those who concede that there is a taboo in the Vatican against the mention of Russia in a Consecration. And we know that it affected the Church in the past. Certainly this concern occupied an important place in the mind of Pope John XXIII, who had a great interest in ensuring the participation of the Russian Orthodox in the Second Vatican Council, and this concern was reflected in the accommodation policy in relation to the Soviet Bloc, which his successor, Pope Paul VI, also supported before and after his elevation to the Chair of Saint Peter. The same logic underlying his regrettable promise that the Vatican II documents would not include any condemnation of communism,It could also serve to reject the Consecration of Russia.

Now communism has supposedly disaggregated, but maintaining the utmost importance of reconciliation between Catholics and Orthodox continues to be a primary concern of John Paul II, as well as of Benedict XVI. As the Inside the Vatican reportedIn November 2000, a prominent Cardinal, one of John Paul II's closest advisers, particularly said that the Pope had been advised not to mention Russia in any Consecration ceremony, because that would offend the Orthodox. About three or four years ago, a high-level Vatican source said privately that the Orthodox themselves had clearly told their Catholic peers that any mention of Russia at a Consecration would lead the entire dialogue between the Holy See and the Russian Orthodox Church to be stopped immediately.

If that is true, perhaps the long mystery would be solved as to why it is that none of the Popes - whatever their union with Fatima - had dared to consecrate Russia by name. In light of the remarkable improvement in Catholic-Orthodox relations that we have seen in this pontificate, the pressure to avoid offending the Orthodox and precipitating a tragic setback may now be stronger than ever. But if that is what is blocking the Consecration to Our Lady of Fatima, the mystery is elevated to another level. Why would the Consecration of Russia offend the Orthodox?

The Consecration of a country, after all, is not anathema or exorcism. It is an invocation of a special blessing and protection. The fact of Mary having named a particular nation for such an honor is a sign of her special maternal affection. When Our Lord told Saint Margaret Mary to make the King of France consecrate his nation to His Sacred Heart, France was a Catholic country that esteemed the title of “eldest daughter of the Church”. This request was made long before the Revolution and the Reign of Terror revealed the kind of problems against which the Consecration could have protected that nation, if it were fulfilled in due time. When Sister Lucia transmitted to the Bishops of Portugal Our Lady's request for an Episcopal Consecration of her country - a separate request, not to be confused with His request for the Consecration of Russia - the Portuguese Bishops accepted it with joy. Many people believed that this act brought great blessings and protection to Portugal in the years after, including the exclusion of the nation from participating in the Spanish Civil War or World War II.

It would be expected that any nation that honored the Blessed Mother would regard it as an envious privilege to be purposely chosen for such dignity by Saint Mary herself. The Russian Orthodox honor Mary, and although they may not accept the miracle and the Message of Fatima as such, as some so-called "branches of Christianity" do, they believe that She can and does personally intervene in human history. Its tradition is rich in officially accepted Marian miracles and in particular revelations, often associated with certain icons.

¿So if theological issues do not seem to be an impediment, why would the Consecration requested at Fatima offend the Russian Orthodox? This point is important to be explored, because, if the true underlying issues are identified and openly addressed, perhaps they can be jointly resolved on the basis of reason, goodwill and authentic dialogue. And perhaps then the impediment can be removed, instead of losing the benefits of Consecration.

One reason may be national pride. Would the Orthodox Russians feel insulted as Russians by the suggestion that they needed to convert more than the peoples of other nations? Our Lady's request for the Consecration of Russia was made in the context of discussing not only her need for conversion (a thing that all people, even those in a state of grace, must constantly seek), but also her future mistakes,  persecutions and responsibility for wars, martyrdoms and annihilation of nations. Would this context give the idea that the Consecration would be like a censorship or an exorcism, even if it is not by its own nature?

This would be understandable, but it is not a likely explanation. Since those earlier evils are so identified, in general, with Soviet Communism and not with the Russians as a people, it would appear that Orthodox Christians - many of whom also suffered greatly under Soviet rule - would most likely view any censorship as directed at their former oppressors, and not themselves. It should be possible to make clear that being consecrated to Our Lady - by itself or by another - does not limit in any way the freedom of an individual or a nation, and serves only to make them special beneficiaries of the loving protection of the Mother of God. This thought could be anathema to an atheist regime, but it could not be a more natural honor for a culture so tied to Marian devotion as is Russia, and Russian Orthodoxy. Truly, It is the Russian Orthodox Church that always promoted the idea that "Holy Russia" inherited the truly unique role of Christianity in the history of salvation. In a way, Our Lady of Fatima's request confirms and validates that belief. Indeed, one definition of the word "consecrate" is "set apart" as a sacred thing. Being a nation thus set apart by the Consecration to Our Lady of Fatima is perfectly integrated into the Russian tradition. On the other hand, that meaning of the word is completely lost when the whole world is consecrated.Indeed, one definition of the word "consecrate" is "set apart" as a sacred thing. Being a nation thus set apart by the Consecration to Our Lady of Fatima is perfectly integrated into the Russian tradition. On the other hand, that meaning of the word is completely lost when the whole world is consecrated. Indeed, one definition of the word "consecrate" is "set apart" as a sacred thing. Being a nation thus set apart by the Consecration to Our Lady of Fatima is perfectly integrated into the Russian tradition. On the other hand, that meaning of the word is completely lost when the whole world is consecrated.

If, then, the idea of ​​being consecrated to Our Lady is not likely to offend Russian Orthodox as Russians, is the idea of ​​being consecrated by the Roman Pontiff likely to offend them as Orthodox? It could be a simple matter of territory. Due to the numerical and historical preeminence of the Orthodox Church in Russia, it is possible that any Papal initiative specifically on Russia, such as an invasion of the Orthodox territory, was considered presumptuous. On a deeper level, it is possible that any Catholic prayer claiming "the conversion of Russia" - specifically in this post-Soviet era where some feel that she already converted out of communism - would meet opposition for claiming a conversion from Orthodoxy to Russia. Catholicism.

This last point, although it is a perfectly appropriate wish and prayer intention on the part of Catholics, would certainly be sensitive to the Orthodox. This, more so than the question of territory, is a potential objection that truly affects the Russian Orthodox not simply as Russians but as Orthodox, and the relations between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as distinct religious entities and, consequently, as potential rivals to each other. the dispute of the hearts of the faithful. Considering the perennial goal of the Vatican in favor of reconciliation with the Orthodox, the current challenge of western civilization in decline, which cries out for the common witness of a reunited Church, and the very promising developments in recent months in relations between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church, You can easily understand the Holy Father's resolve to do something that would derail that process.

But the unresolved differences between the two Churches, as well as their potential rivalry in conquering the soul of Russia, were not caused by Fatima, and rejecting the Consecration to Our Lady of Fatima will not make them disappear. Indeed, in my article in Inside the Vatican, I made a startling conclusion - that the potential of Fatima to unite the great eastern and western branches of Christendom far outweighs the potential to further divide them.

The tragedy of the Great Schism is that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which are so close in their beliefs, in prayer, in culture, in devotion, in liturgical and sacramental life, despite this they have remained divided over so many centuries. Both derive their theology and hierarchy from apostolic roots. Their doctrines diverge on only a few, out of an uncountable number, of articles of faith. Together they worship common saints, who share their millennium of joint history. Their liturgical practices - especially considering the Orthodox side by side with the Eastern Rite Catholics - would be difficult to distinguish to a casual outside observer. The exalted position of the Mother of God - not only in theology, in personal piety and in art,but even in the practical experience of His intervention in History and in the lives of men - it is a powerful unifying dimension that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches share. But the unity they both profess to desire has eluded them. Ironically, they can't get any closer, not despite the fact that they're already so close, but because of it.(It is worth making a very important clarification, until 1960 the Latin rite predominated in the liturgy of the Catholic Church and focused mainly on the Mass said in the Latin rite or universally extended Latin, after this year the vernacular rite appeared, change of language and liturgical changes that are impressively far from the true Catholic expression of religion. These radical changes instead of uniting the Orthodox and Catholics have separated them even more, there can no longer be a union between a totally changed liturgy and one that still remained. equal to the Latin liturgy, the union between one and the other is impossible at this time.)