Impairments in the
breast
of the Church itself.
Some of these reflect the opposition that is
born within the Church itself. We are going to talk about two that come to
mind, the four and fifth potential fears. I already mentioned the possible fear
that Maria would not comply, and for what reason that concern can definitely be
put aside. Another possible source of opposition would be from those within the
Church who, on the contrary, fear that this Consecration would do too much
instead of less. It is true that, during the century that separates us from the
apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima, there were, without a doubt, figures of the
Church who opposed an “excess of emphasis” on Fatima, and who might fear that
attempting a Consecration of Russia - even, or even specifically, one that
would deliver dramatic results - would send the wrong theological message or
elevate, in its perspective,the wrong factions in the Church. Those who want
the Church to minimize piety, mysticism, Marian devotion, fear of hell, reparation
and sacrifice, the conversion of sinners - in short, the entire program of Mary
-She would naturally feel threatened by Our Lady of Fatima. * Those are
the Fatima obstructionists that we could legitimately refer to as being “Our
Lady's enemies,” and not Her children who waver merely out of ignorance,
misunderstanding or shyness. (* I consider this to be the real reason because it has already been
seen how Our Lady was harshly attacked in the Second Vatican Council, we also
see it in the "new devotions" that have emerged in the Catholic world
to the detriment of the traditional ones, mainly against of the Virgin Mary, a
topic to be discussed at length in another article that closes this series of
articles published on the Fatima case.)
I do not believe that the Holy Father, (Unfortunately
I am not of the same opinion, the Pope cannot be excluded from this issue when
he himself, with his actions, supports this anti-Marian campaign in modernism.
"Naivety" is no excuse for his Please.) past or present, be
among those people, but I have no doubt that there are some within the Vatican
bureaucracy and among the Bishops. It starts from the principle that no one who
calls himself Catholic, even if he promotes a contrary agenda, would go so far
as to deliberately deny peace to the world; but it is clear that they would not
believe, anyway, that Our Lady was capable of bringing peace by the means that
She described.
But in addition to those who doubt Our Lady,
we also know that certain administrative and pastoral positions in the Church
are occupied, in truth, by non-believers one hundred percent, whether they are
agents planted there by enemies of the Church, or simply wandering children.
who have lost the Faith. It is possible that these wolves in sheep's clothing
are in positions that allow them to argue against the Consecration of Russia
and obstruct it. We can only hope and pray that they are few and of
influence that is waning. * (* Unfortunately it is already the majority and it is a false illusion
that they are a minority who support the secret of Our Lady of Fatima)
The fact that it may be necessary more than
simply the Holy Father's desire to consecrate Russia leads us to the fifth
potential fear: ¿What if it is not objectively possible to fulfill Our Lady’s
condition that all the Catholic Bishops of the world participate in the
Consecration? At present this is no longer possible as time has passed. God's
times are not man's times. What if a Consecration was scheduled mentioning
Russia by name, all Catholic Bishops being directed to participate, but some of
them refuse? This reality is unfortunately true not because "some"
refuse, but rather, everyone on the blog would refuse. Sister Lucia indicated
that some freedom of action was possible for Bishops who were prevented from
participating by a hostile government or any other problem,But it is clear that
a deliberate boycott could vitiate the entire initiative, the specter of the
boycott has already been carried out since 1960. Yes, in fact, the Vatican believes
that it would have to pay a price in the geopolitical or ecumenical areas if it
decided to consecrate Russia for its name, much less would I be willing to run
this cliff if, in any way, I could not fulfill what Mary Most Holy had asked.
Various solutions have been suggested for this
potential problem. For example, the Holy Father may announce in advance that
any diocesan Bishop who refuses to participate must ipso facto present his
resignation, which would be accepted, leaving his See vacant. This option is
readily available, but any pope would consider it with serious objections,
especially if he did not know the extent of the potential disobedience. As late
as 1987, Cardinal Stickler said that the Consecration had not been done, and
that the reason for such had been the uncertainty about how to ensure the
participation of all Bishops. It is also known that Pope John Paul II had some
concerns about this.
This fear is not negligible, if we consider
that, unfortunately, some Bishops are included, almost certainly, among the
wolves in sheep's clothing already mentioned. But if the Holy Father were
determined to make a Consecration of Russia in accordance with Fatima, and
recalcitrant Bishops were the only impediment, I am certain that the experts of
Canon Law in the Church could come up with an appropriate technical
solution. The fact that this question is not feasible, being little
discussed indicates a lack of urgency in solving the problem. It is what
would be expected, as fears of external consequences continue to block, in any
way, the Consecration of Russia by name.
The Challenge of
Fatima
For a long time I have been following this
burning issue closely and I have not found, in my modest point of view, a
convincing and blunt answer to definitively bypass the issue and, finally,
leave this problem to divine providence because the "times of man ”they
are already exhausted and only God's time remains expressed in those words of
the Blessed Virgin of Fatima: “… The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to
Me, which will be converted and some time of peace will be granted to the world
”
This pause in the apparitions of Our Lady of
La Sallette translates into 25 years of peace.
1960 was the time of God, but not of men as we
have seen. We could ask ourselves, why did God choose that date and not
another? I think the answer is evident, because it was the beginning of the
Second Vatican Council and, until now, it is the one that has gathered the most
bishops in the history of councils, a primary requirement and special reason to
consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart and reveal to the whole world the third
secret. The consequences of this consecration as a revelation of the third
secret, no matter how “disastrous they have been”, were
under the control of Divine Providence, she would direct everything to the
divine plan drawn up by her, without any problem.
However, as we saw "human prudence”, but is it just human prudence
or are there other more hidden interests in this case? Unfortunately yes
and there can be several.
Let's start with those that are so often named
in all the writings related to this topic:
1) How could they consecrate Russia
to the Immaculate Heart if the Russian Orthodox schismatics were there as
special guests? Doing that would be like an insult and an offense that
would cause the immediate withdrawal of this delegation and a bad start for the
Council, incredible, but it was true that they preferred to follow a
"diplomatic" policy contrary to the Divine Will. Fatal error.
2) If this action was carried out, what would
the other delegations of Protestants who were also invited to the Council
think, such as Anglicans, Lutherans and, above all, Jews? Unheard of
action worthy of being condemned.
3) The Catholic people were not prepared to
hear the content of the third secret and, perhaps, they would be scared or
filled with fear at the “terrible content of the third secret, it is better to
leave it for another time… until now that time has not come. In addition,
we must not satisfy that vain curiosity that can have dire
consequences. Nefarious for whom? Logical it would be a serious
stumbling block in the inauguration of this disastrous Council from what is
seen so far.
Thus we could continue to list more and more
inconveniences to justify the non-consecration of Russia, such as the
revelation of the third secret.
4) But the real reason, which I consider to be
of enormous weight, for which the commandment of heaven was not obeyed is none
other than the infiltration of Freemasonry followed by its Jewish
leaders. They had already failed in 1903 when Cardinal Rampolla sworn
Mason was vetoed and they were not willing to lose again. Furthermore, how
were their plans to destroy the Church from within with its "aberrant
doctrine of modernism, as long prepared as a whole as in its details, to
fail?" Saint Pius X already declared it at the time: “But it must be recognized that
in recent times the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has grown, in
a strange way, who, with entirely new and perfidy arts, strive to annihilate
the vital energies of the Church, and even to totally destroy, if possible, the
kingdom of Jesus Christ. (Enc. Pascendi Gregis) This was the
moment of darkness, this was the masterstroke of satan and that is why the warnings
of Fatima were ignored. This was the moment so long cherished by the malevolent
minds of these men now cardinals, bishops and liberal theologians to the core.
Modestly speaking, I do not find a heavier
argument than this to disobey the divine desire and leave, once again, in the
deepest drawer both the matter of the consecration of Russia and the revelation
of the third secret. Sad and unfortunate reality.
5) Today more than ever we are very far from
the consecration of Russia. The argument is easy to write, but difficult
to digest and difficult to understand for those who are not familiar with this
way of working of the Pontiffs from John XXIII to the present.
When Our Lady of Fatima set the date the
Church still enjoyed its four distinctive notes: ¿One, Holy, Catholic
and Apostolic, after the Council, ¿do you still keep these notes of
your own? The answer is no. It is no longer One, Holy, Catholic and
Apostolic, it is no longer the same religion they have changed us, it
could be anything but Catholic.
Hypothetically speaking, if consecration were
given under the standards of this New Church, would Russia stop being
schismatic and convert? And to which Church would the Official Church be
converted, already modernist and heretical OR THE VISIBLE, of which a pusillus
grex “a small flock remains? God forbid under any circumstances. We could well
apply the words of Santo Tomas on this question:
“The
bad ones cannot work miracles to base their erroneous doctrines, according to
Santo Tomas, and they enter into this section; heretics of all times,
schismatics etc. (Doctrinal study on the miracle. Saint Thomas Aquinas) Let's imagine if God
allowed this consecration, impossible. God would be confirming the error and
discrediting himself as absolute TRUTH, there is no collusion between light and
darkness, between error and TRUTH. How can we appreciate and confirm God's
time has already passed and men's time is about to run out and they have
not achieved anything They have only managed to awaken the divine anger
that is ready to punish us. The how, when, where and in what way only the
Trinity knows it, we can only pray that it has mercy on some souls because,
according to Our Lady of La Salette, three-quarters of humanity will perish in
this great punishment.
For many of my readers it will be difficult to
understand this language, for others it will seem extremely exaggerated and,
finally, few will agree with me, although I admit that they have more arguments
to add to the brief review that I do on this subject so long debated, but,
without a doubt, it sets a precedent very contrary to what we have been hearing
for years.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario