Skip to comments.Pope Recalls Fatima Consecration
Posted on 03/24/2004 8:26:57 AM PST by CatherineSiena
Vatican, Mar. 24 (CWNews.com) - At his weekly public audience on March 24, Pope John Paul II (bio - news) recalled that 20 years ago, he consecrated "all of humanity" to the Virgin Mary, thus fulfilling "our Lady's plea at Fatima."
The Holy Father began his remarks by reminding his audience that Thursday, March 25, is the feast of the Annunciation, "which allows us to contemplate the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, made man in Mary's womb." He added that Mary's "fiat" echoes the obedience of Jesus to the divine plan, "to which we must add our 'Yes.'"
The Pope said that at three different times during his pontificate, he has made consecrations to the Virgin Mary. On December 8, 1978-- just weeks after his election-- he consecrated the Church and the world to the Immaculate Conception. In June 1979 he renewed that consecration during a visit to the shrine of the Black Madonna in Poland. Then on March 25, 1984, he made the consecration which, he said, fulfilled the terms of the Virgin's plea at Fatima.
The Pope said:
Twenty years have gone by since that day when, in spiritual union with all the bishops of the world, I entrusted all of mankind to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in response to Our Lady's plea in Fatima.
Today's world remains too full of "hatred, violence, terrorism, and war," the Pope said. He asked for prayer for all the innocent people who suffer from violence as "so much blood continued to be shed." He appealed to the Virgin Mary's aid to help turn men's hearts and minds, to end the violence.
Although his voice was halting, the Pope read the entirety of his remarks, in Italian. When he had finished his formal delivery, he offered greetings to the 14,000 people assembled in St. Peter's Square for the audience, speaking to them in French, English, German, Spanish, and Polish. He remained in the Square for nearly an hour, giving his blessing to young couples and to the sick, and posing for pictures with pilgrim groups.
Did they make those statements after saying it didn't happen? Hence, the dilemna.
That's the view of the Blessed Mother.
Few Protestants believe any of those apparitions and many see conflict with Scripture. Yet again, Catholics and Protestants disagree over Mary. I am not trying to change your mind but I do hope that you will note that no Catholic is required to believe in any of the apparitions of Mary.
That many of us DO believe in one or more approved apparitions (those which MAY be believed) is another question.
One great thing about the Roman Catholic Church AND the SSPX schism AND even the Gruener phenomenon of ecclesiastical disobedience is that all three allow thee and me to agree once in a while.
Gruener would do well to keep his priestly vow of obedience by, well, obeying (for a life-altering change) his diocesan ordinary whom he has spurned for about 20 years while acting impermissibly as a free agent priest answering to no one but himself. Now he has to settle for such as Ferraro and Woods as his apologists.
Although I do believe in the apparitions at Lourdes and at Fatima and at LaSalette and many others, we, as Catholics. are not required to believe that Mary has ever appeared at any of those places or that she has ever delivered any messages or that she delivered the reported messages.
Thus, we may de facto be required to believe certain dogmas but that requirement itself is not the product of a required belief in any apparition.
Yep, that blind obedience will be real helpful in the days to come. Great job!
CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO, APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL IV, 15TH FEBUARY 1559, (ROMAN BULLARIUM VOL. IV. SEC. I, PP. 354-357)
...We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority...
1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.
...and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place...
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-]
that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power, without any exception in respect of those to which they may have been promoted or elevated before they deviated from the Faith, became heretics, incurred schism, or provoked or committed any or all of these.
Roncalli, aka "John 23rd"
Montini, aka "Paul 6th"
Wojtyla, aka "JP2"
Are you arguing that the See of Peter is vacant pursuant to 6 (vi) or otherwise)? If so, say so and specify your reasons for being a sedevacantist. Also, since the Counterreformation document cited refers only to matters arising PRIOR to one's elevation to the papacy, the date when you are alleging that JP II fell into heresy. Otherwise, please state your obedience to the pontiff because disobedience is not justified otherwise by the document cited.
The words alleged to have been communicated by Mary at LaSalette are nonetheless PRIVATE REVELATION and do not require belief. Do you claim otherwise? If you do, please specify what authoritative Church document commands doctrinal assent to private revelation.
In any event, who decides? Who executes the decision? Will there be a schismatic sort of Swiss guard charging the papal palace with halberds to remove the allegedly offending pontiff? Will bishop Fellay issue an SSPX fatwa and the pope scurry from the Vatican upon his command? Will it be a committee of SSPX's excommunicated bishops and schismatic priests theoretically under their non-existent authority? Perhaps a committee of Chris Ferraro, Tom Woods and Tom Drolesky and similarly sober scholars in love with their own opinions? The Remnant editorial board? The Angelus editorial board? Fr. Gruner?
Items 2 through 5 of Paul IV's document seem absent but he referenced "certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them (and) should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority..." Did he identify the "certain people?" What else has been edited out lest we consider the content?
Why is the language in the introductory paragraph of 6 bracketed which talks of the document remaining valid in perpetuity? Did Paul IV say so or not?
It sometimes seems like some of you guys would like to turn the papacy into a sort of ongoing Young Republican credentials fight of some sort wherein every schismatic or excommunicated Tom , Dock or Harriet can weigh in at any time with bloviation questioning the Catholicism of the pope based upon Tom or Dick or Harriet's OPIOS, OPIOT or OPIOF. This is a prescription for Heinz's 5700 varieties of Protestantism (each and every sect claiming to have the "right" understanding of Scripture or whatever as opposed to all the others), for religious anarchy posing as Roman Catholicism without warrant, or the same old same old of those thrown out of the game questioning the credentials of the umpire. In any event, there is no reason Catholics who are in communion with the Holy See to give such a satanic stew of arguments and prescriptions the time of day.
With the dissenters or without, the Roman Catholic Church will prevail to the end as promised by Jesus Christ.
Since every cardinal-elector, now living, has been appointed by one of these three popes whose credentials you seem to challenge, how will you reconstitute the papacy? Vox populi? Acclamation by the people of Rome (who regularly elect atheist and communist mayors?)??? Some other method? Please specify to enlighten the poor benighted followers of Pope John Paul II.
Also, let's hear the specifics of any heresies which you attribute to John XXIII, Paul VI or JP II PRIOR to their respective papacies. Otherwise, may we conclude that your idea of "the abomination of desolation" is a pope or three who steadfastly refuse to cater to your tastes in rubrics, style, governance or whatever? Is there a significance to the photo of JP II???? Are those rabbis in the picture? Do you find that relevant?
It is not for nothing that you have well chosen that screen name.
Thanks again and may God bless you and yours.