Evil Empire or Russia Consecrated?

This is another interesting video but it's worth mentioning this is over 2 years old. I suspect that Putin has become more 'secure' in Russia since then and subject to less local criticism.

 

L

Interesting since 1984, over 1.5 billion humans have died because of abortion, several million in rwanda, and the kosovo wars etc., etc. We have alsoo had the scandals in churches, widespread denials of truth in many denominations, and the increase in homosexual marriage. Also, 911 and continual wars by the military industrial complex. Christians being systematically eradicated in many parts of the world. Russia negotiating to build military bases in marxist nicarauga. Russia and china forging military and economic ties and both countries stating they both can destroy the usa with nuclear weapons. The 1984 consecration to the world had great benefits, but if this is what is meant by the era of peace, then it really is a satire on the word peace and a denial of reality. Just because cardinal bertone writes a book, does not make it the definitive answer to the question at hand. Correct me if I am wrong, I do not believe any Pope has officially stated the consecration of Russia has been done. There have been many contradictory statements attributed to Sister Lucy in this matter. I am a simple man and when I look around me, this is no era of peace in our world today. In fact the opposite is taking place. The real concern is the establishment of a false peace which is man centered and leaves God out of the picture. Also the fulfillment of the Our Father prayer will bring about the triumph of the immaculate heart of Mary and the era of peace.

 

Verne, I hope you will take this posting in the spirit it is made. I have been impressed by your messages as a whole but I am a little surprised you are posting to this list on the controversial matter of the Consecration of Russia. The reason? Because of the following quote from your messages:

Do not cause division among my people by arguing over the consecration of Russia. It is a deceptive trick of Satan to prevent my people from focusing on your mission: the salvation of souls. Again, I will repeat myself
for you. Your mission is to lead souls to my son Jesus Christ for salvation, not cause souls to leave my church because of your proud and argumentative spirit. I the Lord will hold you accountable for your actions, words, and thoughts, which cause another to stumble. The consecration will take place in my time, not yours or Satan’s. I receive no honor and glory from your pride but only from your humility. Be a part of my son’s army and my daughter Mary’s army. Fulfill your mission. Let those whose mission it is to work for the consecration of Russia, fulfill their mission. It is not your mission. Do not cause schism or division, but love and unity among my people.

 

Thanks for the reminder. But a good discussion on a issue is good for all of us. These posts are my own ideas. I don't purport to have all the answers. But this issue is important considering the ramifications if it has not been done. We are all christians and few care about this issue. If I have offended, I apologize. But i will be the first to admit that I do not live my life as God told me in those messages. Plus as of the date of those messages, I was told the consecration had not been done.

 

There is a man in Germany who doesn't believe Russia is converting.

http://rt.com/news/208071-germany-weapons-man-russia/

 

You really don't have to apologize Verne as God respects our freedom.

You have not been guilty of causing controversy. Nor have you caused any division on this forum.

 

Furthermore, Verene has been commisioned by our Lord to spread the messages he has been given. Aruging to no end is one thing, having our Lord's messages reiterated by Verne in his own understanding is quite another. In the past year, I have posted Verne's message on the consecration of Russia at least 6 times on different threads, all for clarification to what I believe are authentic messages from God in this regard. The messages to me are a light to the world on a very essential prophecy and truth should be reiterated for the sake of the Church faithful, lest we not be praying for the Consecratoin of Russia, which is an essential event that must take palce in order to usher in the Triumph of the Immacualte Heart of Mary.

 

The words of Sister Lucia, Cardinal Bertone, Benedict XVI and Saint John Paul II and other Church authorities carry much more weight regarding the Consecration of Russia than the words of unapproved private revelation. Catholics are required to obey and submit to legitimate Church authority in matters of private revelation.

 

We each have a mission from God and we need God'S grace to fulfill our mission. Let us pray for the era of peace to come soon to our earth

 

You forgot to mention that Saint Padre Pio submitted to the very Church authorities that were testing him. Many great Saints and Mystics have been tested in this way. Saint Padre Pio submitted to the Church authorities and would be very disappointed that so many Catholics today are deliberately disobedient to the Church when it comes to the matter of the Consecration of Russia. Saint Padre Pio would be very disappointed that so many Catholics are accusing their shepherds of lying and conspiracy all because they can't or won't accept that Russia is converting, and have been brainwashed by a lying American Media into believing that Russia is the boogeyman.

The current situation in Ukraine serves as an excellent example of these dynamics, where we see the West and Russia in direct confrontation. But who is the aggressor? Is it really Russia, as the American Media and Obama Administration would have us believe? No. Russia did not create the chaos in Ukraine. Russia offered Yanukovych Gas at a discount. In this deal Ukraine and Russia were winners, and the usurious EU and West the losers. The EU would not accept this Deal and so they resorted to violence and a violent coup d'etat commenced - a violent coup that was directly supported by the West. The ethnic Russians in Ukraine - first in Crimea and then in the Donbass - refused to accept the results of the violent and unconstitutional coup in Kiev and voted to leave the Ukraine. In Crimea - which has always been Russian and where the Russians have direct national security interests - Putin executed the brilliant use of special forces in a virtually bloodless securing of Russian Naval assets. Putin has not sent Russian forces into the Donbass and there is not one shred of real military intelligence to support such a claim. I almost wish Putin had sent the Russian military into the Donbass because if he did, Poroshenko would have thought twice about launching a military operation there against his own people. It's funny, the same Catholics that are always bashing Putin never have a single word of condemnation against Poroshenko's ongoing war crimes against the civilians of the Donbasss, who held a peaceful referendum to leave Ukraine. Poroshenko responded to that peaceful referendum by launching a full-scale, military campaign which directly targeted civilian population centers in an indiscriminate manner. If you ask me, it doesn't sound like Russia needs converted. It sounds like the West needs converted.

 

Well put Richard. I wholeheartedly agree with your description of the conflict. Prayers going up for those caught in the middle.

 

Yes, prayers indeed, especially for the children of the Donbass.

 

You need to back off and back down. This is not a matter of obedience to Church authority. Why would Cardinal Bertone, as Secretary of State, have any authority whatsoever to interpret the Fatima message and the Church's response to it?

His was a diplomatic and political/managerial role, not a doctrinal one. As such he was acting more in obedience to the Vatican-Moscow Accord, signed in the early 1960s, in which in exchange for Russia permitting Russian Orthodox clergy to attend VII, the Vatican agreed not to publicly criticize the Soviet Union.

The doctrinal authority would be the Pope himself or the head of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger.

Russia has not been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as requested at Fatima. Cardinal Ratzinger himself admitted this at the press conference in the year 2000 at the Vatican when the "Third Secret" was "revealed."

Here's the video in which Chris Ferrara reads Cardinal Ratzinger's own words regarding the consecration, from the transcript of that news conference, beginning at 48:50 but especially right at 50:00 minutes into the video:



Regarding a question about Fr. Gruner, Cardinal Ratzinger answers the reporter:

"I think that he should conform himself to the magisterium of the Church, recognizing that the Consecration of Russia is done according to the will of the Madonna, and that he should leave it to the Magisterium of the Church to find the right moment."

He was saying in the year 2000 that the Magisterium had not yet found the right moment, that the Consecration of Russia has not yet been done.

Cardinal Ratzinger goes on (in the transcript):

"He could make this proposal [i.e., the Consecration of Russia] but he should also be capable of being sufficiently generous to accept that the Magisterium has her reasons to not do it immediately, but to wait a little, and above all for the maturation of the process [of canonization] of the three shepherds."​

So in summary, there are two opposing public positions on the Consecration of Russia, that of Cardinal Bertone, who in his diplomatic/political role said it was accomplished, and that of Cardinal Ratzinger, who as chief doctrinal head of the Church at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated that "the Magisterium has her reasons to not do it immediately, but to wait a little."

When there is such open disagreement between public statements by two Church Cardinals, who are you to condemn Catholics who agree with Cardinal Ratzinger's position as being "deliberately disobedient to the Church"?!?

 

Our primary mission is to make it to Heaven; obeying the Church in all matters, especially matters of private revelation, is essential.

Regarding the Era of Peace, I'm glad you mentioned it. The Era of Peace is perhaps one of the more enigmatic aspects of the Fatima revelations. What kind of "peace" did our Lady of Fatima mean when she promised a period of peace. Was it simply "peace" as in the absence of war or was it something more important, the Peace of Christ? Some of the interpreations of the Era of Peace sound uncomfortably postmillennialist. I simply don’t think an era of universal or near-universal Catholicism is a likely interpretation of that prophecy, espeically given that the Catechism teaches that, "before his Ascension Christ affirmed that the hour had not yet come for the glorious establishment of the messianic kingdom awaited by Israel which, according to the prophets, was to bring all men the definitive order of justice, love and peace. According to the Lord, the present time is the time of the Spirit and of witness, but also a time still marked by 'distress' and the trial of evil which does not spare the Church and ushers in the struggles of the last days. It is a time of waiting and watching" and especially given the context of the message of Fatima, which took place in the context of a World War among the major nations. Taken from a 20th Century context the "period of peace" need not necessarily mean more than a lack of war among the major nations… in which case we may have been living in it since the fall of the Soviet Union. You see, I think Satan was banking on a Nuclear Confrontation during the Cold War. Satan was behind the First and Second World Wars and everything seemed to suggest that a Nuclear War between The West and Russia was imminent during the Cold War. But, against all odds, this Nuclear War never came: this is perhaps the greatest mystery of the 20th Century, and I don't think we have begun to fully grasp it.

 

Relax.

I will never back down from obeying legitimate Church authority. Cardinal Bertone, as then Secretary for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, was a legtimate Chruch authority and must be respected as such. I will not tolerate unfounded slander and character assassination against our shepherds.

 

Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the time Cardinal Bertone was Secretary. In Catholic terms, that would make Ratzinger Bertone's superior. Ratzinger said the Church must wait for the proper time for the consecration of Russia, stating, " the Consecration of Russia is done according to the will of the Madonna, and that he should leave it to the Magisterium of the Church to find the right moment."

If as Ratzinger has stated, the Consecration of Russia has not been done and the Church's Magisterium must find the right moment to so it, then you are neither "respecting legitimate Church authority" in stating its already been done, nor are you correct in your condemnation of those following the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the time on this matter.

So again, you do need to back down in your attacks and and incorrect assertions that others are engaging in "unfounded slander and character assassination against our shepherds," because that charge would then apply to Cardinal Ratzinger also given your assertions here.

 

I can't find the original transcript to that interview.

Everywhere I search for a full transcript, I am left with the same quote you have posted, and all these quotes go back to the same source: one Brian Kopp. Rather strange if you ask me.

And then you have the fact that the qoute you are citing is ambiguous and the meaning changes depending on where you put the emphasis. It is just as easy to use that quote to prove that the Consecration was done:

"I think that he [Gruner] should conform himself to the magisterium of the Church, recognizing that the Consecration of Russia is done according to the will of the Madonna, and that he [Gruner] should leave it to the Magisterium of the Church to find the right moment."

Right moment for what? Something relating to Father Gruner or something relating to the Consecration? Since we don't have an official full transcript of this alleged interview it is hard to reach a proper interpretation.

 

Please provide an official transcript of the this interview you are using as proof of your conspiracy. I've looked and I can't find an official full transcript anywhere, just the same repeating quotation without a context.

 

In the video, Chris Ferrara reads Cardinal Ratzinger's own words regarding the consecration, from the transcript of that news conference June 26th, 2000. I'm sure you could contact Chris Ferrara to find out where he obtained the Vatican transcipt, but I suspect he received the transcript of the Vatican press conference from the Vatican itself.