The consecration of Russia seemed to have touched the hearts of the Popes in spite of their critical attitude towards Sr. Lucia’s writings.
They made immense efforts to pretend that they had accomplished the wishes of Our Lady despite the clear objective evidence that the conditions have simply not been fulfilled. Why then accomplish such an act and at the same time refuse to fulfil the conditions? Because the conditions in themselves are inadmissible for those who adhere to the “Spirit of the Council”; they are a thorn in their side; they are against their principles.
Concrete analysis of the requirements and why they are refused:
- Since the Second Vatican Council, the real power in the Church seems to be the Bishops’ Conferences. There is almost no example of a Pope who has ignored or short circuited the Bishops’ Conferences. Now, the first condition for the consecration of Russia is an act of supreme authority, an order that emphasizes the universal monarchic power of the Pope. It goes directly against the principle of Collegialism which was officially established as the model of the governance of the Church since Vatican II. To accomplish this request would mean a clear return to the traditional monarchic understanding of the Church as established by Our Lord himself, and defined as a Dogma of the Faith by the First Vatican Council.
- The Popes after Vatican II generally avoid the term “consecration” and replace it with “entrustment”, because a total surrender of oneself to Mary is considered to be an exaggeration of her role in our life. It is also against the ecumenical way which strives to diminish the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, as for the latter, the spiritual motherhood and the royal power of Mary are impossible to accept.
- The consecration of Russia with the clear goal to eliminate the “errors of Russia” and its “godless propaganda” does not harmonize with the pacifist mentality of the 2nd Vatican Council, wherein the notion of the Church on earth as a Militant Church has been practically abolished, and Catholic Life is no longer considered as a continuous spiritual fight against errors and sin, but as a ‘positive striving of giving witness’ and as an keeping an open mind for dialogue and tolerance. Furthermore, we have seen in Volume II that the deeper reason for the consecration of Russia is not only to overcome the Marxist “errors of Russia”, but also the conversion of Russia from schism to the Catholic Faith, which is also a deadly blow against Ecumenism. Therefore, whenever there is an allusion to Russia in the post-conciliar ‘consecrations’, the idea of conversion is radically suppressed.
- In none of the consecrations do we find the public act of Reparation requested so many times by Our Lady. The act of Reparation belongs to the very essence of the devotion to her Immaculate Heart. Now, the idea of reparation recalls eternal damnation as a terrible consequence of sin and the importance of penance and conversion to avoid the fires of Hell. Today, sin is conceived only in terms of being an offense against oneself or against one’s neighbor. The notion of the rights of God, the fact that those rights are offended by sin, and the need to make reparation for the offenses, are all completely lost from sight today.
If a Pope fulfils all the requirements of Our Lady, he practically abandons the whole post-conciliar orientation as a false road.