Russia is already a Catholic nation. Her people are not heretics, but dissidents or schismatics. You can't convert someone to a faith they already hold. In the same vein, do the Polish National Catholics, SSPX, or Chinese Patriotic Association need to change faiths, or do they need to submit to the governance of the Bishop of Rome? Obviously the later, unlike say, a Methodist or a Muslim.
Let's be brutally frank: to assert that the Catholic Church is not interested in the conversion of souls from Orthodoxy to Catholicism is to assert a belief that is alien to Catholic truth and representative of the sort of syncretist, pan-Christianity specifically condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos in 1928.
This implies that Orthodoxy is not Catholicism, when the Russian Orthodox actually style themselves Catholic (we call them Orthodox in English for the same reason we term the East Roman Empire "Byzantium", and for the same reason we don't call eastern Christians what they and their Muslim opressors call themselves "Romans" - to avoid historic truths uncomfortable to the dominant Anglo-French perspective in the west). For this to be true, for Orthodoxy to be "not Catholicism", one should be able to date the exact moment when Russia, which started off Catholic in AD 988 in union with both Old Rome and Constantinople New Rome, suddenly gave it up and stopped being Catholic, and changed the faith it originally professed in AD 988. I'm waiting for this data to be given. If of course, it can be shown that Russia never changed her faith professed, then of course, she remains as Catholic as she was in AD 988. The question then becomes why Rome, and K'yiv and Moscow, are no longer in mutual communion. A solid data point for this is the unions of Brest and Uzhorod in 1596 and 1646. Those diocese entering communion with Rome were not required to renounce any errors, but rather to profess obedience to Rome as the first, while changing nothing of their faith and worship (at least that's what the treaties said). If there was nothing to be renounced in 1646, one wonders what has changed since then.
One of the most important fruits of the actual consecration of Russia to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart by a pope and all of the world's bishops is the conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith,
Where was this ever promised? This gets bandied about so much that most take it for granted, yet it seems to have no foundation in fact. Its rather like the intention Pius XI added to the Leonine Prayers, that they be said for the "liberty of the Church in Russia" (something accomplished in 1991 with the fall of Communism). This has been thoroughly confused with this same nebulous "conversion of Russia to Catholicism" by too many who should know better.
the same sort of miraculous, widespread and almost instantaneous conversion that took place in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America after Our Lady appeared to Saint Juan Diego on December 9, 1531.
The conversion of Mexico and Latin America was hardly "instantaneous", but was a work spread out over many decades. Otherwise, the Franciscans would have no reason to be planting new missions to convert heathen Indians in New Spain in the late 1700's.
Over twenty years later, however, Luigi Cardinal Ciappi, O.P., who was for many years the theologian of the papal household, said that the Third Secret of Fatima dealt with apostasy within the Church, starting at the very top. Please tell me how not seeking the conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith is not apostasy.
This must be that "real third secret" being hidden by the Satanists in the Vatican. Right? Have I got that straight?
Laboring under the delusion that Bolshevism ended when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was dissolved on December 25, 1991
Aparently this is a delusion must Russians, Ukranians, and Central Europeans are suffering too. The delusion of thinking they are no longer opressed by Bolshevik atheists.
How can a priest in Europe, of all places, which had been so convulsed by events that could have been prevented if Our Lady's words had been heeded, live thirty-five years of his priesthood (1946-1981) without giving much thought to Our Lady's apparitions in Fatima?
Probably because it is totally irrelevant to teaching the Catholic Faith. Had the message been a vital part of Catholicism, Our Lord would have included it in the public revelation entrusted to His Holy Apostles.
Little children in Catholic schools in the United States were taught to foster devotion to Our Lady's Fatima requests.
This sure worked wonders in ensuring the post-war generation raised on this type of Catholicsm "kept the faith" didn't it? What sort of intellectual pride is it that prevents a priest and a bishop and an archbishop and a pope from paying careful attention to an actual appearance of the Mother of God to warn about the dangers posed by the spreading of the errors of Russia?
Indeed, for all of Pope John Paul II's opposition to crimes against the inviolability of innocent human life, he does not seem to realize that it was in Russia under Vladimir Lenin that abortion on demand first reared its ugly head under state sponsorship in the year of 1918.
Abortion was legal in the US prior to around 1860. Most countries have long allowed fairly widespread abortion under various guises such as "life of the Mother" excuses. Is there a significant moral difference between allowing "abortion on demand" and abortion by craniotomy for various medical excuses? I don't see it. Maybe Mr. Drolesky does.
Abortion is thus very much one of the errors of Russia that crystallize the problems of modernity.
Around the same time Russia was allowing widespread abortion, so were other places, such as Weimar Germany.
Indeed, the errors of Russia are really the errors of modernity and Modernism. That is, the errors enshrined in Bolshevism are the crystallization of false philosophies and currents that began to issue during some aspects of the Renaissance before taking full bloom in the aftermath of the Protestant Revolt and the subsequent rise of Freemasonry.
So the primary sicknesses coming out of England are somehow the errors of Russia in Communism? I must have missed the Protestant-Freemason conspiracy that was behind Bolshevism being introduced in Russia as Leninism.
These mental gymnastics are difficult!
Schismatics are not Catholics.
For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree.[7] And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church.[8] As a result, that man is already a schismatic and a sinner who establishes a see in opposition to the unique See of the blessed Peter[9] from which the rights of sacred communion derive for all men.[10]9. This fact was well known to the illustrious bishops of the Eastern Churches. Hence at the Council of Constantinople held in the year 536, Mennas the bishop of that city affirmed openly with the approval of the fathers, "We follow and obey the Apostolic See, as Your Charity realizes and we consider those in communion with it to be in communion with us, and we too condemn the men condemned by it."[11] Even more clearly and emphatically St. Maximus, abbot of Chrysopolis, and a confessor of the faith, in refer ring to Pyrrhus the Monothelite, declared: "If he wants neither to be nor to be called a heretic, he toes not need to satisfy random individuals of his orthodoxy, for this is excessive and unreasonable. But just as all men have been scandalized at him since the chief man was scandalized, so also when that one has been satisfied, all men will doubtless be satisfied. He should hasten to satisfy the Roman See before all others. For when this See has been satisfied, all men everywhere will join in declaring him pious and orthodox. For that man wastes his words who thinks that men like me must be persuaded and beguiled when he has not yet satisfied and beseeched the blessed Pope of the holy Roman Church. From the incarnate word of God Himself as well as from the conclusions and sacred canons of all holy councils, the Apostolic See has been granted the command, authority and power of binding and loosing for all God's holy churches in the entire world."[12] For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared-and the entire Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later—"that the names of those who were separated from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries."[13] This plainly meant that they did not recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic. (Bl. Pius IX, Encyclical Quartus Supra On the Church in Armenia)