Pope Recalls Fatima Consecration

CWNews.com ^ | 3/24/2004

[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.

[biblewonk]

I have a tape of the Gibson interview with Sawyer. Shall I review it? I certainly did not notice any such remark by Gibson. Before I take the trouble please tell me whether you are editorializing in any way or simply relating what you claim are the literal contents of the tape.

I believe she asked him about all those other religions. She asked if people in other religions get to go to heaven and said something like "It's a lot easier to go to heaven if you are a Christian".

FWIW, as a Roman Catholic and devotee of Mary, I recognize the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as a gift of my Savior and the sole atonement necessary for the forgiveness of my sins. I also recognize that Mary cooperated with redemption by giving her assent to bearing the Christ Child fathered by the Holy Ghost by responding to Gabriel: Let it be done unto me according to thy word (the Magnificat) and by faithfully serving her Son. Do you disagree with those statements being Catholic doctrine (documentation?) or with those statements?

I disagree that she had the choice to reject His incarnation. Catholics like to play that choice as if she decided she would go ahead and save mankind therefore we are indebted to her personally. Then there is all of the "stuff" about her person and character and what was "necessary" for Jesus to come to the earth. These are purely manmade requirements.

[BlackElk]

What you are posting here in #104 may well be true. I am not sure what to believe as to Mary being Mediatrix of all graces and I suspect that the idea offends the "reformed" mch more than it offends any sort of Catholic with any business calling him/her self Catholic. If I need to believe it (and it may well turn out that way), I do believe that the doctrine would be formally defined by the pope. That may or may not happen for many reasons. It would help if a formal definition would accompany any declaration of such a doctrine.

[biblewonk]

You guys really gotta cut God's Mom some slack. Why ARE y'all soooooo angry at her?

This is a very phoney question. It is as politically manipulative as I'd expect from Kerry.

[BlackElk]

Gabriel did not deliver a threat to her. She had a choice. Considering all that Catholics believe as to Mary, it seems obvious what that choice would be. Nonetheless, it was not forced assent. The message was not: "By the way you have been impregnated, whether you agree or not, by the Holy Ghost and you will bear a child so deal with it." Nor did Gabriel approach Joseph that way.

Mary, as I understand it, simply agreed. If she did not agree, then I have every confidence that God would have found a way to carry out John 3:15. I do not know what personal debt might arise to Mary in regard to the Incarnation. We owe the possibility of our salvation to her Son and to Him alone.

I will pull out the tape but I would expect to find that Gibson said it was easier to go to heaven if you are a Catholic, the question arising in the context of the fact that his wife is Anglican (and the unstated position of the RCC that the Anglican Church lacks apostolic succession according to Leo XIII and therefore lacks the Mass and the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance). It would certainly be easier for any Christian to see heaven than for Hindus or Buddhists or whatever form of pagan, the non-Catholic Christian having less of the fullness of the Faith than the Catholic and the pagans still less so and usually none of the Faith.

I am not stressing these differences between us to aggravate but just to state my suspicions as to the interview and what I, as a Catholic, suspect that Gibson may have said and why before reviewing it. As you may well have a more comprehensive recall of Scripture than I, so I may have an easier feel for Catholic tradition as we Catholics experience it. I will tell you honestly and publicly in either event after reviewing it.

[BlackElk]

It was actually meant as a humorous jab. Lighten up. We agree on much more than we disagree on.

[biblewonk]

Sorry, I've seen people ask that exact question and it was not a light hearted jab.

[Polycarp IV]

[OLD REGGIE]

The message was not: "By the way you have been impregnated, whether you agree or not, by the Holy Ghost and you will bear a child so deal with it."

Nor was it posed as a question. Rather, it was a statement of fact.

Luke 1:
[30] And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
[31] And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.

[biblewonk]

Gabriel did not deliver a threat to her. She had a choice. Considering all that Catholics believe as to Mary, it seems obvious what that choice would be. Nonetheless, it was not forced assent. The message was not: "By the way you have been impregnated, whether you agree or not, by the Holy Ghost and you will bear a child so deal with it." Nor did Gabriel approach Joseph that way.

By ascribing a choice to her you give her something that the bible does not. By doing this you establish a foothold onwhich to build other untruths like her worthiness to carry Jesus. Assumption/assention whichever one is hers, I forget. Ever virginity co-redemer co-mediater. All are built on such tiny things as choice and merit that are nowhere given in the Word of God.

Mary, as I understand it, simply agreed. If she did not agree, then I have every confidence that God would have found a way to carry out John 3:15. I do not know what personal debt might arise to Mary in regard to the Incarnation. We owe the possibility of our salvation to her Son and to Him alone.

A parallel example of this whole "agree" thing is seen in Saul's conversion. You don't see him givin a choice it was simply BAM you're a Christian now. I like Calvin's term "irresistable" in these cases.

I will pull out the tape but I would expect to find that Gibson said it was easier to go to heaven if you are a Catholic, the question arising in the context of the fact that his wife is Anglican (and the unstated position of the RCC that the Anglican Church lacks apostolic succession according to Leo XIII and therefore lacks the Mass and the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance). It would certainly be easier for any Christian to see heaven than for Hindus or Buddhists or whatever form of pagan, the non-Catholic Christian having less of the fullness of the Faith than the Catholic and the pagans still less so and usually none of the Faith.

It is possible that the word used was Catholic and not Christian. However, in the context of the question we can say that it translates to Christian vs non-christian religion, perhaps.

I am not stressing these differences between us to aggravate but just to state my suspicions as to the interview and what I, as a Catholic, suspect that Gibson may have said and why before reviewing it. As you may well have a more comprehensive recall of Scripture than I, so I may have an easier feel for Catholic tradition as we Catholics experience it. I will tell you honestly and publicly in either event after reviewing it.

I appreciate your mature attitude in discussing these issues. As a non-catholic that debates with Catholics a lot I have a pretty good feel for how Catholics view things too. I know that salvation is not near as black and white to a Catholic and even less so to a Mel. I'm not a Mel fan at all but I was excited to see him giving testimony, even if with a catholic want to it, of the Lord on TV.

It's true that we have many differences and I often struggle with how to feel about all of them and what they add up to.

[biblewonk]

Old Reggie makes a good argument more specific to your statement about the exchange that took place.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***That is most generous of your reformationship to cede that I, as a Catholic...***

Do a search in the NT for the word "mock" and consider what company you find yourself in.



***If the meaning of Scripture were so clear..."***

Sticking to the issue at hand, what is unclear about the following contradiction?

Jesus said "I am the way... no man comes to the Father but by me".

(supposed)Mary says, "My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the road that will conduct you to God."

One is right, the other is wrong.



***I would not bring this up at all but for your uninvited advice of the endlessly tiresome variety that we go scuba-diving in Scripture over every controversy great and small***

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they... examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Why are you resistant to and scornful of examining the Scripture?




***There are plenty of them here and some may indulge you. I have never claimed to be more than a street-fighting elk on reasonably vigilant patrol. If you want a street fight, I'm your Elk,***

You seem to be ready to fight, but the Bible counsels us:

"... to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men."





***its correspondent was present... As Casey Stengel used to say: You could look it up!***

I'm sure you are aware that Satan is also able to perform signs and wonders...

"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

[newgeezer]

I will tell you honestly and publicly in either event after reviewing it.

BlackElk, if you would, please ping me when you post that response.

[LiveFreeOrDieAmerica]

Read SAINT Louis Marie DeMontfort - who JPII has great devotion to - and you will find the definition of CO-Redemptrix defined. But if you have a problem with that -just focus on Mediatrix of All Graces - that should be enough to revere Our Blessed Lady for. P.S. I do not appreciate the plebiscite practices of Labeling me "Schizie" etc - I am not a Schizie as I hold fast to all dogmas of the church - the fact that I question the Pope does not defacto make me Schismatic in the sense of the Greek Orthodox, etc - who diverge from Dogma. Get your insults correct if you must sling them.

[LiveFreeOrDieAmerica]

Other than the Schismatic thing - a very well spoken reply. Do you pray the new mysteries of the Rosary?

[biblewonk]

I've read DeMontfort, I love DeMontfort. He is the one that put the whole Mary thing in perspective for me. I post his stuff often.

[BlackElk]

Not yet have I prayed the new mysteries and no one is trying to make me so I probably won't. Mary's rosary as given to St. Dominic has always seemed sufficient. Sometimes, I pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet, though.

[GirlShortstop]

"Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the AntiChrist." Our Lady of LaSalette**

That quote from Melanie Calvat (not Our Lady!) is heretical, since it claims that the Apostolic See can err. The so-called "Secret" was in fact placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.

a)  the "message" and/or "secret" of La Salette does NOT form an integral part of the Bishop's (and Church's) approval, and

b)  that the "message" and/or "secret" (which has the BVM say that "Rome will lose the Faith...etc.") is an 1879 corruption of the recorded 1851 "message", and

c)  that the corrupted 1879 "message" and/or "secret" has been condemned by the Church - culminating with being placed on the Index of Forbidden Books - the Imprimatur in 1879 of the Bishop of Lecce notwithstanding!

THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE INDEX
I
DECREE
 
<snip>
And so let nobody of whatever rank or condition dare either to publish aforementioned works which have been condemned and proscribed in whatever place or whatever reason, or to read or retain published things under penalties indicated in the Index of Forbidden Books.
Given at Rome on 6th June, 1916  Pages 178/9  Acts of the Apostolic See - Official Brief

Thank you gbcdoj for supplying the information, facts, and the link as well.  

FRiends, I think this DECREE serves as an important reminder regarding assertions and sources; the onus is on us to check out what is put up before pulling the POST trigger, as well as during commentary review.  An opinion question:  what's the most sound approach to the fact that Imprimaturs can't be established for all that's on the web?  FReegards.

[LiveFreeOrDieAmerica]

You make a good point, but it should not be supposed that because one vision was mis-stated (who knows what the cause was) - that Marian devotion is not fundamental to our Holy Faith - it is the thing that most differentiates us from the Protestants - and that makes our Faith most pleasing to the most Holy Son of God - that we venerate His Holy Mother. Setting aside all of the perfidious noise from Protestants - it is clear that many Novus Catholics do not fully appreciate Mary's role in God's salvific plan - and undermine Her as the protestants do (specifically those in the Catholic Answers Club). She is dogmatically defined as Immaculate - if anyone can cast a stone at one so defined - or could understate the role of the only human so ordained - it really astonishes me coming from Catholic quarters.