Pope to consecrate Russia and Ukraine to Immaculate Heart of Mary

[Eamonomae]

I'm not in a good spiritual position to give authoritative opinions, but as someone who was born and raised Catholic, went through a deep Orthodox phase and then Trad Cat phase and then back to Orthodox phase - this update has firmly killed, in my mind, the possibility of the Papacy being the exclusive Church Jesus Christ founded.

This whole thing is quite frankly absurd, emotions and politics aside. I have no subjective emotional attachment to Russia, Ukraine, or the ecclesial geopolitics - I'm a Western European mutt with some Western Slavic in me, there is no real attachment for me.

The Fatima apparitions occurred in 1917. The "Secrets" were public during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII, at least 20 years later, maybe 30.


Here's the context of the Roman Catholic Church in the 1930s:
1. The Church was doctrinally teaching:
a. The best form of government is Monarchy
b. The Separation of Church and State is a mistake
c. Roman Catholicism is the exclusive truth, all those outside the Church - who embrace heretical beliefs - will go to hell for their infidelity
d. Traditional moral, family values - particularly traditional gender roles - is preferable
2. Russia was the Soviet Union, who
a. Was just beginning to spread it's geopolitical sphere of influence, something the West feared even in 1917: even attempting to overthrow Germany and make it communist
b. Believed
1. That traditional gender roles are evil and need to be updated
2. That the Church should be suppressed
3. Morality needs to be revised and be made more egalitarian
4. Science should prevail
5. Hierarchy needs to dissipate through social engineering


It is more than 80 years later, and the geopolitical situation has drastically changed.

The Soviet Union is dead. Communism - at least in the form it existed back then - is dead. There are no more "workers' revolutions". The West won the Cold War.

At an institutional level (not social or mass level), Russia literally - literally - teaches and endorses ideas that are far, far more in line with traditional Catholic doctrine as it existed in the 1930s.

Putin as a monarch, head of the state. Very little separation of Church and State. Yhe Russian Orthodox Church has an institutional role for Russia in teaching proper moral values and culture. Putin has endorsed traditional family values, the dude larps as a hypermasculine James Bond villain and gives rewards to women who give birth to a lot of children.

Ironically, this is in contrast to the West, who at an institutional level have embraced a Pseudo-Marxist conception of "equality" as the ideological end all, except with "identity groups" instead of "class" - oppressor vs. oppressee rather than bourgeoise vs. proletariat.



So, pray tell, what "errors" is the Fatima Consecration supposed to fix? Is it the "heresy" of Russian Orthodoxy? That contradicts Ecumenism and St. Pope John Paul II's ideas of Fatima. And unironically Russian Orthodoxy is far more ideologically allied with Traditional Roman Catholic conceptions than the post-Christian West today. Is it their military aggression? That's not really a spread of "errors" across the world in any way that's similar to the 1930s.


The unambiguous subtext of this "consecration", however, is that Pope Francis is implying that Russia is "spreading its errors" today which is why it needs a new "Fatima" consecration.
The fact that the Roman Catholic population has eaten this garbage up without giving it the slightest intellectual scanning is insane, and the fact that there are no voices questioning this demonstrates it's an institution void of any remaining intellectual honesty or integrity. It's purely emotional and passion based.


None of this should be construed, by the way, of me endorsing anything (my opinions on life and morality have drastically changed - for the better). I'm just pointing out an obvious inconsistency.

 

[Claudius]

The fact that the Roman Catholic population has eaten this garbage up without giving it the slightest intellectual scanning is insane, and demonstrates it's an institution void of any amount of intellectual honesty or integrity. It's purely emotional and passion based.

Amen to that. There's plenty of good to be said about the positions the RCC took in that era, but today it's a contradictory shell of its former self, pretty much disproving any claims they had to be the one Apostolic Church.

Spoiler: Re: Katechon

I really intended for my previous post to be the last one before starting a new thread, but now fear that might make this unintended debate go on even longer, so apologies to anyone trying to follow the real thread. Off-topic will remain in spoilers.

Spoiler: Answer re: Traditional Catholics

My whole point was that the typical recognize & resist sham most Trads go for is increasingly untenable, thus deepening the reliance on weird apparitions to make sense of their own ecclesiology. I don't know which kind of ecclesiological concepts you refer to when you say that there are ones out there for Trads that make sense from their point of view. There aren't, their whole system is thoroughly falsified.
...
My point was that Trads aren't any less inconsistent than the V2 crowd is. In fact, they are more so, since they are unable to see the continuity to and the implications of Vatican 1 (whereas the V2 crowd relies exactly on arguments from personal authority).

Are we really doing this? Two Orthodox debating a RC internal matter? For the record, I consider it a big waste of both our time, but even half-hearted Orthodox support of the triumph of the Evil One over our schismatic western brethren deserves a reply because it's relevant to us in how we see the limits of Church authority.

As I see it, provided we operate on the assumption that the RC religion was correct to begin with, far from being "increasingly untenable" and somehow reliant on Fatima, Traditionis Custodes has completely vindicated those like SSPX who simply continue practicing RCism unchanged from just outside the (idol-worshipping and arguably apostate) Pope's reach. The Pope is important to them, but the faith itself comes first. Of course if they were truly tracing their current crisis back to its origins they'd end up at 1054, but that applies to all flavors of Papist equally.

Vatican 1 is notoriously often misinterpreted, but despite the many issues I take with the whole personal infallibility thing, which for the record has only ever been invoked twice, for the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, it definitely does not teach that the Pope's authority to promulgate new definitions (which supposedly always existed undefined in the deposit of faith) under certain conditions implies an authority to overwrite former solemn teachings and definitions despite formal anathemas. That's the major de facto difference between Vatican 1-era Papism and Vatican 2-era Papism.

Whatever defining power the Church claims to possess, and this is goes for us as well, truth by nature never changes. Barring God establishing another new Covenant (which He's already said He won't do), if something was right before, it's right now, and continuing on unchanged can never be an error, but if it was wrong before, then the Church which told us it was right before and then changed her mind makes an absurdity of her whole religion and thus her claim to any authority. Specifically in the RC case the massive changes irreconcilable with prior teaching leave us with two options: either the traditionalists are right, or no RCs are and the Pope is a charlatan (my preferred option), but there's no scenario in any logical universe where the V2 cult looks consistent from our perspective or theirs.

I find certain types of traditional Catholic, some of whom are close friends, to be very good Christians and often just one short ecclesiological jump away from Orthodoxy (hope springs eternal!). By contrast, adherents of Vatican 2ism (that is, those who really believe in and defend V2, not just people who go to Mass and don't think about it) I have a hard time even classifying as Christian; it's a New Religious Movement based on a syncretism of Christian and New Age practices with Modernist philosophical underpinnings centered around a prophet figure who gaslights his followers into believing all the contradictions are really okay, much like Mormonism or Scientology.

Spoiler: Answer re: Western Rite

What applies to the precedence of iconography applies also to pretty much everything else Western Rite Enthusiasts make out as a supposed substantial difference between East and West pre-schism. I will reiterate what I said in that thread: there was no substantial difference between East and West in the first millenium, not even in terms of liturgical ethos. Read this: https://archive.org/details/dieepikleseimabe0000gamb/page/n111/mode/2up
...
Dude, WR enthusiasm is just Americanism with an "Orthodox" coat of paint. As I said, the misguided historiographical assumptions behind it are a lot more obvious over here. I am weary of every discussion on Western matters devolving into this Western Rite nonsense.

I agree that there was no substantial difference and that a lot of what's decried as "byzantinization", like the icons, is misguided and ahistorical, and if it turns out I'm wrong about the epiklesis I'm glad to concede the point. Reading the book you linked now. More on vernacular and celibacy below.

For the record, Germany has WR parishes, too, and even a WR "Benedictine" monastery, though I've never been and understand it's very small.

Would the words of St Boniface also apply if he had made a trip to the Syria, Egypt, Greece or virtually any other place in the Christian world at the time? Mandatory clerical celibacy is a terrible abuse that leads to clericalism and the clergy becoming a gay cult, which seems pretty visible in the aesthetical preferences of the baroque period already. There is nothing wrong with celibacy though.
...
What a disgusting attitude. Trads that want to become Orthodox ought to repent and become Orthodox. Orthodoxy is not there to provide shelter for their delusions and misguided preferences.

They most certainly wouldn't apply in those places, but why would they have to? Other jurisdictions had their own local councils to resolve those questions. We have jurisdictional differences to this day in how we treat married clergy. It's up to the synod of each local Church whether remarriage is allowed for instance, and even the priest's first marriage is left to the discretion of the bishop. Those pre-1054 Western councils merely illustrate how they treated the matter in their Orthodox jurisdiction, which they had every right to do. The same argument applies to Latin, which is as much a part of their tradition as (arguably moreso than) Slavonic and ancient Greek are to their respective jurisdictions.

As you already stated, the differences between the unified Church and modern Orthodoxy are a lot fewer and smaller than Western people tend to think, and I agree fully that we're not here to accomodate schismatics with anything that isn't Orthodox, but the whole point of the WR is to faithfully recreate authentic Orthodox practice as it existed in Rome's old jurisdiction, and to that end those ancient local councils and customs are important. Referring here only to things that they had every right to decide at the time as an autocephalous Church, be they about celibacy, language, how to make the sign of the cross, or how to tie one's shoes before entering the nave (that last one was intentionally ridiculous to make a point). If that's not what it's about, why have a WR at all?

The point isn't to do it for Catholic converts or to make special accomodations, but that doing it as faithfully to tradition as possible will automatically lead to more of them taking an interest and attending.

 

[Deacon Lance]

Putin as a monarch, head of the state. Very little separation of Church and State. The Russian Orthodox Church has an institutional role for Russia in teaching proper moral values and culture. Putin has endorsed traditional family values, the dude larps as a hypermasculine James Bond villain and gives rewards to women who give birth to a lot of children.

Is it their military aggression? That's not really a spread of "errors" across the world in any way that's similar to the 1930s.

The fact that the Roman Catholic population has eaten this garbage up without giving it the slightest intellectual scanning is insane, and the fact that there are no voices questioning this demonstrates it's an institution void of any remaining intellectual honesty or integrity. It's purely emotional and passion based.

Putin larps as an Orthodox Christian. Paying lip service to “proper moral values” while killing fellow Orthodox who don’t want to be part a part of your church or country proves it.

One could strike Roman Catholic from that last paragraph and insert Russian Orthodox.

 

[PorphyriosK]

One could strike Roman Catholic from that last paragraph and insert Russian Orthodox.

Don't Catholic clergy have better things to do than troll and s*#t post on Orthodox forums? Does your bishop know of your online habits?

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

Putin larps as an Orthodox Christian. Paying lip service to “proper moral values” while killing fellow Orthodox who don’t want to be part a part of your church or country proves it.

As if the Vatican never endorsed the same at any time.

 

[seekeroftruth777]

Don't Catholic clergy have better things to do than troll and s*#t post on Orthodox forums? Does your bishop know of your online habits?

It for sure unbecoming of a deacon, and below the standards of a deacon.

 

[Deacon Lance]

As if the Vatican never endorsed the same at any time.

I didn’t say they didn’t but the Vatican isn’t the one endorsing the bombing of Orthodox in Ukraine right now.

 

[Deacon Lance]

Don't Catholic clergy have better things to do than troll and s*#t post on Orthodox forums? Does your bishop know of your online habits?

If people didn’t troll and **** post Catholics on this forum I wouldn’t have to be here. Yes, since I don’t hide behind fake screen names.

 

[Katechon]

Putin larps as an Orthodox Christian.

What say do you think you have in what constitutes an Orthodox Christian?

 

[Deacon Lance]

What say do you think you have in what constitutes an Orthodox Christian?

The say of any person of reason to judge a man’s words and a man’s actions. But if my being Catholic disqualifies me there are plenty of Orthodox, including bishops, who share my assessment.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

I didn’t say they didn’t but the Vatican isn’t the one endorsing the bombing of Orthodox in Ukraine right now.

No, it just endorsed the murder of thousands of Serbs still within living memory.

 

[Deacon Lance]

No, it just endorsed the murder of thousands of Serbs still within living memory.

The Vatican endorsed it? Come on.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

The Vatican endorsed it? Come on.

The clergy who supported it were appointees of the papacy itself.

 

[Deacon Lance]

It for sure unbecoming of a deacon, and below the standards of a deacon.

I find sanctioning the killing of others in the name of Christ unbecoming of any Christian, clergy or not.

 

[Deacon Lance]

The clergy who supported it were appointees of the papacy itself.

That clergy went rogue is without question. That the Vatican approved those action is false and you know it.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

That clergy went rogue is without question. That the Vatican approved those action is false and you know it.

High level appointees of the Vatican did it, not a couple of rogues. Not everyone in the Vatican supported it, but not everyone in the Moscow Patriarchate supports the war in Ukraine either.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

The Vatican knew about the genocide and refused to condemn the Croats in fear of a schism. They also allowed Croatian war criminals to come to Rome and protected them from the international courts.

 

[Eamonomae]

Putin larps as an Orthodox Christian. Paying lip service to “proper moral values” while killing fellow Orthodox who don’t want to be part a part of your church or country proves it.

Sure, as have many kings, dictators, and politicians in the past on both sides of the schism. Doesn’t make my point any less valid.
Again, I have no emotion or bias to either side of the conflict or Orthodox schism.

 

[Ainnir]

This thread has been moved to Religious Topics. Remember that ad homs and profanity are not allowed. Thanks. --Ainnir

 

[RaphaCam]

Putin larps as an Orthodox Christian.

That's an interesting comment...

 

[Serge]

Claudius wrote:

...we'd need to foster a real Western Rite Orthodoxy, and not just the pseudo-WR with eastern aspects added like we've been doing. That would mean using a pre-schism western rite of Mass, in Latin, with no filioque and no easternized prayers or rubrics. We won't get them to come to us if we insist on eastern norms even in cases where the western ones also predate the schism by centuries...

This.

 

[Glyphwright]

A Latin Orthodox Church that restores pre-schism Western Christianity with maximal possible accuracy and authenticity would flourish in the West. However, certain elements within world's Orthodoxy would do everything possible to make sure it never happens. "Real Orthodoxy" is only that which is in service to the "Third and final Rome" fairy tale, after all.

 

[RaphaCam]

A Latin Orthodox Church that restores pre-schism Western Christianity with maximal possible accuracy and authenticity would flourish in the West. However, certain elements within world's Orthodoxy would do everything possible to make sure it never happens. "Real Orthodoxy" is only that which is in service to the "Third and final Rome" fairy tale, after all.

Are you supposing we would be able to just absorb their cathedrals, bishops and priests? Not really. It would give a more familiar impression, which might be great in places like Catholic Africa and the Philippines, but Westerners and Latin Americans going after real Christianity don't care that much about the difference between Western Rite Orthodoxy and Russian Rite Orthodoxy anymore, as long as they're both served in their respective native languages. Actually, younger Christians are growingly exotistic.

 

[MalpanaGiwargis]

Pre-schism Western Christianity died with the schism, and archaeologizing projects to bring it back are unlikely to find long-term success. Personally, I think the way forward is for people to actually convert to Orthodoxy, which means the whole thing, liturgy and all. Certain Western cultural practices that are compatible with Orthodoxy can and should be retained, but trying to reconstruct long-dead liturgical forms is not necessary, and converting to Orthodoxy as if you are ordering from a menu, keeping what you like and discarding what you don't, is not real conversion.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

If they sang the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in Latin with adaptations of Gregorian chant, and allowed for kneeling at the consecration would anyone know the difference?

 

[Cavaradossi]

If they sang the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in Latin with adaptations of Gregorian chant, and allowed for kneeling at the consecration would anyone know the difference?

Kneeling at the consecration is already allowed, just not on Sundays. Personally, I always prostrate myself at that point during weekday liturgies.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

Kneeling at the consecration is already allowed, just not on Sundays. Personally, I always prostrate myself at that point during weekday liturgies.

While the first ecumenical council does prohibit kneeling on Sunday, I think the context was because kneeling was penitential at the time. People under penance would kneel for the whole service. The genuflection that developed in the West during the consecration etc has a rather different context, and was one of reverence and not necessarily one of penitence. So, I wouldn't have a problem if a bishop allowed kneeling during the consecration on Sunday in some contexts.

 

[Glyphwright]

Are you supposing we would be able to just absorb their cathedrals, bishops and priests?

Depends on the degree of success. All I am supposing is that Roman Catholics who awaken to the false doctrine of their papacy will have a much easier time converting to Orthodoxy if there is one, concrete, visible and prominent Latin Orthodox Church, as opposed to a smattering of WR parishes under various jurisdictions, with a large number of Orthodox pseudo-purists dismissing them as "not real Orthodox" to boot.

Roman Catholics themselves were much better organized in this regard over the centuries, which is why they have a parallel church structure to almost every Eastern and Oriental autocephalous church, with practically the same rite, language, traditions, patriarchal titles, etc.

 

[Claudius]

This thread has been moved to Religious Topics. Remember that ad homs and profanity are not allowed. Thanks. --Ainnir

In that case I don't have to stress over answering off-topic stuff quite as much anymore. I was really starting to feel sorry for this derailed thread. Thanks!

If they sang the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in Latin with adaptations of Gregorian chant, and allowed for kneeling at the consecration would anyone know the difference?

I've always thought this option should be considered, not as a part of the Western Rite movement necessarily but as something all its own. There's a translation (req. account to view, but it's free) by Leo Tuscus in the 12th Century. It's not perfect, as his command of Latin was clearly superior to his understanding of Greek, and it was never widely used, but with a few minor changes it could be revived.

I would seriously consider moving if it were celebrated regularly somewhere.

Roman Catholics themselves were much better organized in this regard over the centuries, which is why they have a parallel church structure to almost every Eastern and Oriental autocephalous church, with practically the same rite, language, traditions, patriarchal titles, etc.

A very good point, and while it's worth noting that no Eastern Rite bishop (and certainly no married priest) can expect a big, important career in the Vatican, and in that sense are kind of second-class, they're nonetheless left pretty much completely alone to follow their Eastern traditions. If we don't do the same thing for the WR community, it will never thrive like the ER Catholics do.

 

[Glyphwright]

Pre-schism Western Christianity died with the schism, and archaeologizing projects to bring it back are unlikely to find long-term success.

Sorry, but the "it's been too long, can't be done, case closed" notion is plainly false. It has already been done, and as the Vatican keeps falling further and further into heresy even by traditional Roman Catholic standards (pre-Vatican II), the demand for authentic Latin rite liturgy is only going to increase. Post-schism Western Rite Orthodoxy already exists, is fully canonical, it's been part of the Orthodox church for a while, and the only question is whether it will be allowed to flourish.

Personally, I think the way forward is for people to actually convert to Orthodoxy, which means the whole thing, liturgy and all.

Orthodoxy is not limited to the Byzantine rite.

converting to Orthodoxy as if you are ordering from a menu, keeping what you like and discarding what you don't, is not real conversion.

Cherry-picking doesn't have a single thing to do with ensuring that Western Rite Orthodoxy keeps moving forward rather than gets smothered from within.

 

[Katechon]

Could we stop this silly Western Rite discussion in this thread?

 

[augustin717]

The parallel between WR and uniatism doesn’t hold. So you can’t expect WR to be nearly as successful. WR is a movement of liturgical antiquarians, aficionados, malcontent theologians etc, whereas union with Rome always happened under some sort of political pressure and was a pragmatic solution. But of course it can’t be reproduced today, not in EE at least, as shown by the shrinking numbers of GC there. They still attract some individual conversions of which I am personally aquatinted with a few, people who somehow feel beiGC is more western/ European or more civilized than being orthodox. But these are all arguments with limited appeal, as religious practice is mostly a personal hobby, without political, social or economic relevance.
Now the WR has never been imposed by an orthodox state on a subject population and it’s unlikely it will ever be, so it will always remain a very niche thing.

 

[Sethrak]

Pretend? Not canonical from your perspective, sure. But you don't have sole claim to the title of patriarch. Be an adult.

He who claims to be first Shall be Last,, who is the only one to Enthrone a Bishop, Long liv the Ukrainians Orthodox Church, Grow up with them brother,,,

 

[Sethrak]

You including the Universalist Unitarians in on that?

I don't think so,

 

[mcarmichael]

I don't think so,

What do you think?

 

[123abc]

Getting back to the OP, apparently most Trad Cats don't think the pope used the right Magickal Formula when consecrating Russia since he also mentioned Ukraine. So once again they will have an excuse which explains away why it doesn't work.

Such delusion is almost beyond belief.

 

[Katechon]

Ukrainian "Eastern Catholic" bishops "concelebrate" the "consecration" in front of a video projector in one of their churches, while sitting in (supposedly Covid related) distance to each other:

 

[Eamonomae]

Getting back to the OP, apparently most Trad Cats don't think the pope used the right Magickal Formula when consecrating Russia since he also mentioned Ukraine. So once again they will have an excuse which explains away why it doesn't work.

In their defense, that has been the justification for decades. Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II already consecrated Russia. Many Catholics interpreted the latter consecration as causing the seemingly miraculous downfall of the Soviet Union.

However, Trad Cats believe that both consecrations didn’t have a valid intent by virtue of the wrong formula being used (many claim the alternate formula was more politically appeasing nullifying the intent), so back to the drawing board.

A lot of that has to do with conspiracy theories surrounding the “suppressed” Third Secret (even though Sister Lucia herself endorsed Pope John Paul II’s interpretation of Fatima), from people like Malachi Martin who sincerely though the Third Secret was about the Mass Apostasy from Vatican II.

The fact that the Church structure isn’t giving theologically sound or reverent Masses implies to the Trads that Fatima isn’t over.

 

[Claudius]

Getting back to the OP, apparently most Trad Cats don't think the pope used the right Magickal Formula when consecrating Russia since he also mentioned Ukraine. So once again they will have an excuse which explains away why it doesn't work.

Huh, my experience with traditional Catholics is so much different than some of what I read on this forum. I can't speak for "most Trad Cats", but was just talking with some SSPX-affiliated friends about this yesterday who said they couldn't say for sure whether or not it was done correctly this time, but were open to the possibility and would judge it by the fruit it bears. At the same time they wouldn't say the consecration from JP2 wasn't legitimate either as evidenced by the fall of communism and return of Russia to Christianity, but even if it was and/or this new one was done improperly, it would still be a blessing by the Pope and lots of bishops which can't be a bad thing for Russia and the Ukraine right now.

One sentiment that came across strongly was how nice it was being able to watch their Pope do something that actually looked Papal for once as opposed to worshipping idols, making joint declarations with Imams, courting the LGBTQ+ movement and unrepentant divorcées, telling people Atheists can go to Heaven, and otherwise making a mockery of Catholicism.

My personal opinion: Were I the Pope (and RC for sake of argument), I'd just do it the way the apparition supposedly said, because why on Earth not? I could add all the extras afterward that I wanted after first just performing it exactly as instructed, not because I believed it wasn't already done before, or for that matter even believed in Fatima to begin with (it's not dogma), but because there's literally no reason at all not to. Then all doubts are gone. I do have to wonder about these Popes' ability to follow instructions. They're so simple that failure to follow them to the letter just needlessly feeds conspiracy theories.

A lot of that has to do with conspiracy theories surrounding the “suppressed” Third Secret (even though Sister Lucia herself endorsed Pope John Paul II’s interpretation of Fatima), from people like Malachi Martin who sincerely though the Third Secret was about the Mass Apostasy from Vatican II.

The fact that the Church structure isn’t giving theologically sound or reverent Masses implies to the Trads that Fatima isn’t over.

Mr. Martin's theory would imply that the RC mass apostasy from Vatican II is a secret.

Nothing makes me more thankful to be Orthodox than thinking about what's happened to the poor, long-lost western half of our flock over the last 60 years and the 1960s hippie-era caricature of the Mass they've been subjected to. Schismatic or no, they deserved better. May our bishops always keep the faith of the Fathers and our Liturgy never change!

 

[melkite]

High level appointees of the Vatican did it, not a couple of rogues. Not everyone in the Vatican supported it, but not everyone in the Moscow Patriarchate supports the war in Ukraine either.

Your top dude does, though. That's pretty consequential.