The Refusal of the Consecration of Russia
Let us compare that request with the one of July 1917 in order to see precisely what She was asking for.
On the 13th of July 1917, She announces: “I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted”. She doesn’t say “my request”, but “my requests”, that is both requests.
On the 13th of June 1929, in Tuy, Our Lady gives 4 conditions for the consecration of Russia. She requires the Pope:
1. to unite “with all the bishops of the world”
2. to make the consecration
3. of Russia
4. to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
On the 13th of May 1930, Sister Lucia explains further the will of Heaven and adds 2 conditions:
5. “a solemn act of reparation and consecration of Russia to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary”
6. “the promise that upon the ending of this persecution [the persecution of the Church by those following the errors of Russia] he will approve and recommend the practice of the reparatory devotion already described.”
1. The Partial Consecrations Performed by Various Popes
From the time that Sr. Lucia made the Second Secret known in 1942, with its request for the consecration of Russia, various Popes have performed consecrations similar to the one requested by Our Lady, while still failing to follow her precise wishes. Below is a table showing the degree to which these consecrations under Popes Pius XII, Paul VI and John-Paul II corresponded to the six requirements listed above.
Those used by John-Paul II are: “the nations who particularly need this offering (donatio) and this consecration” and “the peoples from whom you are expecting the consecration and offering”.
The common point in all of these acts is that not one of them was associated with a public act of reparation and no Pope promised to approve the communion of the first Saturdays of the month. Moreover, out of the eight acts, only five are true consecrations, and only those of Pius XII were addressed to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and only Jean-Paul II did what he could do associate the bishops. Finally, Russia was named only once, by Pius XII in 1952. In the seven other cases, either she was not named, or only in a covert way.
In conclusion, even if these consecrations of the world were able to bear certain fruits, the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the conditions asked for by Our Lady has not yet been made. Two facts confirm this conclusion: twenty-five years after the last consecration, the conversion of Russia promised by the Holy Virgin has still not happened; and Sister Lucia, against all opposition, affirmed up to 1989 that the consecrations made until then did not correspond to Our Lady’s requests.
2. A confirmation by Sr. Lucia?
Nevertheless, in the Vatican document on Fatima of 2000, Cardinal Bertone says on the subject of the act of consecration of the 25th of March 1984: ”Sister Lucia personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration corresponded to that wished for by Our Lady”, quoting from a letter dated the 8th of November 1989. We have just shown that this consecration did not satisfy all the Holy Virgin’s requests and that Sister Lucia had clearly affirmed this until 1989, notably because there was only a consecration of the world, without mentioning Russia and without an act of reparation.
The letter quoted by Cardinal Bertone presents several serious problems:
1. If the act of consecration performed in 1984 corresponded to what Our Lady wanted, why would Sr. Lucia have waited 5 years to give a positive response?
2. Why until 1988 she always stated the contrary, i.e. that the consecration had not yet been done?
3. We find in her letters written until 1982 the arguments proving the insufficiency of the consecrations accomplished: a) Russia is not mentioned; b) the consecration was done by the Pope alone and not with all bishops; c) the Immaculate Heart is not mentioned. How can Sr. Lucia now confirm that the act of consecration of 1984 was henceforth sufficient, while the same arguments she used before to prove its insufficiency apply perfectly to this act of consecration?
4. Why was Sister Lucia not allowed to comment on this personally? It is strange to prefer a letter to a spoken confirmation from Sr. Lucia herself.
5. As for the letter itself, the Vatican document produced a facsimile, but only of a single sentence, without mentioning to whom the letter was addressed. With regard to such an important question of radical change on the part of Sr. Lucia regarding the consecration of Russia, how is that the Vatican only communicated a very small extract of such an important document?
6. The Cardinal could provide only one letter for the period from 1989 until 2000. But after 1989, weren’t there any other letters from Sr. Lucia confirming the fact (of the consecration accomplished according to the requests of Our Lady) to one of her relatives? If she had changed her mind after 1988, she would have surely tried to inform every one of those whom she had previously told that the consecration had not been done.
7. On the 13th of May 1991 Pope John-Paul II met with Sr. Lucia. Why did she not confirm her so-called agreement for the consecration?
8. Between 1989 and 1990 five letters were written on a computer and supposedly signed by Sister Lucia, in which it is said that the consecration had been made. One of these is precisely that quoted by Cardinal Bertone. However, Sr. Lucia did not know how to use a computer. All the documents from her are manuscript. Why, at the age of 82, should she suddenly begin to use a computer to write her correspondence? And only five times?
9. The letter quoted by the Cardinal contains serious mistakes: it mentions a consecration of Russia by Paul VI during his pilgrimage to Fatima whereas on that day, Paul VI made no consecration. It gives as the reason why the consecrations before 1984 were insufficient the fact that the union of all the bishops was lacking. However, Sr. Lucia specified that for the consecrations of 1982, what was also missing was the mention of Russia, which also is missing from the act of 1984.
10. Why did Cardinal Bertone not have the letter authentified by Sister Lucia during the course of his visit in April 2000?
11. Why has the Vatican never spoken before about “Sister Lucia’s proof“ and then suddenly present it as the definitive argument as Cardinal Bertone concludes: “This is why all discussion and any new petition is groundless“.