Let me clarify. I appreciate private revelations not only the ones that are approved by the Church for the entire Church's consideration, edification and piety, but also those that are intended just for the individual who has it as long as the revelation is consistent with what the Church actually teaches in the Deposit of Faith.
I am fascinated by private revelations and I believe over the course of my almost 64 years I have experienced a few for my own personal spiritual needs and for the good of the Church I serve in any particular locality.
However, the Church does not require us to believe in these private revelations as a direct dictation to the one having it. In fact we can be as skeptical as we would like but non judgmental about those who accept these.
I like them, but I don't go too far with them and certainly I don't want to split hairs about what someone who has had a private revelation demands in specific terms of what the pope or any bishop should do.
So in this context I worry that Cardinal Burke goes too far and is splitting hairs about Fatima and what is required of the pope in consecrating Russia by name to the Immaculate Heart.
What do you think of Cardinal Burke's concern about Russia being consecrated explicitly to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
This is from the Wanderer:
Cardinal Burke Repeats:
Russia Must Be Consecrated Explicitly to the Immaculate Heart
by Christopher A. Ferrara
In an exclusive interview with The Wanderer,
Cardinal Raymond Burke has once again called for the explicit
consecration of Russia, by name, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as Our
Lady of Fatima requested the better part of a century ago (1929) after
promising Sister Lucia at Fatima exactly a century ago (1917) that She
would return to make that request when “the moment has come.”
August 8, 2017
In the course of the interview, in which the Cardinal also discussed the “final battle” over marriage and family now underway within the Church, as well as in civil society, the Cardinal was asked the following question concerning the allegation that Sister Lucia confirmed that the ceremony performed by John Paul II on March 25, 1984, from which any mention of Russia was deliberately omitted, somehow sufficed to fulfill the request for consecration of the very place not mentioned:
“Q. According to Documents on Fátima… Sr. Lucia wrote on August 29, 1989 that Pope St. John Paul II’s consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on March 25, 1984 fulfilled Our Lady’s request. At the Rome Life Forum about three months ago, you urged the Catholic faithful to ‘work for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.’ What does the consecration you are calling for entail; is it more than the Pope simply naming Russia explicitly?”First of all, as for the claim that Lucia “wrote” in 1989 that a 1984 ceremony deliberately failing to name Russia was a consecration of Russia, The Fatima Center’s article “Chronology of a Cover-Up” explains:
“In September of 1985, in an interview in Sol de Fatima magazine (published by the Blue Army in Spain), Sr. Lucia confirmed that the consecration still had not been done, because the 1984 ceremony did not mention Russia, and the world’s Catholic bishops did not participate. Later in the year, Cardinal Edouard Gagnon acknowledged in another interview that the consecration had still not been done as requested. He later objected to having his remarks published, though he did not deny making them….Moreover, no one disputes that Sister Lucia insisted that the failed 1982 ceremony also conducted by John Paul II, which likewise failed to mention Russia or enlist the world’s bishops, did not fulfill Our Lady’s request. Indeed, no less than L’Osservatore Romano published the following testimony by Lucia’s priestly friend and confidant Father Umberto Maria Pasquale, S.D.B. on May 12, 1982, some two months after the 1982 ceremony:
“For many years, Sr. Lucia’s cousin, Maria do Fetal, publicly quoted Sr. Lucia as saying the consecration had not been done. Maria do Fetal continued to maintain this position until mid-1989, when she suddenly reversed herself, in accordance with the Vatican “instruction” revealed by Fr. Coelho.”
“I wanted to clarify the question of the Consecration of Russia, in having recourse to the source. On August 5, 1978, in the Carmel of Coimbra, I had a lengthy interview with the seer of Fatima, Sister Lucy. At a certain moment I said to her: ‘Sister, I should like to ask you a question. If you cannot answer me, let it be! But if you can answer it, I would be most grateful to you, for you to clear up a point for me which does not appear clear to many people ... Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about the consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart?’ - ‘No, Father Umberto! Never! At the Cova da Iria in 1917, Our Lady had promised: I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia ... to prevent the spreading of her errors throughout the world, wars among several nations, persecutions against the Church ... In 1929, at Tuy, as She had promised, Our Lady came back to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the consecration of that country (Russia)’...”So, what changed between the time of the first failed ceremony in 1982 and the second in 1984? Nothing, except the abrupt reversal dubiously attributed to Sister Lucia, who never once was allowed to address the public directly on the matter.
At any rate, in answer to The Wanderer’s question about whether the Consecration entails “more than the Pope simply naming Russia explicitly,” Cardinal Burke gave this telling explanation:
“It is exactly that; it is as simple as that, namely, to fulfill Our Lady’s request exactly as she asked for it. There is no question that Pope St. John Paul II was keenly aware of the seriousness of the situation, of the need to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. He intended precisely to do that on March 25, 1984. For my part, I believe he would have done it explicitly except at that time it was argued that in order to promote a friendlier relationship with the Eastern Bloc countries, the name of Russia should not be mentioned in particular.
“I believe it was the Holy Father’s intention — that he did, in fact, consecrate Russia. However, it is also my belief that, given the situation in which we find ourselves today, the consecration of Russia must be done explicitly, exactly as Our Lady requested (while in no way denying John Paul’s intention to include Russia when he consecrated the world to her Immaculate Heart). My intent is not to level accusations against anyone, but rather in response to the present time which is so grave to urge the need to carry out what Our Lady asked exactly as she asked it.
“To repeat, the consecration I called for is in no way to call into question what Sr. Lucia said about St. John Paul II fulfilling what Our Lady asked for. It is simply to respond to that request one more time and consecrate Russia in an explicit way. At the same time, it is the right and duty of the faithful to ask Pope Francis to do this consecration….”With all due respect to the Cardinal, while confirming what is obvious — that a consecration of Russia needs to mention Russia rather than deliberately failing to mention it — he appears to be trying to have it both ways: that John Paul’s intention to consecrate Russia sufficed, according to the alleged remark by Sister Lucia (contradicted by her own published testimony), but that Russia should nonetheless be consecrated by name. That is akin to declaring that the removal of a gall bladder sufficed for an emergency appendectomy, because the nurse said so, but that the appendix should be removed just in case.
Think of the Consecration of Russia as the ecclesial equivalent of an emergency appendectomy, urgently needed to prevent a fatal poisoning of the entire body of the Church, which no reasonable observer of the ecclesial scene can deny is being threatened at this very moment. That the Consecration will finally take place is certain, for the Church is indefectible and the divine will cannot be thwarted but only (by God’s permissive will) impeded for a time by human perversity. What is not certain is how much agony the Church will have to suffer before the divine remedy is, at long last, applied.