Why has no Pope consecrated Russia as requested - or has he?

My view on this is that whatever approach was used some would complain and say it was done improperly. Especially given that bit about, 'all the bishops of the world simultaneously.' I can imagine it been done and someone noting but, 'Bishop Zwigilby of Upper Podunk' didn't do it and thus it needs doing again. I find the whole argument tiresome.

The Ukrainian's People Republic was a short lived state that existed between 1917 and 1920 so there was a separate state of Ukraine in 1917 which predates the prophecies at Fatima. Although it had a brief existence. Just thought I'd throw that in the mix.

Thoughts from this forum user:  Pope St. John Paul II said its' been done.  Sr. Lucia said it's been done.  As Tis noted, her word is good enough for me.  

Not "..came the closest to fulfilling the request".  Not "So maybe it's finally been done."  

Sr. Lucia said it's been done.

It's been done.

Many good responses, and I don't really disagree with any of them.

In the end, though, this is all private revelation, and any opinions one way or the other cannot bind as matters of faith.  I do think, though, that there is a case of "the elephant in the parlor", viz. that any consecrations were not done in a kind of letter-perfect, idealized way --- naming Russia, and only Russia, in union with each and every one of the world's bishops, on one specific day --- perhaps because

(a) to do so would have angered the Communists back in the day, and would anger the Orthodox today (who do not even believe in original sin, ergo no "immaculate conception", ergo no "immaculate heart"), even though Putin, in happier days, reportedly did not object to it, a kind of "go ahead, it can't hurt, and it might help" scenario.  If, for instance, I were president of the United States (now there's a scary thought!), and the ayatollahs of Iran sought to consecrate America to Allah, I'd just say "that's your call, if you think that's the thing to do, go right ahead, it won't offend me".

or

(b) you might have had some bishops who wouldn't go along with it, for whatever reason, then there goes your "collegial consecration".

I do know, though, that back in the 1980s, the Blue Army, who could not bear to tolerate one harsh word ever spoken of any bishop (John Haffert and I had a correspondence on this, where I reminded him that following his logic, a bishop could lead his flock into heresy and/or schism, and that'd be okay, because, hey, bishops!), was all over-the-top on the idea of the "collegial consecration", and then when PJPII did his consecration in 1984, they changed their narrative to "spiritual union with the bishops".  Moving the goalposts a bit, if you ask me.

I do like tisbearself 's analogy of the "gumball machine", viz. "a consecration was done, world peace didn't immediately ensue, so evidently there was something wrong with that consecration".  Our Lady didn't say "immediately".  The war against Ukraine did seem to taper off a bit after Francis did his consecration, and here we are almost a year later, and Russia still has no decisive victory.  "World peace"?  Obviously not.  But did it have at least some effect?  It may have.  "Conversion of Russia"?  By some measures, that happened a long time ago, on the heels of the USSR having fallen.  

Your call.  I'm more inclined to believe it than not, and to think that Our Lady (and Our Lord) accepted the 1984 consecration with the idea, if Our Lord can be said to have "ideas", that "well, given the circumstances of the 20th century, anything more explicit than this was 'too big of an ask' ", and that Our Lord accepted it out of sheer mercy, not to mention all of the souls that were converted and/or brought to greater holiness by the Fatima message.  But I wouldn't die on the hill of either "yea" or "nay", it's not a matter of faith, and one is free to believe or to think whatever.

OTOH, I do suspect --- and Mother Angelica said as much --- that there was more to the Third Secret than we were told.  But that's another discussion.

You make an excellent observation here, and one I had never thought of.  Freeform, "no holds barred" discussions, such as we are able to have on this forum, are sorely needed in today's Church, and this is an outstanding example of how it can work, and work very well.

Again, you make a good point.  Where this differs, though, if we are to believe Fatima in toto, not just the miracle of the sun which obviously took place, but the prophecies both at the outset and later on in time, including comments made by Sister Lucia throughout her earthly life, is that Our Lady made a promise, and if her request were fulfilled, there would indeed be the effect of the conversion of Russia and a period of peace to be conceded to the world.  I mean no irreverence in saying this, but Fatima has some similarities to a Delphic oracle, where very broad statements were made without much in the way of details.  "Conversion of Russia" --- does this mean that Russia would recover her Orthodox spiritual patrimony (which, at that time, had not yet been taken away from her people, that came with Communism), or that Russian Orthodoxy would come into communion with Rome?  Something else? It's not at all clear, and FWIW, to my knowledge Our Lady never said the word "Catholic" in her revelations.  She might have done so later on in Lucia's life, but specific references to Catholicism, other than "the Holy Father will have much to suffer" and the invitation to take up the Rosary and the Brown Scapular (neither of which require one to be Catholic, even though one must be a Catholic to be enrolled in the confraternity, someone correct me if I'm wrong), aren't part of the message.  And as far as a "period of peace", does that mean that absolutely no countries would be at war with one another?  For how long?  A couple of decades?  A hundred years?  Again, the Fatima message is very low on specifics.

Endless rivers of ink, and now uncountable numbers of electrons, have been spilled giving every possible interpretation on this and that WRT Fatima, and at one point, I grew so disgusted with all of the claims, some of them way over the top, that I discarded all of my books on Fatima aside from Fatima in Lucia's Own Words and the excellent book The Great Sign by Francis Johnston.  I do wear the scapular, I say the rosary (sadly, not every day, it's an ideal but one I don't fulfill, for various reasons, and that's on me), and I offer my daily duty, and don't worry about the specifics.  That's all we can do.

1. Are you this skeptical about other things that Sr. Lucia about Fatima - including the message of Our Lady? After all, we must rely on the seers to tell us what Mary said. Not believing what she and St. John Paul II say about the consecration but believing what they had to say about other aspects of Fatima seems inconsistent.


I would not die on the cross for the absolute accuracy of everything in any private revelation, be it Fatima, Lourdes, or whatever.  I go on the assumption that the entire story of Fatima is true (but I'm not going to lie, I'm skeptical of what was presented as the Third Secret, or whether it was the entire Secret), but I do not attach divine faith to each and every jot and tittle of it.  It doesn't rise to that level.  Same with the Shroud of Turin.  Same with the various eucharistic miracles.  That's why, WRT the latter, I'd like to see DNA analysis of each miracle, conducted by scientists who are either neutral about the matter, or who are even hostile to it.  What could be fairer than that?  If the latter were the case, and if the scientific analysis turned up identical results, pointing to a single man of Palestinian Jewish extraction who died an agonizing death, that would come as close to absolute proof as is possible in this life.  And as for the miracle of the sun, it is theoretically possible that it was a combination of mass hallucination and hysteria, and that such things as temperature inversions that cause hot winds, were not unheard of in that area, and that it was just a coincidence that one of these inversions took place at the exact time that the children summoned the crowds to assemble there.  Dr Stanley Jaki makes a similar argument, though he attributes it to divine intervention and not coincidence:

catholicstand.com/fr-stanley-jaki-on-the-fatima-miracle/


2. What would it take for you to be convinced that the consecration has taken place?


In all brutal honesty, a consecration done precisely in the manner that I described above.  Before the 1984 consecration, the Blue Army called for as much, and then they changed their narrative, possibly out of docility, because you don't get more docile than the Blue Army.  And it's entirely possible that Pope Francis himself was skeptical of past consecrations, otherwise why did he do it?  As I said, the consecration done by Francis was very, very close to what Our Lady asked for.


3. If the consecration was not performed correctly, are Sr. Lucia and St. John Paul II simply mistaken? Or are they lying when they say the consecration has taken place?

I make the charitable assumption that, if it was not performed correctly in 1984, Sr Lucia and St John Paul II were mistaken in saying that the consecration took place in a manner that Our Lord accepted.  (Or perhaps He accepted it even though it was not a collegial consecration of Russia and only Russia.)  I cannot say.