NEW Website Coming:  Days |  Hours |  Minutes |  Seconds

  1. Happy Easter

  2. Dallas/Fort Worth, TX

  3. New Site Coming

  4. On Borrowed Time


What Seems To Be Delaying The Bishops From Consecrating Russia To The Immaculate Heart Of Mary?

In the light of the extreme urgency and necessity of consecrating Russia in the manner specified by Our Lady of Fatima, people ask the logical question: "Why have not the Pope and the bishops done it already?" Or to put it another way, "What is the real or perceived obstacle to this salvific act of obedience that carries with it such marvelous promises for the whole world?" These questions press themselves upon us when presented with the intrinsic simplicity of such an act, and at the same time presented with 58 years of disobedience by the Pope and the bishops.

To quote Our Lord's own words in this regard after just two years of disobedience, He said, Make it known to My ministers that it has been given to them that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, and that they will follow him into misfortune. (August, 1931.) To answer these questions The Fatima Crusader has presented a series of articles documenting and explaining the fact of a Vatican-Moscow Agreement which was brought about by the masters of deceit, the communists, deceiving Vatican officials into thinking that communism had changed. The Vatican by this agreement agreed not to denounce the errors of communism. This agreement is the number one obstacle to the fulfillment of Our Lady's request.

Since the Vatican-Moscow Agreement took place in the late summer of 1962, most Catholics have not been informed of it.

Due to the secrecy imposed by the very nature of this agreement, the general public was not informed at the time (late summer, 1962). Catholic magazines in the English-speaking world started to carry the account of this by the beginning of 1984. The first article in this series carries the news as it began to break. The next two articles published by Father Francis Putti and Mr. Hamish Fraser prove beyond question the existence of the Vatican-Moscow Agreement. The significance of this agreement for informed Fatima apostles is clear.

Why is it taking so much time for the Pope and the bishops to consecrate Russia as Our Lady commanded?

The theological difficulties are already answered. The Pope and the bishops are duty bound to obey this command of Our Lady of Fatima. (See The Fatima Crusader, issue No. 11-12, "World Peace Depends On The Catholic Bishops And You" )* (See also the booklet Reflections by Father Joseph de Sainte-Marie.)** But there seems to be some difficulties within the minds of certain members of the clergy (as well as some influential laymen). We present here two extracts of articles written by two well known experienced lay Catholic observers of the Catholic Church. Perhaps these articles will help our readers answer these questions for themselves. Above all what we need to do is: that we ourselves must insistently, confidently and humbly ask Jesus and Mary by our prayers and sacrifices for the Consecration of Russia by the Pope and all the bishops together. We must also respectfully and insistently ask our bishops by our petitions for this Collegial Act of Consecration.

of this book. "World Peace Depends On The Catholic Bishops And You"*See

of this book. " On The Act Of Consecration At Fatima Of Pope John Paul II On May13, 1982 "**See Section XV

The following passage is taken from an article by Gregory MacDonald, a distinguished Catholic journalist of Great Britain, experienced for over 40 years in the mass media. He twice in the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII had long and very frank conversations with the Secretary of State regarding the Vatican's policy towards the Communist governments of Eastern Europe. This Vatican policy towards Communist governments changed in the Pontificate of Pope John XXIII. Here follows Mr. MacDonald's words.

In Pope John: the Traditional Pope (published in 1964), with commendation by Archbishop Dell'Acqua, Ernesto Balducci is explicit about the negotiations with Moscow, on page 265: '... the deciding factor was Pope John's behavior towards the Soviet government. For one thing, he gave the government and the Patriarch EXPLICIT GUARANTEES that in the Council the political spirit, however legitimate, would find no expression.' (English edition, Burns and Oates, 1965.) E.E. Y. Hales, as cited, gives as the formula of the indirect assurances that the Council 'would not be made the opportunity for polemics about Communism'. This strikes me as a good double-think phrase such as Communist officials and journalists use. It would be accepted that Willebrands meant one thing by 'polemics' and his hosts meant something else. Hales gives as his source A. Wenger: Vatican II, Premiere Session, 1963. On page 152 Hales refers to Wenger's essay in the book cited, La Concile et la press Sovietique (sic), with a quotation from a Soviet publicist which is interesting in the light of subsequent events.

Did Pope John XXIII's Guarantees Also Rule Out Consecration?

It has also been my opinion for some time that the assurances given to Moscow because of Pope John's anxiety to have observers from the Patriarchate at the Council may also explain why at Vatican 2 the Pope did not consecrate Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart together with all the other bishops of the Church.

It certainly cannot be argued that Rome was unaware of this demand by Our Lady. For on October 31, 1942, Pope Pius XII consecrated the world, then at war, to Mary's Immaculate Heart, with an oblique but nevertheless clear reference to Russia.1 And as though to compensate for not having directly and explicitly consecrated Russia in 1942, ten years later, on July 7, 1952, in an Apostolic Letter 'Vergente Anno', he consecrated Russia explicitly to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, though again without participation in the consecration by the world's bishops as Our Lady had demanded.

Furthermore, in 1964, immediately after the promulgation of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Pope Paul VI renewed the consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the presence of all the world's bishops. And on the same occasion he proclaimed Our Lady Mother of the Church and announced a mission to Fatima.

However, as Francis Johnston points out: '... even this singular act did not exactly fulfill the specific request of Our Lady of Fatima'2 WHICH IS FOR THE COLLEGIAL CONSECRATION OF RUSSIA.

Yet Vatican 2, with all the bishops present under the one roof, was the perfect occasion for the consecration.

However, if 'polemics about Communism' had been ruled out by the 'explicit guarantees' given by the Willebrands mission to Moscow,3 clearly it was also out of the question for Vatican 2 to discuss, let alone perform, the act of consecrating Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart, since everyone knew that the purpose of this consecration was the conversion of Russia from the atheistic ideology with which the Soviet regime is identified. Nothing could in fact have been more 'polemical' than the consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart by the Second Vatican Council.

Something Left Undone

Pope Paul certainly gave every indication of being acutely aware that he had left something undone. When he made his pilgrimage to the tomb of San Celestino the pundits declared that he wanted to abdicate. Much more probable, to my mind, he was aware that he himself, like Pope Celestine, was making 'il gran rifiuto'4 - he was not carrying out a responsibility laid upon him. So also, during the Council, he sent the Golden Rose to Fatima, and some years later made an apparently empty pilgrimage, in which nothing significant was said or done. I feel it was another symbolic gesture instead of the Act which Our Lady wants the Pope to carry out in the face of Russia and the world.

Significance Of Guarantees

If Vatican 2's omission to include in its Acts the collegial consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart epitomizes the consequences of whatever 'guarantees' were given to Khrushchev by Pope John XXIII, it must surely be obvious that this would not have been possible but for the fact that these 'guarantees' were fully honored by his successor Pope Paul VI who indeed, as mentor to John XXIII, may well have proposed giving them in the first place.

However, the real significance of the 'explicit guarantees' in question is that they were entirely without precedent.

Previous popes have entered into certain undertakings with temporal princes concerning many issues. For example, whether or not a concordat exists, it is customary for Rome to appoint only such bishops as are persona grata vis a vis the temporal power even where there is no formally acknowledged right of veto. This is as true of contemporary Eastern European states today as of states in the so-called 'free world'.

But never before in the history of the Church had a pope - let alone two successive popes - allowed a temporal power directly or indirectly to exercise decisive influence concerning an Ecumenical Council. In the case of Vatican 2, however, its very agenda appears to have been predetermined by an agreement entered into with the most anti-Christian state which has ever existed, and so predetermined that the Council, which claimed to be above all concerned about the Church's relations with the 'modern world', was not permitted even to discuss one of the greatest threats confronting the contemporary Church. And this being so, it is no exaggeration to say that the entire atmosphere of Vatican 2 was thereby conditioned by the 'explicit guarantees' given to Moscow 'that in the Council the political spirit, HOWEVER LEGITIMATE, would find no expression.'


1. The great refusal. 4.
It seems that Monsignor Willebrands flew to Moscow from Amsterdam as a Dutch businessman.3.
Ibid. page 89.2.
This was in response to a request that this be done by Sister Lucia who subsequently admitted however that in requesting the consecration of the world to Mary's Immaculate Heart, with special mention of Russia, and not the consecration of Russia she had bowed to episcopal pressure. Cf. 'Fatima: the Great Sign' by Francis Johnston, page 88.


The following article is taken from an article published on January 31, 1982 by Si Si No No - a magazine published in Rome, Italy, by Father Francis Putti.

Paul VI also, at Fatima, let forth an agonized exclamation:

'We say: the world is in danger ... here we have an immense and dramatic picture of the world and its destiny. It is the picture that Our Lady reveals to our eyes, the picture that we look on with terrified eyes ...'

And the Remedies?

Nevertheless, in the triumphant post-Conciliar naturalism, beginning in the pontificate of Paul VI, the necessity of prayer has been devalued. In spite of Our Lady's repeated requests for prayer and penance. Its forms have been bastardized and its quality diminished, even in the contemplative orders; and penance - which in its ecclesiastical form has been reduced to only two fast-days a year - is not even spoken of.

Worse, profanations have multiplied and Marian devotion, with the Rosary, has for years been attacked with truly diabolical zeal. And this practical contempt of the Message of Fatima did not start from the Christian people, but from above.

The Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in the way requested by Our Lady, has never been done. And what has been done for the conversion of humanity? Ambiguity and errors in doctrine and the spreading abroad of an immoral 'morality' have encouraged the triumph of human laws opposed to the Divine Law, both natural and positive. Abortion, divorce, contraception, pornography and the resulting corruption - especially of youth - is heaping up upon mankind the anger of God.

A Troublesome Revelation

The Madonna of Fatima is a troublesome Madonna; She has the fault of ignoring diplomacy, of speaking too clearly. Yes, Her statue is carried round on tour, if the bishops are not against it ... but as far as possible the message is kept in the dark.

Right from the start, the word 'Russia', which Our Lady had clearly mentioned, began to be substituted by the formula 'nations at enmity with God'. Nevertheless, Fatima was a prophecy for our times. In the same year of the apparitions, in 1917, there exploded in Russia the Bolshevik revolution which was to make that nation the standard-bearer of theoretical and practical atheism, imposed in the East and spread by all means, more or less underhanded, in the West. Russia, the first professedly atheist nation, represents the culmination of humanity's apostasy, of that process that was summed up by Pope Pius XII in these words: 'It is an enemy that has become ever more concrete, with an unscrupulousness that still leaves us astonished: Yes to Christ but No to the Church (Lutheranism); Yes to God, but No to Christ (illuminism). And finally the impious cry: God is dead; or even, God never existed (Marxism).'

Our Lady at Fatima was not talking politics. She came to remind the blinded human race of an elementary truth: war is the ugly fruit of rebellion against God. There is an unbreakable link between war and sin, between the apocalyptic war that threatens us and the intellectual and practical blasphemy (atheism) which now rises from the earth to Heaven. Our Lady has mercifully come to warn humanity, which talks of peace but refuses to establish the conditions that make for peace.

But all this has not been understood, not even by the Pastors of the Church, trammelled as they are by 'diplomatic' human considerations.


The light of the Fatima Message, recognized officially but neglected or obstructed in practice, has been thrust under the bushel by the very ones whose duty it was to place it on the lamp stand so that it might give light to mankind lost in the darkness of a Lucifer-like rebellion against God.

Its fruits are before the eyes of all: Russia, as foretold at Fatima, has spread, and is spreading, her errors - atheism, theoretical and practical, social hatred, subversion - through all the world, and even in the Church. One must ask oneself whether armed invasion would not have been a lesser evil than this ideological invasion that perverts its victims' conscience.

People Ask Us:

As a help to understand the preceding article as well as the one by Mr. MacDonald, we present here, part of a speech given by Mr. Hamish Fraser in the United States in 1983. Mr. Fraser is a great Catholic layman and one of the world's authorities on the methods and errors of Communism. In this article he shows that certain "errors of Russia" have been spread not only in the world at large but also among Catholic people as well, including more than a few Catholic priests and bishops. This "internal aggression" of Communism within the ranks of the Catholic clergy helps us to understand why the Pope is finding it so difficult to consecrate Russia on one specific day together with all the Catholic Bishops, as God has commanded them through the Message of Our Lady of Fatima.

Russia's Errors The True Source Of Ecclesial Disorder

A cause of misunderstanding about the Message of Our Lady of Fatima is that when She spoke of Russia spreading her errors throughout the world it was not sufficiently realized that while the Church is not OF the world it is nevertheless very much IN the world and, consequently, that the most effective method of spreading Russia's errors throughout the world would be by spreading them throughout the Church in such wise as to make prominent Churchmen and even certain episcopal institutions integral to the vanguard of the Revolution.

Yet one need only look at the situation in the contemporary Church to appreciate that this is precisely what has been happening in the course of the last few decades.

For while the prevailing disorder in the Church has proliferated with ever increasing rapidity in the wake of Vatican 2, the historical record shows not only that it began long before Vatican 2 but also that this disorder is essentially a function of the extent to which Russia has succeeded in spreading her errors throughout the Church particularly since the end of World War 2 which enabled Soviet Russia to emerge as a colossus astride Europe and as a major world power.

The French Connection

This phenomenon first became manifest in post-war France - as can be seen from the following facts:

First, as Jean Madiran demonstrated with massive evidence in two books published in 1955,5 the institutional Church in France, elder daughter of the Church and moreover its intellectual powerhouse, had by then already been largely taken over by Neomodernist "anti-anti-Communists".

Secondly, although most people are familiar with Father Wiltgen's book The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, which describes how Vatican 2 was cleverly manipulated by Neomodernists to their advantage, few realize that the Rhine is a French River, and that, by 1962, key men in the anti-anti-Communist French ecclesial establishment were in intimate liaison with 'progressive' prelates in Germany and Holland. Which liaison was symbolized by the fact that it was the French Cardinal Achille Liénart who was the prime mover in securing what a Dutch Bishop hailed as the 'first victory' for the Neomodernist camp, which made possible all further Neomodernist exploitation of the Council.

Thirdly, the strength of the anti-anti-Communist forces in the Council was evidenced by the fact that when 450 Council Fathers representing 86 countries demanded a solemn reaffirmation by the Council of the longstanding doctrine of the Church concerning Communism, their signed intervention conveniently 'disappeared', having been 'withheld' by Monsignor Achile Glorieux, Bishop of Lille, France.

Russians At Vatican 2

It has also been alleged, and never denied, that the Russian observers invited to attend the Council had agreed to come only on the understanding that the Council would make no explicit attack on Communism. And as though to corroborate this allegation and explain the withholding of the intervention of nearly a quarter of the Council Fathers, one of the very first liturgical 'reforms' decreed by the Commission for Implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, on September 26, 1964, was the suppression of the Leonine Prayers after Mass which had been said since the time of Pius XI for the conversion of Russia.

Why No Consecration Of Russia At Vatican 2

Since it seems that an 'explicit guarantee' had been given, even if only by 'indirect assurances', that the Council 'would not be made the opportunity for polemics about Communism',6 this explains not only the 'withholding' of the demand for a restatement of the Church's doctrine concerning Communism, and the suppression of prayers for Russia's conversion, it also explains why Paul VI did not consecrate Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart at Vatican 2 - a Heaven-sent opportunity for doing so collegially - and consecrated merely the world. For nothing could have been more 'polemical' than the collegial consecration of 'Russia', since its purpose is to effect the conversion of Russia from the atheistic ideology with which Moscow has been identified since 1917.

And since in the wake of Vatican 2 the Church has been progressively taken over at all levels by anti-anti-communists who are also fiercely Neomodernist, it is this which no doubt constitutes the principal obstacle to the collegial consecration of Russia today.

Finally, given the decision no longer to invoke either St. Michael's protection 'against the wickedness and snares of the Devil', or the help of the Queen of Heaven towards Russia's conversion after each Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is scarcely surprising that, in the wake of the Council, Russia's errors have been spread with ever increasing audacity throughout the Church, and particularly by means of a new 'liberation theology' which is essentially Revolutionary Marxism translated into an idiom designed to make it acceptable to a generation already deprived of sound Catechetical instruction by the suppression of the Catholic Catechism by the same post-Conciliar mafia of anti-anti-Communist Neomodernists.

This domination of the post-Conciliar Church by anti-anti-Communists is epitomized by the 1983 French Missal which commemorates the centenary of the death of Karl Marx out of appreciation of the contribution to 'Human Sciences' made by Marxist socio-economic analysis.

Alas! it isn't mere symbols of anti-anti-Communism with which we have to contend. The collapse of Catholic order within the Church is particularly manifest in the changed relationship between the Church and the world.

For whereas prior to Vatican 2, the Catholic Church and Catholic Churchmen generally constituted the mainstay of resistance to Communism, today resistance to Communism must reckon with the presence everywhere of Catholic Churchmen and lay intellectuals who are proponents of 'liberation theology' and integrated in the vanguard of the Revolution; of Catholic Churchmen such as Monsignor Bruce Kent (UK) and countless others like him in the USA, who are actively involved in campaigns for unilateral nuclear disarmament. However, the most universal phenomenon of all is the identification of prominent Churchmen, including not a few bishops and even Episcopal Commissions, with that unjustifiably prestigious body known as 'Amnesty International' the function of which is to create the impression that the worst enemy of freedom and 'human rights' is not the Gulag, is not Soviet Communism or any other brand of Revolutionary Marxism, none of which has ever acknowledged the existence of a single inalienable human right, but that by far the worst enemies of freedom and 'human rights' are anti-Communist governments or movements which seek however hamhandedly and imperfectly to defend themselves and their peoples against Communist-organized 'internal aggression'.

But the most glaring proof of all concerning the extent to which Russia's errors have been spread throughout the Church is the fact that at a time when the world is littered with tens of millions of disillusioned Communists, not only in the West but also and especially in the USSR, where no one any longer takes the dogmas of Marxism-Leninism seriously, the only remaining incurable addicts to Marxism's deadly opium are 'progressive' theologians and Catholic lay intellectuals under their influence. In effect, therefore, history has had the last laugh. For whereas Marx said religion was the opium of the people, it is Revolutionary Marxism which has in fact proved to be the opium of the entire 'progressive' Catholic intelligentsia, both clerical and lay.

I wonder if you appreciate the full significance of this subversive treason.

Need I remind you again of Sister Lucia's warning to Dr. Walsh that unless a sufficient number comply with Our Lady's demands, every nation in the entire world without exception, will eventually be enslaved and scourged by Communism?

This warning is certainly not difficult to understand. For with Churchmen everywhere doing the Revolution's work, with ecclesial institutions acting as ancillaries to Revolutionary Marxist agitation and propaganda, with clerical traitors seeking everywhere to sap the defenses of what is left of the free world, in the short run the Revolution cannot possibly fail to succeed.

No Need For Despair

Must we therefore despair? By no means. For if only Mother Church were once more to become the effective leaven which it always is whenever its main emphasis is on the salvation of souls, the situation could everywhere be transformed almost overnight. For today the spiritual vacuum is such that if the Church were once more visible to ordinary folk, the harvest of souls among all races would be such as to dwarf even that of the early Church.

Moreover we know that this is eminently possible. For Our Lady of Fatima has assured us that once the collegial consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart has been effected, Russia will be converted. In other words, Russia will then not merely cease to spread her errors throughout the Church and the world, but will also, as a reconverted Christian nation, become a powerhouse of Christian evangelization throughout the entire world.

What we must do therefore is to bring home the essential, world-shaking significance of the Message of Our Lady of Fatima to everyone we know, to all our relatives, friends and connections everywhere. What we must do is, by such means, to give rise to an immense movement capable of activating all the energies of the Church, whose faith can indeed move mountains.

Here therefore is a real peace movement capable of appealing to all men and women of good will, no matter what is their attitude to what has been happening in the Church since Vatican 2. Here is a movement capable of appealing to all the faithful whatever their attitude to the liturgy, etc., even to those who through no fault of their own are doctrinally illiterate. For this is quite literally a matter of life and death.

This certainly does NOT mean that we should abandon the positive initiatives to which we are already committed. But it does mean that we must see such initiatives within the Fatima context - as integral to the penance demanded of us by Our Lady of Fatima: the penance of fulfilling the duties appropriate to our state in life, as means of promoting the collegial consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart which alone can restore Catholic order to both Church and State.

It also means that no initiative whatever can hope to have positive effects unless it is in homage to and under the banner of the Immaculate.

And, conversely, this makes us ask why so many apparently worthwhile initiatives which showed immense promise initially have subsequently disintegrated through fragmentation and have occasioned widespread frustration and even despair.

Is it because these initiatives were seen by their sponsors as sufficient unto themselves - as means whereby order could be restored by primarily human means? Were they in effect exercises in what could be described as a form of 'traditional humanism'?

Let us not however bemoan past failures. Let us instead look upwards and at the same time forward: on the one hand to what has been promised by the Queen of Heaven, and, on the other hand, to means of ensuring that Her demands are fulfilled here below. In other words, let us do whatever we can, no less than everything we can possibly do, to stimulate and activate all the energies of Mother Church towards the achievement of Objective Number One: the collegial consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart. And what is beyond our human powers, let us leave that with confidence to the Almighty and to the Mother of the Church.

Footnotes:"in this book. "passage by Gregory MacDonald See6.
'Ils ne sauvent pas ce qu'ils font and Ils ne sauvent pas ce qu'ils disent.' 5.