“The Belt of the Mother of God”

Here is a fascinating post from the Director of SPUC, Mr. John Smeaton.  Check out the very first part:

Vladamir Putin turns to Mary to halt Russia’s population decline

Under the headline “Mother of God’s Belt comes to Russia to help reverse population decline” The Freethinker The Voice of Atheism since 1881 has featured  the news that Vladamir Putin, prime minister of Russia, received the Belt of the Mother of God “a revered Orthodox piece of antiquity” at St. Petersburg Airport.

[...]

Interested?

First, you should know about SPUC anyway.

Next, I finished reading Michael O’Brien’s The Father’s Tale.  I was impressed by the stress O’Brien placed on the future, potential future role of Russia.

One wonders… about that consecration thing….

READ ME

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to “The Belt of the Mother of God”

  1. Supertradmum says:

    Putin knows that there has been a change in Russia regarding the influence of the Orthodox Church. He is extremely unpopular now, and if elections were today, would not get elected. He is appealing to the vast majority of older voters (there are hardly any young people by comparison). I am not trying to sound cynical and pray that Putin is converting to the Truth about God. But, it would be a great miracle, considering his past and his present policies, as well as his KGB background.

    Also, Europe is on the edge financially and Russia is vulnerable. I cannot tell you how the economics are changing so rapidly, but Putin’s position, like so many others, is on the line. I can say, that he needs many miracles as do the Russian people, whom I love especially after living in northern Canada and being part of the Byzantine community there for years.

  2. Phil_NL says:

    Supertradmum,

    Putin would be elected regardless when elections are held. Not because of his popularity, but for the simple reason Russian elections are all but fair. Probably they’ll have the make-sure-there’s-no-viable-opponent-and-bully-voters-strategy down to such a level of perfection stuffing the ballot boxes isn’t even necessary, but if it was, they’d do that too.

    And as long as oil and gas prices remain fairly high, Russia and her regime is pretty secure. I’m far more worried about Russia resorting to some more old tricks in neigbouring countries – especially if the eurocrisis manages to drag on long enough to sink Germany cs as well – than its vulnerability. Being a Pole would still be reason to be nervous in my book.

  3. santoeusebio says:

    I only recently learnt about Our Lady’s belt. Apparently she was hauled up to heaven by means of her belt. Apparently St Thomas rather doubted this so she threw him down her belt. At Toro in Spain you can see a statue of him holding the belt.

  4. Subdeacon Joseph says:

    Russian Orthodox Christians have had a love for the Theotokos since 988 AD. This is why over 3,000,000 people came to pray before, and venerate, her holy belt. Voices from Russia has reported many, many, miracles already.

  5. Dr. Eric says:

    If all of those Russian women would stop marrying middle aged American men, the demographic crisis could be solved immediately. ;-)

    I really don’t get all the Russophobia that I read about from “Traditionalist Catholics”. The Mayor of Moscow banned a Gay Pride Parade. There are videos of soccer matches in which the whole crowd chants “Khrystos Voskrese!” “Voistynu Voskrese!” (Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!)

    Yet, we in America have plenty of Gay Pride Parades we delight in blasphemy in our media. So, which country is it that offends The Lord more? The one that has an official Apostolic Church or the one founded by Freemasons? Ours? Theirs? Both? Neither?

  6. avecrux says:

    Just a note on the consecration thing – a Priest and Mariologist I know says the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart is linked not only to the Consecration of Russia, but in the living of the First Saturdays. He thinks the consecration was done (Sr. Lucia said so), but we lack a devotion to living the First Saturdays throughout the Church – they are by and large not being promoted.

  7. Speravi says:

    How about outlawing abortion?

  8. irishgirl says:

    avecrux-you’re right, and your priest friend is right, too. The consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart HAS been done, as of March 25, 1984. And Sr. Lucia DID say that it was accepted by Our Lord.
    Now the thing is to actually LIVE the message which Our Lady gave at Fatima! Russia’s complete conversion, and the peace of the world, depends on our response!
    I know Catholics (mostly Traditional ones) who keep insisting that the consecration was NOT done in 1984. And I have to keep saying to myself (I wish I was bold enough to say it to their faces), ‘Yes, it has been done!’

  9. gloriainexcelsis says:

    May I recommend the book, RUSSIAN SUNRISE, by Dr. Bruce Walters, available through Loreto Publications, paperback. The subtitle: “A Novel of Faith and Hope.” It’s fiction, with barely disguised real people as part of the whole. The Pope plays a prominent role. Events that could take place (set between 2015 and 2017), intrigue, what could happen if Russia were truly converted. Would it be a Catholic Confessional State, and what would that mean? Fatima, of course, is key.

  10. Subdeacon Joseph says:

    The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Orthodox Church has all the means to attain salvation through her sacraments. Because of this she does not need “conversion” of any sort. That being said, it is probably safe to assume that a visible communion between the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Russia would be pleasing to the Holy Trinity.

  11. AnnAsher says:

    Hm I shall add the book to my list

  12. irishgirl says:

    Subdeacon Joseph: ‘That being said, it is probably safe to assume that a visible communion between the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Russia would be pleasing to the Holy Trinity’.
    EXACTLY! I agree with you 1000 percent!

  13. sophiamarie3 says:

    Check out the book trailer for The Father’s Tale: http://youtu.be/A4hwbHtyyEc

  14. BV says:

    From irishgirl: “The consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart HAS been done, as of March 25, 1984. And Sr. Lucia DID say that it was accepted by Our Lord.”

    I know, I can’t believe the number of traditional Catholics who believe Sr. Lucia was lying out of obedience. Read her memoirs, it’s pretty easy to understand that she wasn’t lying.

    And Russia today has more religious freedom than the US. Whatever is Putin’s sincerity? I do not know. But I am trying imagine a US presidential candidate holding up some holy relic, calling on the Mother of God, and as a result totally losing the election – because “we can’t have a religious nut in the whitehouse”, Catholic especially!!!

  15. jbpolhamus says:

    “Our Lady’s Belt” reminds me of a line in the hymn “Daily, Daily, Sing to Mary” which includs the line, “She the Queen who DECKS her subjects…” Now that’s what I call a Right-CROSS! Lets put it this way, if I were Putin, I wouldn’t want her mad at me. Whatever it takes to bring about conversion.

  16. Johnno says:

    The consecration was never done. The world was consecrated, not Russia by name. Nor was it done in union with the world’s bishops.

    And Lucia never said the consecration was done. The only sources for this were from forged letters and an alleged 1982 interview following another of Pope John Paul II’s failed attempts to perform the consecration by consecrating the world and not Russia, and without the world’s bishops participating. (He failed before while recovering from his assassination attempt in 1981, by consecrated the world not Russia, which is why he attempted to do it again.) Anyway, the alleged Lucia interview was from the Blue Army’s Soul Magazine. However private comments from those close to Lucia claimed contrary to the interview that she denied the consecration was done. When questioned in early 1983 to make a public statement, she could only state that she needed official permission from the Vatican to talk about it to the general public instead of privately, out of obedience to vowing to remain silent about it as ordered by the Church. So after getting the Pope’s permission, Papal Nuncio’s met with Lucia who confirmed to them that the consecration was not done because Russia WAS NOT the object of the consecration + the world’s bishops did not participate. The Soul Magazine interview claiming Lucia said the consecration was done was exposed as being false.

    So again in 1984, Pope John Paul II for the 3rd time attempts the consecration, but again fails, because again it is to the world. So John Paul II, understanding that this is problematic, departs from the prepared consecration text to include, “Enlighten especially the peoples of which You Yourself are awaiting our consecration and confiding.” Then 3 hours later while praying at St. Peter’s prays for “those peoples for whom You Yourself are AWAITING OUR ACT OF CONSECRATION and entrusting.”

    In 1985, Lucia again gives an interview with permission to Sol de Fatima stating that the 1984 consecration was not done in accordance to the Queen of Heaven’s wishes because Russia was not the object of the consecration and once again the world’s bishops decided to do their own thing and ignore the Pope. Lucia again repeats this in 1987. Then suddenly things get more chilling as anonymous higher ups in the Vatican then force instructions to Lucia and her fellow religious, under vows of obedience, to state that the 1984 consecration was acceptable, and thus in complete contradiction many previous witnesses reversed their testimonies, including allegedly we hear, that of Lucia, and the Papal nuncio to Portugal is replaced. Alleged letters then start appearing from Lucia, but these are type written or from computer word processors, something Lucia never did as she always hand wrote her letters and according to her own sister didn’t know how to type; these letters didn’t sound like her, they were not in her usual style, and also had simple factual errors she wouldn’t be expected to make, and also oddly enough claimed that Paul VI adequately performed the consecration in 1967… Many would use these letters to claim Lucia approved the consecration, despite that as far as 1989, they were exposed as known forgeries. The next time Lucia is seen in public is in 1991 with Pope John Paul II at Fatima but neither say anything publicly about the validity of the consecration, which would be odd if those letters from earlier were geniune and the consecration done.

    The 3rd secret was censured. Even Pope Benedict XVI has contradicted the official Vatican Secretariat’s position by acknowledging that the events of Fatima are still relevant today and speak of dangers currently present within the Church. Russia has a major abortion problem and is headed for a crisis. And the Russian authorities will try to do anything but outlaw abortion. The Catholic Church is non existent in Russia. Pornography, especially child pornography is rife from within the country as are many other disturbing things. The errors of Communism: anti-clericalism, anti-Catholicism, abortion, denial of God, falmoral relativism etc. are all thriving around the world and inflict every Western democracy and country. The Church failed to consecrate Russia, the Popes failed to get the bishops in line, many in the Church gave themselves over to modernist heresies, Vatican II failed to implement itself, the Mass got to the sorry state it was today, the overwhelming majority of Catholics do not believe in the Eucharist, do not attend Mass, practice sexual immorality, side with secularist philosopies. Etc. And given that subsequent Popes have failed time and again to simply consecrate Russia by name and order the world’s bishops to participate, to this day we have priests failing to “Say the black, do the red.”

    God warned the Pope and the Church,”Make it known to My ministers given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, like him they will follow him into misfortune.”

    Just as some in the Church coverd up sexual abuse, so too are there those in position of authority who are covering up the Church’s failure to obey the Queen of Heaven to consecrate Russia, a test of faith from God so that He may act together with His Church, inside whom He is bringing to light the division and apostasy within.

    I believe there are some positive steps being taken, starting with the new translation, and Russia waking up to their population problem. But we’re still a long way off. Never the less I have hope that the good trends will continue and that the Church, hopefully under Benedict XVI will once and for all erase all doubt and consecrate Russia, solely by name, in communion with the bishops around the world faithful to him (automatically excommunicating those who fail to obey a Papal demand), and we’ll put this behind us. However, as we’ve seen, we’ve chosen the hard route, and the further we delay, the worse our chances will be. Catholics MUST WAKE UP to these facts. If the Church does not obey God in time, there are worse things to come. Don’t fall for the calm before storms! According to Pope Benedict XVI, who as Cardinal Ratzinger did read the 3rd secret, it refers to the End Times, it refers to the state of hte Church today, and even to the sexual abuse crisis. It is still relevant! The Queen of Heaven warns about the annihiliation of nations. Entire groups of people are being lost. And Abortion is wiping out the Russian people as well as the black minorities in America! And people in places of power want to reduce the world population to a fraction of what it is today and they have the means to make it so!

    Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us and for the Holy Father, the Bishops and the clergy. May the world witness the wonders of God’s power, know He exists, and know that He is calling them to the One Holy Catholic Church, to whom He has given to us His Holy Mother, as the safeguard of orthodoxy and a sword against heresy and apostasy t whom we must devote ourselves to further guarantee our salvation.

  17. The consecration was never done ….. zzzzzzzzzzzzz ….. Just can’t help it, just can finish a long post on the subject without drifting off.

    But if I concentrated on it, having recently read “A Father’s Tale”, I might venture the offhand thought that–apart from 70 years of communism–Russia for a thousand years has been closer to a Christian confessional state than the U.S. is, and that if Our Lady of Fatima were to return, it might be the U.S. rather than Russia whose consecration she demanded.

  18. DisturbedMary says:

    Russia and Our Lady. There are unexpected delightful turns when it is about Russia and Our Lady.
    http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/russia-rusia-10022/

  19. RichardT says:

    I haven’t heard of this relic before, but what a splendid thing to have.

  20. thereseb says:

    1984 – Consecration
    1985 – Gorbachev elected
    1989- Fall of Berlin Wall

    Res ipsa loquitur?

  21. James Joseph says:

    I briefly longed to go to Russia and venerate Her relic.

    I would go if I but had the money… honest.

  22. BV says:

    Yes thereseb… Res ipsa loquitur.

    Rather than taking up blog space, I refer to: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/FatimaConsecration.htm
    (although those who do not believe, will just not believe, because they do not want to believe)

    In Sr. Lucia’s second Memoir, Fatima: In Lucia’s Own Words, Part 2, she states that the Lord told her that the consecration would take place, but it would take a while and Russia would spread her errors (hence, the spread of communism), but yes it would eventually take place. I can only imagine what the world would be like had the consecration been done immediately. But had it not been done, the USSR would surely still exist.

  23. thereseb says:

    BV

    That is a fascinating link. I had often wondered why Pius XI and Pius XII had not fulfilled the terms of the consecration well before 1984.

    I also forgot about the Russian military disasters – I was a student, therefore much too busy at the time!

    As Russia had already spread its errors – especially to China and South East Asia – it would make sense to dedicate the world – not just Russia, whereas if it had been done close to 1918, it would only have been needed in Russia (and perhaps Germany).

  24. Centristian says:

    @Dr. Eric:

    “I really don’t get all the Russophobia that I read about from ‘Traditionalist Catholics’. ”

    I suspect it may be on account of the fact that so many “traditionalists” do, in fact (I write from my own experience, here), return to another era–one in which Russia meant the “evil empire” (the Soviet Union)–when they worship. Many still conclude Low Mass with the recitation of the (long since suppressed) Leonine Prayers (suppressed because the reform did not provide for any such thing as “Low” Mass), which they mistakenly regard as being for “the conversion of Russia”. In fact, the intention that Pope Pius XI attached to these prayers, following the resolution of the “Roman Question,” was not the “conversion of Russia”, at all, but rather the religious liberty of Catholics living in Russia. Many Catholics “remember” otherwise, however, and so the facts mean nothing versus their fond but imperfect memories of the way things used to be (and to which we ought to return them).

    In addition to the recitation of the mis-labelled “Prayers for the Conversion of Russia” after Low Mass, many “traditionalists” still pray “Savior of the world, save Russia” after the Leonine Prayers or after their Rosaries. Russia is still feared as the diabolical enemy, therefore, just as it was in the 1950s and 60s…an enemy that would have converted to Roman Catholicism by now, incidentally, had only the popes been true to Mary’s call for consecration (as many imagine).

    BV said:

    “I had often wondered why Pius XI and Pius XII had not fulfilled the terms of the consecration well before 1984.”

    Perhaps because they did not imagine that there were any terms to be fulfilled. The problem is that, in the minds of, I think, too many Catholics, the revelations of Fatima have become akin to articles of Faith that all Christians must believe. That the Virgin appeared at Fatima does not amount, to some, to a private apparition that one may take or leave (which it is, according to the official position of the Church on the matter), but rather it amounts to an undeniable fact, a completely certain historical event, as certain as the Battle of Bull Run or the War between the States. In the context of viewing matters in that way, some Catholics become dismayed at the inaction of various popes of the 20th century in the face of “Mary’s” pressing requests that they consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart. How dare a mere pope ignore the requests of the heavenly Mother of God, after all?

    The fact of the matter is, however, that the popes did not receive any sort of a request from the Holy Virgin to do anything. What they did receive was various reports and writings, through various channels, from a girl in Portugal alleging that an apparition told her that the pope must consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart or find himself responsible for the planet’s calamity. That’s hardly the same thing as a direct request from Heaven. These popes, of course, therefore, cannot be said to have been disobedient to Mary. The “requests” came to the popes, never once from the Mother of God, but from some young girl called Jacinta of Fatima, Portugal. But popes are not governed by young girls from Portugal.

    Popes, I hope, are not ones to be commanded by alleged apparitions or their seers, but ones to endeavor to lead the Church of Christ with manful soundness and good sense under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. History shows that it is not always so, but it is nevertheless optimal that they should. Popes should not be swayed by rumours or by emotion or by wonders or by apparitions or by hysterics or by a sentimentality that tempts them to verify in the most sentimental regions of their hearts something which their faith and their intellects cannot necessarily unhesitatingly accept (not even under duress, as for example, say, in the face of the Cuban Missile crisis). Popes ought to be swayed, instead, by a solid Christian faith, by wisdom, by their cultivation, by their experiences of the Church and of mankind over their lifetimes, by the sober and deliberate investigation of facts, and mostly of all by the Holy Spirit through prayer.

    The Pope is Peter, and Peter is the visible head of the Church on Earth, Christ’s vicar. Not even the Virgin Mary may make that claim and it is most certainly not the place of the Virgin Mary to rule the Pope (not that she would ever attempt to). Christ gave the government of the earthy Church to Peter and to his apostolic descendants, not to his Mother. Even should someone seeming to be the Virgin have appeared to the Pope directly to make the same requests as were made to the children of Fatima, the Pope would be a foolish pope, indeed, were he to simply accede to the apparition’s wishes without absolute authentication. His office and vocation are too important that he should ever act so irresponsibly. The Virgin did not appear directly to any of those popes, however. She, personally, bade not one of them do a thing.

    It is possible that the Vicars of Christ in this period simply were not fully and completely persuaded of the absolute authenticity of all aspects of the Fatima events and messages, and were treading into this unusual phenomenon, therefore, with the utmost caution (as indeed they ought to have).

    It would be difficult, I imagine, for a wise, learned, and cultivated pontiff to accept, for example, that an angel distributed the Holy Eucharist to three children, when to do so was, at that time, the exclusive province of the ordained priesthood, according to the rules governing Communion made by the Church. Angels are not priests, after all, and the Church makes no provisions for angels to act in the capacity of ministers of the Eucharist. Angels are not at liberty to defy Christ’s will that Peter and the apostles and their likewise human successors make the rules that govern His earthly Church. Would an angel, therfore, so defy Church law and custom? Made aware of such odd reports about a private apparition, then, any pope ought to be hesitant to give himself over, fully, to belief in it.

    In none of what I have written do I deny that Fatima was real. It may well have been. My personal beliefs are neither here nor there, nor do they matter in any case. I merely mean to say that Fatima and other private apparitions must be kept in their proper places and viewed from the correct perspective. Catholics, therefore, must not look with suspicion or disappointment upon popes or other Church leaders when they cannot allow themselves to be governed by the claims that arise from such phenomena.

  25. BV says:

    For the record, thereseb said: “I had often wondered why Pius XI and Pius XII had not fulfilled the terms of the consecration well before 1984.”

    ;)
    In my opinion, the consecration took place at the appropriate time in history to provide for the salvation of souls to highest possible degree. Trust in Divine Providence.

    “It is then a truth of our faith that God is responsible for all the happenings we complain of in the world and, furthermore, we cannot doubt that all the misfortunes God sends us have a very useful purpose. We cannot doubt it without imputing to God a lack of judgment in deciding what is advantageous to us. It is usually the case that other people can see better than we can ourselves what is good for us. It would be foolish to think that we can see better than God Himself, who is not subject to any of the passions that blind us, knows the future and can foresee all events and consequences of every action. Experience shows that even the gravest misfortunes can have good results and the greatest successes end in disaster. A rule that God usually follows is to attain His ends by ways that are opposite to those human prudence would normally choose.”
    — St. Claude de la Colombiere, SJ.

    (from Trustful Surredner to Divine Providence, by Fr. Jean Baptiste Saint-Jure, SJ & St. Claude de la Colombiere, SJ; Published by TAN)

  26. Centristian says:

    BV:

    In the words of Rick Perry: “Oops”. Sorry about that. At any rate, thereseb: see above. ;^)

    I believe the consecration took place when Pope John Paul II performed it. After all, Jacinta of Fatima confirmed as much. But what did it all mean, in that case? Did it accomplish what was promised? Did Russia convert? If so, from what to what? From communism to capitalism? It doesn’t seem to have become a Catholic country. And do Russia’s “errors” (which we all supposed meant atheistic communism) no longer obtain in the world? Ask the Chinese (what percentage of the world’s poulation do they constitute again?) Or did the errors of Russia, perhaps, not refer to Communism but to something else? Russian Orthodoxy can’t be it; the Russian Orthodox Church isn’t exactly spreading across the globe like wildfire.

    So what did the consecrations accomplish, I wonder? And what, finally, did Fatima and all of the things that do not seem to add up about it mean? I’m sure someone of an earlier generation would have once puzzled this way over LaSalette.