Conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith
Thomas A. Droleskey
There is little
need to write at length about the extent to which the spin-doctors at
Zenit create and sustain an alternate universe in which the contradictions
of one day's dispatches by those of the next day never blunt their zeal
for spin-doctoring. The defined dogmas and papally condemned errors
mean nothing to those who produce Zenit's daily reports. Anything that
confirms the current Vatican line is to reported as though nothing before
that very moment in salvation history was at all relevant.
One of the
most current examples of this was to be found in a Zenit report of February
Spain, FEB. 16, 2005 ( Zenit.org ).-
The Blessed Virgin's role in helping Russia hasn't gone unappreciated
there, says a Catholic media official.
The Fatima shrine, for instance, is a "very special place for Russia,
for Catholics as well as Orthodox, who are convinced that Our Lady contributed
to convert the Russian people," said Victor Khroul, director of the
Information Center of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of Russia,
in an interview with ZENIT.
Khroul said that "although I never knew Sister Lucia personally, I value
very much her testimony and encouragement of the Russian people and
we are very grateful to her as, thanks to her, many people have prayed
for decades for the conversion of Russia."
Sister Maria Lucia, the last surviving visionary of the 1917 Marian
apparitions at Fatima, Portugal, died last Sunday at age 97.
Khroul, who is also editor of the Catholic weekly Svet Evangelia, said
that when one speaks of "the conversion of Russia" one must understand
that it means "the passing from non-belief to the Christian faith,"
and must not be confused with being or not being Catholic. ZE05021602
No one at
Zenit raised any questions about Victor Khroul's nonsensical assertion
that "'the conversion of Russia' means 'the passing from non-belief
to the Christian faith,' and must not be confused with being or not
being Catholic." Mr. Khroul's assertion is simply an effort to
parrot the conciliarist commitment to the errors of "ecumenism."
After all, the Holy See has discouraged members of Orthodox churches
to convert to the true Church. Various cardinals and archbishops have
said that Jews are saved by the Mosaic Covenant. Victor Khroul is merely
following the Vatican party line, enunciated first and foremost by Pope
John Paul II, of discouraging "proselytism" among the Orthodox,
especially in Russia.
wants all people on the face of this earth to be formal members of the
Catholic Church. It was for this reason that Our Lady appeared to Saint
Juan Diego in Guadalupe on December 9, 1531. It is for this reason that
Our Lady appeared in Fatima for the first time on May 13, 1917, just
one month and seven days after the entry of the United States of America
into what we refer to now as World War I. Our Lady told Blessed Jacinta
and Francisco Marto and their now deceased cousin, Lucia dos Santos,
that she wanted them to pray and to do penance for sins, praying especially
for the Holy Father, a personage who is not recognized as the Vicar
of Christ on earth by the Orthodox. The consecration of Russia to her
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart by a pope with all of the bishops of
the world is meant to usher in the conversion of Russia and an era of
Unless you think that
the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is compatible with legalized
contraception, abortion, euthanasia and other evils, then the era of
peace has arrived. And if you think that Our Lady was endorsing a religious
indifferentism that had been condemned by pope after pope in the Nineteenth
Century, then it is possible Our Lady does not want the Orthodox to
convert. If, however, Our Lady meant at Fatima to effect in the entire
world what had been effected in Latin America following her apparitions
to Saint Juan Diego, then it might be more than a little wise to consider
the following papal condemnations of Mr. Khroul's remarks--and of the
entire approach to ecumenism that began with Pope John XXIII's pontificate
following propositions contained in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors,
which predates the opening of the Second Vatican Council by ninety-eight
Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided
by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima
Quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of
eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui
pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.
Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of
all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical
"Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian
religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the
Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.
Pope Leo XIII
noted the following about religious indifferentism in Immortale
Dei in 1885:
hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion
between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each
other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion
in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism,
however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the
existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and
to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine
worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important
points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable
Pope Pius XI
addressed Mr. Khroul's assertion head-on in Mortalium Animos
And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false
opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement
by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian
churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times
almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That
they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,"
with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed
a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are
of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note
of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time
existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may
indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the
instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile
it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself,
or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it
is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still
remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in
common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all
enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from,
at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils.
Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion
which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian
family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines
a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the
profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers.
The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal
federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with
success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what
is commonly said. There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that
Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration,
certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in
fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains.
They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and
corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain
doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant
to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the
primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors
in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who
grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction
or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine
law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far
as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say,
assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found
who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will
find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar
of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor.
Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church
of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even
if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into
which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions
which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold
of Christ. . . .
These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem,
indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all
Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends
to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love,
who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of
Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers
the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade
any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version
of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this
doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you."
For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith,
the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one
faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of
which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters
which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to
the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow
contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful?
For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition
is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical
hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely
constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little
by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore
Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous
conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation,
and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the
signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist
recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those
who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of
the Lord's Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke
by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother
of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a
veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor
due to Jesus Christ, "the one mediator of God and men."
How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect
the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from
one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians.
But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion
or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are
unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not
absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities
of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since
it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being
accommodated to human life. Besides this, in connection with things
which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which
some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which
are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as
if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left
to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith
has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this
is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who
are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother
of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe
the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just
as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according
to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the
Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be
believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them,
some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately
before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority
of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in
order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that
they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men,
and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops
who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when
it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this
is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics,
or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful
with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But
in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented
matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those
truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation,
divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear
which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have
previously called into question is declared to be of faith.
Most of the
Orthodox churches reject very dogmas listed by Pope Pius XI above as
being part and parcel of the Deposit of Faith, the articles of which
can never be divided into "fundamental" and "non-fundamental."
Papal infallibility? The Immaculate Conception? Our Lady wants to reaffirm
the Orthodox in their errors, Mr. Khroul?
XI reiterated the condemnation of of the errors of of Photius, which
had been pronounced by Fourth Council of Constantinople in the Ninth
Century as some of the proximate foundations of the Greek Schism two
centuries later, inviting all men everywhere into the One, Holy, Catholic
and Apostolic Church:
Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who
does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter
and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are
now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop
of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home
of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever,
for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common
Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic
See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually
state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten
to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"?
Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone
in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house
of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any
man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.
Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation
are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless
their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."
was Pope Pius XI--and all of the popes before him going back to Saint
Peter, wrong? Was the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 wrong when it
same holy Roman Church also has supreme and full primary and jurisdiction
over the whole Catholic Church. This it truly and humbly recognizes
as received from the Lord Himself in the person of Saint Peter, the
Prince or head of the Apostles, whose successor in the fullness of power
is the Roman Pontiff. And just as the holy Roman Church is bound more
than all the others to defend the truth of faith, so, if there arise
any questions concerning the faith, they must be decided by its judgment.
Anyone who is aggrieved may appeal to it in matters pertaining to the
ecclesiastical court; and in all cases that require ecclesiastical investigation,
one may have recourse to its judgment. Also, all churches are subject
to it, and their prelates render it obedience are subject to it, and
their prelates render it obedience and reverence. There is such a fullness
of power vested in the Church that it admits other churches to a share
in its responsibility; and many of these, especially the patriarchal
churches, the same Roman Church has honored with various privileges.
Yet always its special position has remained intact, both in general
councils and in some others.
final two passages from Mortalium Animos:
12. Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh
to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes
of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat,
which is "the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,"
not with the intention and the hope that "the Church of the living
God, the pillar and ground of the truth" will cast aside the
integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary,
that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that
it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could
not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy
separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who
will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,"
would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who
stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking
We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the
Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help
of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the
much hoped- for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine
Son, and shall be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the
bond of peace."
13. You, Venerable Brethren, understand how much this question is in
Our mind, and We desire that Our children should also know, not only
those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are
separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there
is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus
Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect
charity. While awaiting this event, and as a pledge of Our paternal
good will, We impart most lovingly to you, Venerable Brethren, and to
your clergy and people, the apostolic benediction.
Mr. Khroul, was Pope Pius XI wrong? Must everyone become Catholic as
Pope Pius XI insisted in Paragraphs 12 and 13 of Mortalium Animos?
Alas, to admit that Pope Pius XI was correct must be to admit that Pope
John Paul and his immediate predecessors have been unfaithful to the
clear teaching of the Church concerning those outside of her fold. Countless
martyrs of the Church have given up their lives to bear witness to the
truth of the one, true Church founded by Our Lord upon the Rock of Peter,
the Pope. It is not possible, to use the phrase of a priest who wrote
to me recently, that an "ecclesiogensis" has sprung up since
1962, wiping out that which had existed before and consigning it to
the Orwellian memory hole. We must be about the business of inviting
everyone into the true Church, doing so as totally consecrated sons
and daughters of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.
who is listed in the Roman martyrology for tomorrow, February 21 is
Saint Peter Mavimenus, who was martyred by the Mohammedans in Damascus
in the year 743. Saint Peter exclaimed, "Every man who does not
hold the Catholic Christian Faith is damned like Mohammed, your false
The irony of all this
is when some pope actually does consecrate Russia to Our Lady's Sorrowful
and Immaculate Heart with all of the world's bishops, the daily report
from Zenit will run something like this: "As we have been reporting
for the past decades, Our Lady meant for Russia to be converted to the
Catholic Faith." Zenit's February 17, 2005, report will thus be
dispatched to the "delete" file, as will most of its dispatches
prior to that time, which we must continue to pray and to make many
sacrifices to help realize.
Our Lady of
Fatima, pray for us.
pray for us.
pray for us.
Mavimenus, pray for us.