Recent Posts

Sadly with the exception of Russian  Roman Catholics the message of Fatima ....
Yes, Russian Roman Catholics have responded to the message of Fatima, primarily through the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which was requested in the Our Lady of Fatima apparitions in 1917. Responses and interpretations of this message have varied, but the consecration act itself, particularly by Pope John Paul II in 1984 and Pope Francis in 2022 (in the context of the invasion of Ukraine), have been noted in relation to the message's directives. The specific interpretations and sincerity of these consecrations have been a subject of ongoing discussion and controversy, but the message has significantly influenced the spiritual landscape for Roman Catholics in Russia and globally.
The Context of the Message
The apparitions:
Ongoing controversy over fulfillment:
Some interpretations argue that the consecration of Russia has not been performed according to the Virgin Mary's exact instructions.
Papal consecrations:
Pope John Paul II (1984): He performed a consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Pope Francis (2022): In March 2022, in response to the invasion of Ukraine, he publicly consecrated Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Varying perspectives:
While some, like Sister Lucia (the last surviving visionary), believed these consecrations fulfilled the request, others have argued that they were not performed correctly or specifically enough.
Impact on Russian Catholicism:
The message of Fatima and its associated consecrations have served as a significant spiritual and devotional point for Russian Roman Catholics. The call for conversion and peace resonates deeply with the challenges and historical experiences of the Catholic Church in Russia.

.Responses to the Fatima message among Russian Roman Catholics have been positive, though it is a complex issue due to the small size of the Catholic community in Russia and sensitivities with the much larger Russian Orthodox Church. Many Roman Catholics see the message as a hopeful sign, while Russian Orthodox leaders often view it with suspicion.
Response from Russian Roman Catholics
The small Roman Catholic community in Russia has generally welcomed the Fatima message, though their response is naturally more subdued than their Western counterparts.
Pilgrimages and devotion: In 1992, Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, then the Apostolic Administrator for European Russia, presided over a public crowning of a statue of Our Lady of Fatima in front of the Kremlin. He later spoke emotionally about his absolute faith in Mary's promise for the conversion of Russia. In 2020, a project was announced to build a Shrine of the Mother of God of Fatima in St. Petersburg to serve the Russian Byzantine Catholic community.
Hopes for reconciliation: As far back as 1946, Sister Lúcia, one of the Fatima visionaries, told a young Russian girl that the conversion of Russia would happen through the Eastern Orthodox Church and the "Oriental rite," implying a reconciliation between the Orthodox and Catholic churches. This vision of a "conversion of the heart" that leads to Christian unity is a source of hope for some Russian Catholics.
Challenges to practice: Russia's Catholic community is small, and many Russians still identify with the Orthodox Church. A 2022 article notes that most Russians "do not want to be converted by Fatima" because they reject the narrative as Catholic and see no need for conversion since Russia has a long Christian history. This reality likely affects the scope and visibility of the Fatima message in Russia.
Response from the Russian Orthodox Church
The message of Fatima has been a source of suspicion and rejection from the Russian Orthodox Church and its leadership.
Rejection as Catholic-centric: Orthodox officials tend to view the Fatima apparitions as a Catholic-only event and an attempt to expand Catholic influence into traditionally Orthodox territory. They reject the premise that Russia needs to be "converted," asserting that the country has been Christian for over a thousand years.
Criticism of perceived idolatry: Some Orthodox figures reject Fatima as part of a sequence of Marian revelations that they believe elevate the Virgin Mary to a status nearing equality with God, which they see as a distortion of the faith.
Silence and resentment: The official stance of the Russian Orthodox Church is described as "ominous silence" and even resentment toward the Fatima message, rather than embracing it as a divine intervention.
Broader ecumenical considerations
The differences in how the Fatima message is received highlight the deep theological and historical divisions between the two churches. The consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, called for in the Fatima message and performed by popes, remains a point of contention and a source of ecumenical tension




In 1917, during the apparitions of the Virgin Mary in Fátima, Portugal, the visionaries were given a message that included a request for Russia to be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
The prophecy:
.
The message stated that if the request was heeded, Russia would be converted, and world peace would follow; if not, Russia would spread its "errors" throughout the world.
Responses and Interpretations





The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) does not officially accept the Message of Fatima, viewing its doctrines as foreign and potentially idolatrous, though individual Russian Orthodox Christians may engage with the message or apparitions. The ROC believes the message is tied to Roman Catholic teachings, such as the Immaculate Conception, which are not part of Orthodox theology. There has been no official endorsement or acceptance of the Fatima Message by the ROC, and it is largely ignored by the vast majority of Orthodox Christians and authorities. 
Reasons for the ROC's stance:
Roman Catholic doctrines:
.
The Fatima apparitions promote doctrines like the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility which are not accepted by the Orthodox Church.
Orthodox Mariology:
.
While the Virgin Mary (the Theotokos) is highly revered in the Orthodox tradition, the specific veneration and dogmas presented in Fatima are considered by some to be an overemphasis that could lead to idolatry.
"Conversion of Russia":
The specific request for the consecration of Russia is seen as an appeal to an unnecessary event, as Russia is already a historically Christian country.
Source of apparitions:
.
The apparitions themselves are considered to be part of a Roman Catholic narrative rather than a universally accepted Christian revelation.
Interaction and Ignorance:
No official statement:
There is no record of the Russian Orthodox Church, its bishops, or synods issuing any official statement supporting or condemning the Message of Fatima.
Widespread disregard:
The vast majority of Eastern Orthodox Christians, including those in Russia, generally ignore the apparitions.
Individual interest:
Some individual members of the Russian Orthodox Church may be interested in the Fatima Message, but this does not reflect an official stance by the Church

The Russian Orthodox Church has largely rejected the message of Fatima, viewing it as a Catholic fabrication rooted in a different theological tradition. There has been no formal, positive response from the Moscow Patriarchate, and officials tend to greet the apparitions with suspicion or resentment.
Key reasons for the Russian Orthodox Church's rejection:
Theological differences: Orthodox Christians are suspicious of post-schism apparitions reported in the Catholic Church, especially those that reinforce doctrines they do not share, such as the Immaculate Conception. The devotional emphasis on the "Immaculate Heart of Mary" is also foreign to Orthodox tradition.
A "conversion of Russia" is offensive: The Fatima message calling for the "conversion of Russia" is seen as deeply offensive to the Russian Orthodox Church. They believe Russia, having been Christian for over a thousand years, does not need to be converted to Catholicism. Rather, from their perspective, it was the West that fell into error after the Great Schism of 1054.
Suspicion of Catholic intentions: Some Russian Orthodox officials interpret the Fatima message as a Catholic attempt to exert influence over historically Orthodox territory. This is viewed as part of a long and contentious history between the two churches.
Cautious approach to apparitions: Orthodox theology generally advises caution and skepticism toward visions and apparitions, which are believed to be potential weapons used by the devil. They advise followers to focus instead on traditional prayer and sacraments.
Emphasis on their own miracles: The Orthodox Church points to its own history of Marian miracles and miraculous events, such as weeping icons and the Holy Fire, which they consider authentic and within their spiritual tradition.
The conversion narrative is dismissed: Catholics often interpreted the fall of the Soviet Union as the "conversion of Russia" promised at Fatima. However, the Russian Orthodox Church and many Russians themselves reject this narrative. Russia's post-Soviet state is still seen as morally corrupt, and the rise of Orthodoxy is not viewed as a "Catholic" conversion

According to website America Needs Fatima
However, the fact that works most against the conversion narrative is that most Russians identify with the Russian Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. They reject the Fatima narrative because it is Catholic. The Russian conversion narrative stumbles over the fact that Russians do not want to be converted by Fatima.

That is not to say the Russians did not desire to be free from the Soviet yoke. It only means that the Russians do not see this liberation coming from Our Lady of Fatima. They tragically do not frame the changes happening in Russia as part of a universal triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The Russian conversion narrative runs into more trouble. Russian Orthodox officials tend to see the Fatima apparitions as a Catholic fabrication to encroach on what they claim is exclusively Orthodox canonical territory and area of influence. Seen in the light of the Great Schism of 1054, when the Eastern Church left Rome, the Fatima message is rejected. The Orthodox have long persecuted Catholics in Russia and inhibited the practice of the True Faith.

Instead of embracing the Fatima Message as a heaven-sent aid to encourage Russians in this time of great spiritual need, the Russian Orthodox Church looks upon it with resentment. It claims Russia does not need conversion since it has been Christian for over a thousand years. There is no need for consecration since the Russian people already recognized Our Lady as the Mother of God, the Theotokos.

In short, the Russian Orthodox Church excludes itself from the Fatima Message because its officials do not believe it comes from heaven.

                          {A} Narcissus Wisdom   
                          {B} Small cupped daffodil   
                          {C} The Book of Wisdom Chapter 9 Verse 17   
                                   And who could have ever known your will, had you not given Wisdom and sent your Spirit from above?   
 
                           

On the Roman Catholic Church between Doctrine; dogma and actions;...query why did the vactian not publicaky endorse the LAdy of Fatima doctrine to pray for the spirtual conversion of Russia 1920-1940?

The Vatican did not initially publicly endorse Our Lady of Fatima's call for the spiritual conversion of Russia between 1920 and 1940 because the message was considered a private revelation, not an infallible dogma, and the context of the request involved potentially sensitive geopolitical issues with the newly formed Soviet Union, which the papacy sought to avoid overtly antagonizing. The Church's approval of the Fatima apparitions meant they were deemed appropriate for belief but not required, and the implications of the requested consecration of Russia were complex, requiring careful handling by Church authorities.
Understanding Private Revelation
Not Doctrine or Dogma:
The messages from Fatima are considered a private revelation, a message God gives to individuals for guidance in human acts, but not for the declaration of new doctrine.
Tested for Authenticity:
For a private revelation to be approved by the Church, it must be consistent with public revelation (the deposit of faith) and have a local bishop's investigation into its supernatural authenticity.
Geopolitical Context (1920-1940)
Emergence of the Soviet Union:
The early 20th century saw the rise of the Soviet Union, a state hostile to religion and the Catholic Church.
Church Neutrality:
The Church, particularly under Popes like Pius XI (who served during the 1920s and 1930s), aimed to maintain a degree of neutrality to facilitate its work of ministering to Catholics, including those within the Soviet Union, and to avoid overtly provoking the Soviet government.
Avoiding Conflict:
Directly endorsing a request tied to a specific nation like Russia could have been perceived as an act of political interference, potentially leading to further persecution of the Church and its followers.
The Church's Evolving Response
Slow Adoption: The process of accepting and acting on the message of Fatima was gradual.
Later Consecrations: Later Popes, notably Pope John Paul II, did perform consecrations of the world or Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, demonstrating the Church's evolving understanding and response to the prophetic messages.

The Vatican did not publicly endorse the Lady of Fatima's specific request for Russia's consecration between 1920 and 1940 for a combination of diplomatic, procedural, and theological reasons. Fatima's message is classified as a "private revelation," which does not require belief from the faithful, and the Church must exercise caution before acting on it.
Diplomatic sensitivities
The request for Russia's conversion was made against a complex and sensitive geopolitical backdrop.
Fear of angering the Russian Orthodox Church: A public act by the Roman Catholic Church to consecrate Russia specifically could have been seen as a provocative attempt to subordinate the Orthodox Church, which separated from Rome in 1054.
Risk of provoking the Soviet government: In the decades following the 1917 Communist Revolution, the Soviet government aggressively persecuted Christians and other religious groups. A public consecration of the nation by the pope could have triggered more intense crackdowns on Russian Catholics and other Christians.
Vatican diplomacy: Throughout the 20th century, the Vatican engaged in delicatediplomatic efforts to safeguard the rights of Christians in Soviet-controlled areas. A public consecration could have jeopardized these efforts, leading the Soviet regime to view the Vatican with greater suspicion.
Internal Church protocol and deliberation
The Vatican proceeded with caution, following a process of investigation and discerning the validity of the messages.
Investigation and approval: A Marian apparition is not officially approved at the moment it is reported. The local bishop first opened a canonical inquiry in 1922, declaring the apparitions "worthy of belief" only in 1930.
Private revelation: The messages of Fatima are considered private revelations, which are distinct from the foundational deposit of faith (public Revelation). While a pope can promote belief in a private revelation, Catholics are not obligated to believe it. The Vatican had to determine the appropriate timing and manner to incorporate elements of a private revelation into public actions.
Lack of direct command: The request for the consecration was delivered by Sister Lúcia dos Santos, the sole surviving visionary, in 1929 and was relayed to Church authorities. The Vatican did not have a direct command but rather had to act on the testimony of one individual.
Ambiguity and uncertainty in the message
At the time, the full scope of the messages was not yet public, and their interpretation was unclear.
The "Third Secret": One of the most significant parts of the Fatima message was not written down until 1944 and was kept secret by the Vatican for many years. The full message was not available for public discussion or understanding.
The nature of "conversion": Church leaders considered whether "conversion of Russia" meant conversion to the Catholic faith or a more general return to Christian values, which would be less offensive to the Orthodox Church.
Specifics of the consecration: The request specified that the pope must consecrate Russia in union with all the bishops of the world. This was an unprecedented action that required immense coordination and presented a logistical challenge for the Church in that era. The Vatican proceeded cautiously, performing similar consecrations of "the world" in later decades rather than the explicit consecration of Russia requested by the Fatima vision

During the period of 1920–1940, the Vatican's diplomatic efforts concerning the Soviet Union were complex and multi-faceted, defined by a shift from attempted dialogue to open condemnation. These efforts were conducted against the backdrop of intense Soviet anti-religious persecution and were pursued with the primary goal of protecting the Catholic faithful and the institution of the Church itself, rather than acting on a private religious message like Fatima.
The path of dialogue (1920–1927)
Following the Bolshevik Revolution, the Vatican initially pursued a policy of cautious engagement, hoping to secure some form of religious freedom.
Pope Benedict XV (1914–1922): The first Vatican engagement began with a humanitarian mission. In 1921, facing a terrible famine in Russia, Pope Benedict XV organized relief efforts. He initiated talks with Lenin's government, but these discussions failed to secure meaningful religious concessions and mainly served the Soviet goal of obtaining international legitimacy.
Pope Pius XI (1922–1939):
The Genoa Conference (1922): The Vatican offered the Soviet government diplomatic recognition in exchange for religious freedom for all confessions in Russia. However, Soviet Foreign Minister Georgi Chicherin used these talks to advance Soviet recognition by other powers, and Moscow only permitted the Vatican's famine relief mission, explicitly forbidding any evangelization.
Secret negotiations (1925–1927): Under Pius XI, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII) began secret negotiations to find a diplomatic arrangement. The talks were a failure, as the Soviets refused to accept core Vatican demands, such as the right to appoint bishops and conduct religious education.
Controversial missions: Pius XI, through his advisor Father Michel d'Herbigny, sent clandestine missions into the USSR to secretly consecrate bishops. While initially appearing successful, the secrecy of the missions was soon compromised, and the bishops who were consecrated were later sent to gulags or killed.
The path of open condemnation (1927–1940)
The failure of early diplomatic efforts and the intensification of religious persecution under Stalin forced a strategic shift.
Discontinuation of dialogue (1927): After the secret negotiations failed to produce results and became dangerous to the Church, Pius XI formally ended them. The Soviet government had proven unreliable and interested only in exploiting the Vatican for its own political ends.
Heightened Soviet persecution (late 1920s and 1930s): Under Stalin, religious persecution reached unprecedented levels. Churches were closed and destroyed, religious publications were banned, and a vast number of clergy and religious laypeople were arrested, exiled, or executed. This climate of terror made overt diplomatic appeals futile and dangerous.
Public denunciation:
Encyclical Miserentissimus Redemptor (1928): In this encyclical, Pope Pius XI openly called for public prayers and acts of reparation for the persecuted Church in Russia.
Encyclical Divini Redemptoris (1937): This encyclical offered the most forceful public condemnation, defining communism as "intrinsically evil" and a "veritable scourge of mankind". This unequivocal public stance left little room for the kind of subtle diplomatic maneuvering required for a specific act like the consecration of Russia.
Relationship with the Fatima message
The Vatican's diplomatic stance directly impacted its response to the Fatima message.
Failure of Ostpolitik: The repeated failures of the Vatican's early "Ostpolitik" (its policy toward the East) demonstrated that direct engagement was counterproductive and endangered the faithful. This made the risk of a high-profile, and specifically anti-Soviet, public act like the consecration of Russia politically reckless.
Shift from diplomatic plea to theological rebuke: The public shift from attempted dialogue to open condemnation of communism in encyclicals like Divini Redemptoris was a more pressing and appropriate use of the Pope's public platform during this period. The Vatican's primary public message was a doctrinal one, condemning the ideology, rather than a political one, calling for a specific prayer action requested through private revelation.
Protecting Catholics under threat: A public consecration of Russia would have confirmed to Soviet authorities that the Vatican was explicitly aligned against the regime and could have provoked a fresh wave of violence against Russian Catholics and the Byzantine-rite Eastern Catholic Churches that were united with Rome.

On the Roman Catholic Church between Doctine; dogma and actions; why the RC is so non supportive..of Zionism....i.e. Jews leaving Roman Catholic countrirs to have their one little state..after all wsnt it preached that beleifs in the old testement and New testament are incompaible?

he historical Roman Catholic Church was traditionally unsupportive of Zionism due to long-standing theological doctrine, complex political considerations, and a history of tense relations with Judaism. Before the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), which began a period of reform, these factors shaped the Church's position.
Theological factors
For centuries, the Catholic Church's theological stance created a fundamental tension with Zionist aspirations:
Supersessionism: The traditional view held that the Christian Church had superseded or replaced the covenant that God had made with the Jewish people, who had forfeited their status as the chosen people by failing to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. This doctrine inherently opposed the idea that modern Jews retained a divine right to the Land of Israel, as Zionism asserted.
Irrevocable covenant (post-Vatican II): The Second Vatican Council's declaration Nostra Aetate marked a dramatic shift in this teaching. It explicitly condemned antisemitism and affirmed that God's covenant with the Jewish people is irrevocable. However, the Church's official position does not affirm a theological right for the modern state of Israel to possess the Holy Land. This nuance has enabled different viewpoints, including Catholic Zionism, to emerge, but the Church does not officially endorse a theological basis for the state of Israel.
Spiritual vs. terrestrial homeland: The Church has historically interpreted biblical promises regarding the land of Israel in a spiritual sense, not a territorial or political one. From a Catholic perspective, the "homeland" for Christians is heaven, not a specific geographic location.
Political and historical factors
Beyond theology, the Vatican's historical and political actions also contributed to its initial opposition:
Protection of the Holy Places: As the custodian of numerous sacred sites in the Holy Land, the Vatican was concerned about its access and authority under a future Jewish state. In 1947, the Vatican supported a proposal to make Jerusalem an international zone, rather than see it governed by either Jewish or Arab control.
Neutrality and the Middle East: Historically, the Vatican has attempted to maintain a diplomatic and political neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It feared that overtly supporting a Jewish state would endanger Christian minority communities in the region and create diplomatic problems with Arab and Muslim-majority nations.
Theodor Herzl's rejection: In 1904, the founder of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl, met with Pope Pius X to seek support. The pope famously rejected Herzl's request, stating, "We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people". This "non possumus" (we cannot) set the tone for decades of Vatican policy.
Shifting positions in the modern era
Since the mid-20th century, the relationship has evolved:
Diplomatic recognition: The Holy See did not officially recognize Israel until 1993, a decision influenced by the Oslo Accords. This move was framed as a recognition of political reality, not a theological endorsement of Zionism.
Ongoing dialogue: Following Vatican II, interfaith dialogue between the Catholic Church and Judaism has flourished, focused on condemning antisemitism and recognizing shared heritage. However, the issue of Zionism remains a complex point of internal disagreement among Catholics.
Old vs. New Testament beliefs
The question of whether Old and New Testament beliefs are "incompatible" oversimplifies a complex theological issue. Mainstream Christian theology has never taught that the Old Testament is irrelevant. Instead, it views the New Testament as the fulfillment, not the repudiation, of the Old Testament. The idea of incompatibility arises from the historical and theological conflict over whether the Old Covenant remains valid after Christ's coming. Nostra Aetate definitively affirmed the enduring nature of the Old Covenant, rejecting the notion that Judaism is a "failed" religion.

The Vatican's historical opposition to Zionism and the idea of a Jewish state stems from theological interpretations, political concerns, and the history of Jewish-Catholic relations, though its position has evolved significantly. The notion that the Old and New Testaments are incompatible is a historical simplification that fueled centuries of anti-Judaism and played a role in this stance.
Theological perspectives
The Vatican's traditional theological reservations were rooted in a supersessionist view, which posited that Christianity had replaced Judaism as God's chosen people. This included the following beliefs:
A spiritual covenant: The Church long held that the promises God made to the Jewish people regarding the Holy Land were fulfilled in Jesus and passed to the Church as the "new Israel". For centuries, the Church taught that the Jewish people's exile was a punishment for not accepting Jesus as the Messiah.
The end of the Old Law: According to this view, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70 signified the end of the Old Covenant's liturgical and legal significance. Supporting a return to a "temporal" homeland was seen as sponsoring a return to the Old Law, which Christians believed was fulfilled in Christ.
A "spiritual" Holy Land: The New Testament emphasizes a spiritual rather than geographic homeland, with heaven and the Church being the true Christian homeland. From this perspective, the Zionist focus on a physical nation-state was considered irrelevant to Christian salvation.
Historical and political factors
The Church's non-support of Zionism was also heavily shaped by political calculations and historical context, especially in the first half of the 20th century:
Conflict over the Holy Land: The Vatican has its own significant interests in the Holy Land, including the protection of holy sites and the well-being of local Christian communities. Historically, the Vatican opposed any plan that would lead to Jewish sovereignty over sites sacred to Catholics, including Jerusalem.
Perceptions of Zionism: When Theodor Herzl met with Pope Pius X in 1904, the pope stated that the Church could not endorse the Zionist movement. Pius X reportedly told Herzl that "the Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people".
Protecting Middle Eastern Christians: The Vatican was also concerned about the repercussions a Jewish state might have for Arab Christian communities in the region, who might be seen as siding with a Western-backed project against the Arab majority.
Neutrality during the World Wars: Even when aiding persecuted Jews during World War II, the Vatican was careful not to express support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, so as not to appear to be taking a side in the geopolitical conflict.
The Second Vatican Council and the shift in relations
The relationship between the Catholic Church and Judaism changed dramatically with the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). The 1965 declaration Nostra Aetate repudiated the accusation of collective Jewish guilt for Jesus's death and explicitly condemned antisemitism.
Irrevocable Covenant: The council affirmed that God's covenant with the Jewish people is irrevocable and has a "permanent value". This was a decisive turn away from older supersessionist views.
Recognition of the State of Israel: The Vatican formally recognized the State of Israel in 1993, after the Oslo Accords. However, this recognition was a diplomatic and political move, not a reversal of its theological stance against a divine right to the land. The Vatican framed it as a recognition of political reality.
Advocacy for a Two-State Solution: The modern Vatican, including Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV, has consistently called for a two-state solution, recognizing both Israel and a Palestinian state. This diplomatic position balances its recognition of Israel with its support for the aspirations of the Palestinian people.
The Old and New Testament relationship
Your question also touches on the compatibility of Old and New Testament beliefs. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Old and New Testaments are incompatible, but rather that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old.
Continuity and Fulfillment: The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the Old Testament is an "indispensable part of Sacred Scripture" and that "the Old Covenant has never been revoked".
hared Heritage: The Church recognizes its deep connection to Judaism, referring to Jews as "elder brothers," and states that Christians draw sustenance from the "root" of the Jewish tradition.
New Covenant vs. Old Law: The Catholic teaching is that while the Old Covenant is foundational and important, the ceremonial and juridical aspects of the Old Law were fulfilled and superseded by the New Covenant established through Christ. This is different from arguing the testaments are entirely incompatible

On the Roman Catholic Church between Doctine; dogma and actions; why the RC is so non supportive..of Zionism....i.e. Jews leaving Roman Catholic countries to have their one little state...due to the Churchs fear of Jews inEurope....a simple factor Of Jews leaving Europe and having Europe under Roman Catolic doctrine with no jews at all...logicaly the church should have welcomed this developed....

Historically, the Catholic Church was largely non-supportive of Zionism due to deep-seated theological opposition and historical concerns over its power and influence in the Holy Land. The idea that the Church would welcome Jews leaving Europe to establish their own state ignores centuries of doctrine that framed Jewish exile as a divine punishment for not accepting Jesus. However, the Church's stance has evolved significantly since the mid-20th century.
Historical and theological factors
Theological opposition: For centuries, the predominant Catholic teaching was supersessionism, which held that the Church had replaced the Jewish people as God's chosen people ("the New Israel"). The Jewish exile from their ancient homeland was viewed as a consequence of their rejection of Christ, making the idea of a modern, sovereign Jewish state a theological contradiction.
Concerns over the Holy Land: The Vatican viewed itself as the ultimate protector of Christian holy sites in Palestine. The rise of Zionism represented a threat to Catholic influence in the region and risked placing holy sites under Jewish authority.
Interference with Catholic rights: A memo from the Apostolic Delegate in the US in 1943 warned against a Jewish state in Palestine, arguing that a Jewish majority would "interfere with the peaceful exercise of rights...vested in Catholics" and would be "a severe blow to the religious attachment of Catholics to this land".
Rejection of political messianism: The Church opposed modern Zionism partly because it was a secular, political movement. Pope Pius X, in a 1904 meeting with Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, explicitly stated that the Church could not recognize the Jewish people's movement to return to Jerusalem.
The shift after the Holocaust
The horrors of the Holocaust and the establishment of Israel in 1948 prompted a major reconsideration of the Catholic Church's theological and political positions. This shift was institutionalized at the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).
Nostra Aetate: This declaration from the Second Vatican Council radically changed the Church's relationship with Judaism. It repudiated the deicide charge against the Jewish people and affirmed that God's covenant with the Jewish people is "irrevocable," fundamentally undermining the supersessionist doctrine that fueled historical opposition.
Theological reappraisal: This new understanding re-examined biblical texts like Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which affirms God's continuing love and plan for the Jewish people.
Diplomatic recognition: The Vatican established full diplomatic relations with the State of Israel in 1993, acknowledging the political reality of its existence rather than affirming a theological justification for Zionism itself.
Modern Vatican position
The modern Vatican's position is complex and does not offer uncritical support for Zionism, distinguishing itself from more ardent forms of Christian Zionism found among some Protestant evangelicals.
A two-state solution: The Vatican recognizes both Israel and the State of Palestine, advocating for a two-state solution and calling for peace, dialogue, and respect for human rights for both peoples.
Pastoral responsibility: The Church has a long-standing pastoral responsibility for Christian minorities in the Holy Land, many of whom are Palestinian, which influences its diplomatic efforts and adds another layer of complexity to its political stance.
Critiques of Israeli policy: While affirming Israel's right to exist, Vatican officials, including Pope Francis, have at times been critical of specific Israeli government policies, particularly those related to the expansion of settlements and military actions in Gaza.
The idea that the Church should have "logically welcomed" Zionism is a misinterpretation of its historical doctrine, which was founded on the rejection of the Jewish claim to the Holy Land. The Church's modern stance is far more nuanced, acknowledging the reality of the State of Israel while continuing to navigate complex theological and political considerations in the region.

he Catholic Church's historical opposition to Zionism was based on theological doctrines, political interests, and historical anti-Judaism, which is a more complex picture than simply wanting Jews out of Europe. While the Church has since re-evaluated its stance, particularly since the Second Vatican Council, its relationship with Zionism remains distinct from the motives you described.
Supersessionism
A central theological factor was the doctrine of supersessionism, or "replacement theology". This view held that the Christian Church had superseded, or replaced, the Jewish people as God's chosen covenant people.
Rejection of the Jewish covenant: According to this interpretation, because the Jewish people rejected Jesus, God rejected them in turn and transferred his covenant and promises to the Church. This made the concept of a Jewish return to the Holy Land theologically irrelevant for the Church.
Spiritualized promise: Instead of viewing the promise of the land as a literal, physical restoration, supersessionism reinterpreted it as a spiritual reality fulfilled in the Church. The Church was considered the "new Israel" and the "new people of God," and the true "Holy Land" was heaven, not the earthly Jerusalem.
Political interests
The Vatican was not motivated by a desire to simply "have Europe with no Jews" but was instead concerned with its own political interests and the status of the Holy Land.
Protection of Holy Sites: For centuries, the Vatican maintained control and protection of Christian holy sites in the region. The prospect of a Jewish-controlled state raised fears that the dominant religion of the Holy Land would no longer be Christianity, which the Vatican viewed as an "offense".
Protection of local Christians: The Vatican had a long-standing interest in protecting the rights and safety of the local Christian minority population in the Holy Land. Church leadership feared that establishing a Jewish state would lead to conflict and endanger these Christian communities.
Historical and diplomatic friction
Long before Zionism emerged as a modern political movement, the relationship between the Church and the Jewish people was strained by centuries of historical anti-Judaism.
Herzl's meeting with Pope Pius X (1904): When Zionist founder Theodor Herzl met with Pope Pius X to seek Vatican support, the pope explicitly denied the request on theological grounds, famously stating: "The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people".
Diplomatic non-recognition: Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the Vatican initially refused to grant diplomatic recognition. It was only after decades of careful diplomacy and the changing political landscape of the Middle East, particularly the Oslo Accords, that the Vatican formally established diplomatic relations in 1993. The Vatican recognized this new "political and civic reality," but made it clear that this did not constitute a theological endorsement of Zionism
Shift after the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965)
The Church's position began to fundamentally shift after the Second Vatican Council and its declaration Nostra Aetate. This document initiated a new era of reconciliation with the Jewish people by rejecting the supersessionist idea that Jews were rejected or accursed by God. This change paved the way for improved diplomatic relations and a more nuanced understanding of Jewish identity and its connection to the Land of Israel, though many Catholic theologians still reject a theological basis for modern political Zionism

On the Roman Catholic Church between Doctine; dogma and actions;one example in regards to Freemasonry one ban over all aspects nothingstanding the orginal ban had been because a conflict between the Catolic Stuart reemansons and the Protestent Hanovian Freemanson over the throne of England; the Catolic Freemanson tried to pressure the French Cardinal to ban the German freemasons; in fact the result was ban on allf reemasoney particaiption...even today there is no disctiction between Anglo Freemasorny whic preches no religions although they do require a beleif in the "Supreme architet of the Universive" {i.E. G-d} they also allow members to swear oaths on their own particlar Holy books...Maexicn freemasonr has shown itself to be very anticlerical....However the ban regarding Cahtolics from meeting  anti clerical movements doesnt extent to certain leaders; Namely Hitler; Mussoli and the leaders of China who despite atheists made agreements with the Vactian...and note only Broke them   but establishd cults of Personailty...internestinly enough despite the L-d words are that homosexualty is an abonination...the church is agains the sin of the act..but more councilitary who choses this lifestyle than catholics who becaome freemansons

The relationship between the Roman Catholic Church, Freemasonry, and the Church's position on homosexuality highlights distinctions between dogma, doctrine, and their application through official actions. The user's query contains several inaccuracies regarding the origins of the ban on Freemasonry and specific Church agreements.
The ban on Freemasonry
The claim that the Freemasonry ban began as a dispute between Catholic Stuart and Protestant Hanoverian Freemasons is a myth that arose later.
Actual origin: The first papal condemnation came from Pope Clement XII in 1738, in the bull In eminenti apostolatus specula.
Reasons for the ban: Clement XII condemned Freemasonry primarily for its strict oaths of secrecy and the perception that it was a threat to both church and state. Later papal encyclicals, like Pope Leo XIII's Humanum genus in 1884, articulated broader theological objections. These included religious indifferentism—the idea that any religion is equally valid—and Freemasonry's emphasis on naturalism and rationalism over divine revelation.
Undifferentiated ban: The Church does not make a distinction between Anglo and other forms of Freemasonry, even if some branches are more overtly anti-clerical (like those in Mexico). The ban is universal because the underlying principles of Freemasonry, including a generic "Supreme Architect of the Universe" and religious indifferentism, are considered irreconcilable with Catholic dogma.
Concordats with totalitarian regimes
The Vatican did enter into formal agreements, or concordats, with totalitarian regimes, but for specific diplomatic and pastoral reasons, not as an endorsement of their anti-religious or political agendas.
Lateran Treaty with Italy (1929): This agreement recognized Vatican City as an independent state, resolving the long-standing "Roman Question." It was a pragmatic move to secure the Church's freedom and protect its interests, despite ongoing conflicts with Mussolini's fascist government.
Reichskonkordat with Nazi Germany (1933): This treaty aimed to protect the rights of the Catholic Church in Germany as the Nazis consolidated power. The Church's hope was to prevent further persecution, but Hitler's regime consistently violated the terms. The Vatican later condemned Nazi ideology in the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge.
Agreements with Communist China: The Holy See's 2018 agreement with China, which was renewed in 2020 and 2022, was a diplomatic effort to address the appointment of bishops and protect the faithful, not to sanction the regime. These agreements have drawn criticism from some who believe they compromise with an oppressive government.
The Catholic Church and homosexuality
The user's contrast between the Church's treatment of Freemasonry and homosexuality reveals a misunderstanding of Catholic moral theology. The Church distinguishes between the moral evaluation of an act and the pastoral approach to the person.
The act vs. the inclination: Official Catholic teaching distinguishes between homosexual acts, which are considered sinful ("intrinsically disordered"), and having a homosexual inclination, which is not. An inclination is not subject to free will and is therefore not sinful, though it is described as "objectively disordered" because it is not oriented towards procreation.
The moral difference: A Catholic who freely chooses to become a Freemason, knowing it is forbidden, is engaging in an act the Church has formally and consistently deemed incompatible with the faith. In contrast, a person with same-sex attraction, which they did not choose, is called to live a life of chastity, like all single persons. While the Church forbids homosexual acts, it instructs that people with same-sex attraction "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity".
Mercy and counsel: The Church provides pastoral care and counsel for individuals with same-sex attraction, as it does for anyone struggling to live a chaste life. There is no official "counciliary" posture towards people who become Freemasons; membership remains strictly forbidden.
Summary of doctrinal differences
Issue    Freemasonry   Homosexuality
Compatibility with Catholic dogma   Fundamentally irreconcilable due to principles like religious indifferentism, naturalism, and rationalism.   The inclination is not sinful, but the acts are considered immoral and against natural law.
Involvement of the faithful   Active membership is prohibited and is considered a "grave sin." The ban has been consistently upheld.   The inclination is not a sin, but people are called to chastity. There is a pastoral distinction between the person and the acts.
Rationale for papal action   Historical condemnations cite secrecy, oaths, and theological incompatibility.   Teachings are based on Scripture and natural law, distinguishing between inclination and moral action.
Context of historical actions   All Freemasonry is universally banned for Catholics.   The Church engages in pastoral care for individuals while maintaining its doctrinal position on homosexual acts.

The Catholic Church's actions regarding Freemasonry, Concordats with totalitarian regimes, and its differing approaches to homosexuality reflect a complex interplay of doctrine, dogma, historical context, and practical considerations. The user's observations, though disjointed, touch upon historical narratives and perceived inconsistencies that are often cited in discussions of the Church's institutional behavior.
The ban on Freemasonry
Historical context of the ban: The claim that the original ban on Freemasonry stemmed from a conflict between "Catholic Stuart Freemasons" and "Protestant Hanoverian Freemasons" over the English throne is not supported by mainstream historical accounts, though political tensions were certainly present. The primary reason for the ban was theological.
The first papal condemnation came in 1738 from Pope Clement XII, who banned membership due to Freemasonry's secrecy, oaths, and the threat it posed to both civil and religious order.
Subsequent popes, notably Pope Leo XIII in his 1884 encyclical Humanum Genus, built upon the initial condemnation. He detailed why Freemasonry is incompatible with Catholicism, arguing that its naturalistic philosophy opposes divine revelation and its concept of "religious indifferentism" (that all religions are equally valid) contradicts Catholic dogma.
Doctrine and different forms of Freemasonry: The Church's ban has been consistently applied to all forms of Freemasonry, despite variations in how specific lodges operate.
The Church does not distinguish between Anglo-American Freemasonry, which requires a belief in a Supreme Being, and Continental Freemasonry (more common in Latin America), which often allows atheists and can be overtly anticlerical.
The Church's official position, reiterated as recently as 2023, is that the philosophical principles underlying Freemasonry are fundamentally irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine. Membership is considered a "grave sin," and Catholics who join are forbidden from receiving Holy Communion.
Concordats with totalitarian regimes
The user's reference to the Vatican's agreements (Concordats) with dictators like Hitler and Mussolini highlights a complex and controversial chapter in Church history.
Pragmatism vs. principle: Rather than endorsing their anti-clerical movements, the Vatican negotiated these treaties out of pragmatic concerns for institutional survival. It hoped to protect the rights of the Church and its adherents in totalitarian states where the Church's very existence was threatened.
Failed strategy: These concordats largely failed to protect the Church. Both regimes violated the agreements soon after they were signed. For instance, Pope Pius XI later issued encyclicals condemning both the Nazi ideology and Mussolini's policies.
Moral ambiguity: These dealings are viewed with significant moral ambiguity, as they arguably lent a degree of legitimacy to evil regimes. The rationale behind them—that institutional preservation was the priority—contrasts sharply with the blanket condemnation applied to groups like Freemasons.
The Church's stance on homosexuality vs. Freemasonry
The user points to a perceived inconsistency in the Church's approach, comparing the strict prohibition on Freemasonry with a more "conciliatory" attitude towards those with homosexual tendencies.
Sin vs. tendency: Church teaching distinguishes between homosexual acts, which it defines as "intrinsically disordered" and sinful, and homosexual tendencies or orientation, which are not considered sinful. The Church's call is for individuals with same-sex attraction to be treated with "respect, compassion, and sensitivity" while also being called to chastity.
Differences in perceived threat: The distinction in treatment reflects a difference in how the Church perceives the nature of the "offense."
Freemasonry: Membership in Freemasonry involves active participation in an organization with a worldview and rites the Church deems fundamentally incompatible with Catholicism. The perceived threat is to the integrity of Catholic doctrine and the spiritual well-being of the member.
Homosexuality: The pastoral approach to homosexuality focuses on the individual's journey towards sanctification. While homosexual acts are deemed sinful, the inclination itself is not, and the Church offers pastoral care rather than outright condemnation of the person.
In short, the Church's behavior is driven by its own theological dogmas and institutional priorities, which may appear inconsistent when viewed through an external lens. The absolute nature of the Freemasonry ban stems from a centuries-long theological disagreement over a competing worldview, while its dealings with totalitarian states were a complex effort to protect its flock. The pastoral approach to homosexuality, meanwhile, is guided by a distinction between inclination and action, consistent with internal Church teaching.

why is the pope against freemasoney and has chosen to be councilatary to chose who make a homosexual choice when the old testament records the L-d s that such a lifestyle choice is an abonination to the L-d?

he Catholic Church opposes Freemasonry due to fundamental doctrinal differences, and its approach to people with a homosexual orientation is rooted in a distinction between an inclination and a person's choices. The two issues are distinct and addressed by different aspects of Catholic teaching.
Opposition to Freemasonry
The Catholic Church has consistently condemned Freemasonry since 1738, most recently reaffirming its ban in 2023. The official Catholic position is that Freemasonry is "irreconcilable" with Catholic doctrine for several reasons.
Conflicting worldviews: Freemasonry is described by the Church as promoting naturalism and secularism, which teach that human reason is the supreme guide and that all religions are equal. This is contrary to the Catholic belief that divine revelation, not human reason alone, is the ultimate truth and that Catholicism is the one true faith.
Secrecy and oaths: The secrecy of Masonic rituals and the oaths members take are seen as incompatible with the Church's demand for full accountability from its members. The Church believes such secret commitments could put Catholics at odds with their faith.
Religious indifferentism: The Freemasons' practice of religious ecumenism, where all religions are treated as equally valid, is considered dangerous by the Church because it could lead Catholics away from their faith.
The Church's approach to homosexuality
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines homosexual acts as sinful but makes a distinction between homosexual acts and the homosexual inclination. This is different from its stance on Freemasonry, which is a societal organization with conflicting doctrines.
Sinful acts vs. human dignity: Church teaching states that homosexual acts are "contrary to natural law" and gravely sinful. However, it also teaches that people with homosexual inclinations "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" and that "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided".
Pastoral compassion vs. doctrinal change: Pope Francis's pastoral approach, often described as "counselatory," emphasizes mercy and dialogue rather than condemnation for those in the LGBT community. This approach is not a rejection of Church doctrine, which still categorizes homosexual acts as sinful, but rather an emphasis on the loving treatment of individuals. The Pope has focused on welcoming gay individuals into the Church community and accompanying them on their spiritual journey, aligning his actions with the pastoral guidelines already present in the Catechism.
Differences from Old Testament interpretations
The Catholic Church's current understanding is more nuanced than a literal, legalistic interpretation of every Old Testament passage.
The Church's teachings evolved with a greater emphasis on the New Testament, particularly the life and ministry of Jesus, which stress mercy and love alongside justice.
Catholic tradition applies an interpretive lens to Scripture, distinguishing between the permanent moral law and temporary disciplinary laws that do not apply to Christians.
In short, the Church's stance on Freemasonry is a doctrinal issue of incompatible belief systems, while its position on homosexuality is a moral and pastoral issue regarding human dignity and sin, which the Church approaches with a combination of firm doctrine and pastoral compassion

The Catholic Church opposes Freemasonry due to its secret nature, perceived religious indifferentism, and historic conflicts with the Church. This differs from Pope Francis's pastoral approach toward homosexual individuals, which focuses on welcoming and accompaniment, not a doctrinal shift regarding the morality of homosexual acts.
The Church's opposition to Freemasonry
The Catechism of the Catholic Church considers the principles of Freemasonry irreconcilable with Catholic faith, and membership is forbidden. The reasons for this prohibition include:
Secrecy: Since the 18th century, multiple popes have condemned Masonic societies as secret organizations that require oaths of loyalty from their members, making their activities and rituals unaccountable to Church authority.
Religious indifferentism: Freemasonry holds a naturalistic worldview that views all religions as equally valid, which contradicts the Catholic Church's teaching that it is the one true path to salvation.
Clash of beliefs: The Catholic Church views Freemasonry as a rival system of belief, rituals, and morality that is incompatible with core Catholic doctrines.
Historical hostility: In certain periods and regions, Masonic lodges actively worked against the Catholic Church and its influence.
Pope Francis's approach to homosexuality
Pope Francis's comments regarding homosexual individuals reflect a pastoral shift toward greater inclusion and acceptance, but they have not changed the Church's underlying doctrine on homosexual acts.
Francis's emphasis on pastoral care
"Who am I to judge?": This remark, made in 2013, highlighted a focus on welcoming and compassion for gay individuals who seek God.
Separating the person from the act: In a 2023 interview, Francis clarified that while homosexual acts are considered sinful by Catholic moral teaching, homosexuality itself is "not a crime". The judgment of an individual's culpability must consider their specific circumstances.
Blessings for same-sex couples: The 2023 document Fiducia Supplicans permits non-liturgical blessings for same-sex couples, but only of the individuals, not the union itself. The document explicitly states that it does not alter the Church's teaching that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.
Rejection of criminalization: Francis has consistently spoken out against laws that criminalize homosexuality, calling them "unjust" and urging bishops who support them to undergo a "process of conversion".
Consistent Catholic doctrine
Despite Francis's pastoral outreach, Catholic doctrine remains unchanged. Marriage is an indissoluble sacrament exclusively for a man and a woman. Homosexual acts are considered "intrinsically disordered" and contrary to natural law because they are not open to procreation.
The Catechism calls on homosexual persons to be treated with respect and sensitivity and to avoid "unjust discrimination," while also calling them to chastity.
Differing contexts for different subjects
The Church's approach to Freemasonry and homosexuality differs based on the nature of the subjects:
Freemasonry: This is an organization with a rival system of beliefs, rituals, and loyalties that the Church deems incompatible with Catholic teaching.
Homosexuality: This concerns individual persons who are part of the Catholic community. The Church distinguishes between the orientation itself, the moral evaluation of homosexual acts, and the pastoral response toward the person. Pope Francis's more welcoming approach is a reflection of a renewed pastoral emphasis on welcoming all individuals, in line with the Catechism's call for compassion and respect, without changing the underlying doctrinal teaching on sexual morality

The ERA's intended purpose
You are correct that the ERA's primary goal is to establish legal equality between the sexes.
The text of the ERA states, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex".
The intent of proponents is to provide a fundamental remedy against sex-based discrimination for both men and women, covering issues like divorce, property, and employment
Some point to the fact that the amendment was proposed in 1972, before Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, as evidence that the ERA's original intent had nothing to do with abortion.

The era has one purpose bring down barriers that make women legally inferior..also it is up to the states and congress and the supreme court to decide if abortion is part of the constitution..not the ERA...
The respective roles of states, Congress, and the Supreme Court
The user's assertion that it's up to states, Congress, and the Supreme Court to decide on abortion rights is fundamentally correct, particularly since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
States: States now have primary authority to either protect or restrict abortion. Some state constitutions have been interpreted to protect abortion rights, while other states have banned or severely restricted it.
Congress: Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of any constitutional amendment, including the ERA, through "appropriate legislation". If the ERA were to be fully recognized, Congress could pass federal laws to protect abortion access, which would be enforced by the courts.
Supreme Court: The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation. It would likely have to rule on future challenges concerning how the ERA applies to abortion and other issues. However, for the ERA to have an impact, it must first overcome a series of legal hurdles, such as lapsed ratification deadlines.

'Everyone receives what he deserves in accordance with his inner state. But only God understands the many different ways in which this happens.'

St. Mark the Ascetic

'This fair and pure Virgin-Mother renders all her servants chaste and pure.'

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

'The reading of spiritual works is as profitable as the reading of bad books is noxious. As the former has led to the conversion of many sinners, so the latter is every day the ruin of many young persons. The first author of pious books is the Spirit of God; but the author of pernicious writings is the devil, who often artfully conceals from certain persons the poison that such works contain, and makes these persons believe that the reading of such books is necessary in order to speak well, and to acquire a knowledge of the world for their own direction, or at least in order to pass the time agreeably.'

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori