Some time ago I had the privilege of meeting Hugh Owen. His father was Sir David Owen, the Secretary-General of International Planned Parenthood; he himself is a deeply spiritual Catholic convert with a large family who spends his spare time explaining the doctrine of creation as taught by the Fathers of the Church and later witnesses to tradition.
In conversation he mentioned the consecration of Russia, which we both think has not yet been accomplished as it is meant to be. He remarked that too often this consecration is presented as a mere response to the evil of atheistic materialism that has spread from Russia throughout the world; as if it were, in effect, an exorcism of Russia. Thus explained, it is not surprising that it should meet with little enthusiasm from Russians themselves, as no one wants to have his country regarded in the world as a sheer source of evil.
But, he continued, ‘consecration’ implies some good quality in the thing consecrated; a fitness to be offered to heaven. This is true whether we think of the consecration of nazirites in the Old Testament, or of Christian families to the Sacred Heart or of devout souls to the immaculate Heart. Russia has been the source of immense evil; yet, he thought from his own observations, it is still in a sense Holy Russia; there is a sense of Christian realities present within it, lacking from the apostate nations of the West. Its schism is another’s sin more than its own. It is a fit instrument (he thought) to be used by God, once consecrated by the Pope of Rome, for the salvation of the nations.
Laodicea 
August 25, 2012 at 11:18 am
…or indeed, the punishment and Chastisement of the nations.
September 3, 2012 at 7:26 am
I had a look at the website of the ‘deeply spiritual’ Hugh Owen. He claims that ‘the Apostles and Fathers of the Church believed and proclaimed the literal historical truth of the early chapters of Genesis.’ This is a lie. He insinuates that anyone who disputes this claim undermines the family, promotes homosexuality, and so on; these are quite repellent propaganda tactics. His ideas are borrowed from American fundamentalist Protestants, i.e. from heretics. Of course the consecration of Russia ought to be performed, but you should not be citing Owen on any subject except to attack and discredit him.
September 3, 2012 at 10:11 am
I don’t know anything about Hugh Owen but Cordatus (if I understand him correctly) is of the view that whatever the issues over Augustine’s rationes seminales (about which I think Cordatus and I disagree) the Fathers are unanimous on taking the genealogies as historical. This would obviously give the human race a very short history. If this is correct it would already establish some radical divergences between the current model in the natural sciences and Christian Doctrine as Catholics are bound to accept the opinion of the Fathers when they are unanimous in their interpretation of scripture. Do you have any views on this? I do not seek such divergences but I do think theology must be given primacy over hypothetico-inductive (and indeed all other) sciences.
September 3, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Granted, St Augustine doesn’t take a face-value view of Genesis 1 (for reasons dependent on Scripture itself). But since he is only one of the Fathers, albeit perhaps the greatest genius among them, and since he does take an utterly literal – what most professional Catholic exegetes today would probably call a fundamentalist – view of the rest of Genesis, I don’t think we should be severe about Hugh Owen’s general statement.
On the question of the Fathers and Genesis 1, Cornelius a Lapide is interesting. He was writing, obviously, long before Lyell, and is talking about something not in dispute between Catholics and Protestants, so he can be taken as an impartial witness with no parti pris. Having mentioned Augustine’s view of the days of Genesis 1, he goes on:-
“Contrarium docent omnes alii Patres, idque omnino evincit simplex et historica narratio Moyses” (all the other fathers teach the opposite, which agrees with the simple and historical account of Moses.)
He goes on:-
“Quare iam erroneum est dicere, omnia uno die esse producta…S. Augustinus ergo dubie, et disputando loquitur in quaestione, ut ipse ait, tunc difficillima, nec satis seipsum explicat an haec adfert pro mystico an pro litterali sensu” (Therefore it is now erroneous to say that all things were produced on one day…St Augustine thus speaks doubtfully, and in the manner of one discussing, about what was then a very difficult question, as he himself says, nor does he sufficiently explain whether he is giving the mystical or literal sense of the passage)
On the general question of borrowing from Protestants, it is not impossible that a certain truth which belongs to faith merely per accidens, e.g. whether the Flood was global, should be for a while better preserved among certain groups of separated brethren than by the Ecclesia docens. One can hypothesise that this might be permitted by the Holy Spirit so that the Catholic Church might not be brought into discredit when it comes to teaching those things which belong per se to the faith; as could happen when the world at large is persuaded that the per accidens statements are false.
September 4, 2012 at 3:48 pm
But doesn’t Hebrews already imply a non-24 hour reading of the days of Genesis 1?
September 4, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Which part are you thinking of?
September 4, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath,`They shall never enter my rest,'” although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this place he said, “They shall never enter my rest.” Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later of another day. So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God; for whoever enters God’s rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.
September 5, 2012 at 1:44 pm
I don’t think that this passage determines the question either way. It seems to mean that the cessation from the work of creating new species is an image of the eternal peace and joy which the saints will inherit. Isn’t it about the meaning of ‘rest’ rather than about the meaning of ‘day’?
September 5, 2012 at 5:53 pm
It seems to me that he is calling the present era ‘today’ (the sixth presumably). While “his works were finished from the foundation of the world” but we have not yet entered into the seventh day. This seems to indicate that the Days of Genesis are not simply to be understood as 24 hour periods. Although, given the parallel Paul sets up between entry into the seventh day and entry in the sanctuary not made by hands that Moses saw on the seventh day the implication does seem to be that Moses saw these realities over seven solar days (Exodus 24:16-25:9 & Heb 8:5).
September 7, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Certainly it’s traditional to take the days as representing the seven ages (the seventh being that of the separated souls in beatitude), before the eight day of Resurrection, and I agree that this passage is a foundation for that. But I still don’t see how St Paul is also denying a face-value interpretation. Could you put it into a syllogism?
September 9, 2012 at 4:09 pm
I’m not sure about a syllogism but lets put it like this…. St Paul is arguing that the rest referred to in Psalm 94 is not the attainment of Canaan because the ‘rest’ of the Lord is the seventh day which is the bliss of the Empyrean Heaven (which Moses saw on the Mountain on the seventh day). If this is merely a spiritual sense he is alleging to the text of Psalm 94 and not the literal sense of the Psalm and of Genesis 1 then it is a circular argument. Someone who rejected Paul’s reading an held that the Lord’s rest is indeed Canaan would not accept the spiritual sense. Only the literal sense is probative so the argument implies that the seventh day has literally not occurred yet and that this day is the sixth.
September 9, 2012 at 5:46 pm
St Paul wants to establish that there is a rest predicted by the Old Testament which we obtain through Christ. So he quotes Psalm 94, which proves this, I agree, by its literal sense. He then quotes Genesis in support of the idea that there is such a thing as the divine rest into which men may enter. And Genesis supports this in its literal sense because it speaks of God resting on the seventh day; and therefore God’s rest can be called a sabbath rest; but it would support it equally well, whether or not the six preceding days were ordinary days – unless I am missing something.
December 27, 2012 at 6:33 am
Wonderful blog, thank you! Please check out my video if you have the time, God bless!
– Sheryl