Fatima and St. Bridget, Consecration and Muscovy-Russia

The Reason Third Secret Of Fatima Was Hidden By The Popes
Return To Tradition | 28 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EediP59dm20

0:30 Pope Michael I actually did consecrate "that country" alone, with all the two bishops in communion with him, who had ordained him and consecrated him bishop.

I would say the reason "that country" alone is to be named is, Ukraine already inherits the Medieval consecration of Kievan Rus' to the Blessed Virgin. A "that country" politically beginning in Suzdal and Vladimir* is cut off from that Medieval consecration by willing collaboration with the Tatars.

Our Lord told St. Bridget to tell the Swedish king to go on a Crusade against the heathen in Novgorod. My back then Novus Ordo second father confessor used this as proof the revelations of St. Bridget contain errors, since the population of Novgorod was in majority simply schismatic, Russian Orthodox. However, since then I have gathered two things:

• Novgorod was under the Tatars who certainly were heathen at this point;
• if Sweden had given the Tatars sth to do on the Novgorod front, there wouldn't have been Tatars catapulting plague death corpses into a Black Sea port, which then launched the Black Death in Europe.

My respect for the Revelations of St. Bridget is certainly unscathed.

My friend and benefactor Stephan Borgehammar, convert from Lutheranism like I, but later, and I had a debate about the identity of St. John the Gospeller. I suggested it could be Theophilus Ben Hanan, and he said, no, Our Lady had told St. Bridget that John "was a virgin" ... I defended it on the ground (I did some F-searches in an online text of the Revelations) that there is a distinction between how John the Beloved simply was a virgin, and how John the Baptist was a virgin who had never emitted semen. I took this as possible indication that John the Beloved simply lived as a virgin after Calvary. Why Theophilus? Well, with Orthodox Christology "God-Beloved" becomes "whom Jesus loved". Why not the son of Zebedee? Well, the son of Zebedee must have been effectively martyred according to a prophecy by Our Lord. The Beloved wasn't, as far as biographies go. The son of Zebedee must have fled along with the other, and later Peter turned around and followed from afar, but the Beloved went to the High Priests. That parenthesis aside, we both presumed the words recorded in St. Bridget are true. And that would include, as mentioned, God counting Novgorod as Pagan territory because of Tatar domination. Perhaps also because the old Slavic religion had something to do with the Tatar domination, as Novgorod was not the most eager to do what St. Volodimer the Great had done in Kiev.

That said, were the two bishops in communion with Pope Michael I sufficient? I don't know.

* And Tver. See Principality of Moscow