Recently, a reader submitted to the Lepanto Institute an article written by Msgr. Patrick Perez regarding the devotion to the Divine Mercy. In the article, Msgr. Perez indicates a number of reasons for which he is deeply concerned about St. Faustina and the Divine Mercy devotion initiated by her and the writings in her diary.
There are several errors and misstatements in Msgr. Perez’s article on the Divine Mercy devotion. Msgr. Perez focuses on what he called “condemnations” of the Divine Mercy devotion, and gives no attention to the rescinding of these “condemnations.” For the sake of clarity, it must be stated here that neither St. Faustina’s diary nor the devotion to the Divine Mercy were ever “condemned”. However, Msgr. Perez asserts that:
“Pius XII put the writings of Sr. Faustina on the Index of Prohibited Books. That meant that he considered that their content would lead Catholics astray or in the wrong direction. Next, came other prohibitions made by Pope John XXIII. Twice in his pontificate, the Holy Office issued condemnations of the Divine Mercy writings.“
However, this is not exactly what happened. Cardinal Ottaviani, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, attempted to persuade Pope Pius XII to sign a letter condemning the Divine Mercy devotion as written by Sr. Faustina. Instead, the diary was placed on the Index of Prohibited Books. This is not the same thing as a condemnation. This same pope, incidentally, blessed an Image of the Divine Mercy in Rome on 24 June 1956. Not exactly the action of one preparing to condemn this devotion.
Furthermore, Pope John XXIII did not “condemn” the diary or the devotion either. However, the Holy Office under his direction forbade circulation of “images and writings that promote devotion to Divine Mercy in the forms proposed by Sister Faustina.” Suppression of the devotion is not the same thing as condemnation. More to the point, the reasons behind the suppression were the result of poor translations of the diary. Also, it cannot be considered mere coincidence that St. Faustina accurately predicted this suppression and the lifting of the suppression in 1935. She said in her diary:
“There will come a time when this work, which God is demanding so very much, will be as though utterly undone. And then God will act with great power, which will give evidence of its authenticity. It will be a new splendor for the Church, although it has been dormant in it from long ago. That God in infinitely merciful, no one can deny. He desires everyone to know this before He comes again as Judge. He wants souls to come to know Him first as King of Mercy. When this triumph comes, we shall already have entered the new life in which there is no suffering. But before this, your soul [referring to Fr. Sopocko] will be surfeited with bitterness at the sight of the destruction of your efforts. However, this will only appear to be so, because what God has once decided upon, He does not change. But although this destruction will be such only in outward appearance, the suffering will be real. When will this happen? I do not know. How long will it last? I do not know. But God has promised a great grace especially to you and to all those… “who will proclaim My great mercy. I shall protect them Myself at the hour of death as my own glory.” (1738)
Of note here is that St. Faustina told her spiritual director, Fr. Sopocko, that she and he would both die before the suppression of this devotion was lifted. Fr. Sopocko died in 1975, three years before the suppression was lifted in 1978.
Cdl. Ottaviani, as head of the CDF, was responsible for the suppression of the Divine Mercy devotion. Given the information he had at the time, his suppression was well founded. As Msgr. Perez points out, the Holy Office declared that “There is no evidence of the supernatural origin of these revelations.” The caveat “at this time” should have been added to this statement. The lifting of the suppression of the Divine Mercy Devotion by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says:
“This Sacred Congregation, having now in possession the many original documents unknown in 1959, and having taken into account the profoundly changed circumstances, and having taken into account the opinion of many Polish Ordinaries, declares no longer binding the prohibitions contained in the Notification [of 1959].”
While Cdl. Ottaviani was the one responsible for the suppression of the Divine Mercy devotion, he is ALSO the same individual who appointed Archbishop Karol Wojtyła of Kraków to begin the informative process on Faustina’s life and virtues in 1965. It was through this process that the translation error was discovered, interviews with St. Faustina’s spiritual director and sister nuns were conducted, and the suppression subsequently reversed. Were the Divine Mercy devotion and St. Faustina’s diary actually condemned, this appointment and informative process would never have taken place, and certainly would not have been initiated by Cdl. Ottaviani.
And while Msgr. Perez points out that Pope John XXIII issued two “condemnations” of the Divine Mercy writings, he is the same pope that did not publish the Third Secret of Fatima as requested by Our Lady. One cannot weigh his opinion of the one without his opinion of the other.
With regard to the claims of papal condemnations of the Divine Mercy devotion, it is intellectually dishonest for Msgr. Perez to equivocate suppression with condemnation and then focus exclusively on the suppression of the Divine Mercy devotion while ignoring the Church’s lifting of the suppression and institution of Divine Mercy Sunday. Either the Church through Her Pope has the power to bind and loose or she does not. By focusing on the suppression and falsely claiming it as a condemnation, and then ignoring the lifting of the suppression and institution of Divine Mercy Sunday, Msgr. Perez is mischaracterizing the nature of the actions taken by the Church and denies Her authority in these matters when they disagree with his limited understanding of the matter.
Making another point, Msgr. Perez says, “The central error of the Divine Mercy is that it promises lots of spiritual rewards with no requirement of penance, no mention of reparation, no mention of any condition.” The claim that there is no condition is simply untrue. In entry 699, Our Lord said to St. Faustina regarding the “Feast of Mercy” (which we now call Divine Mercy Sunday), “The soul that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion shall obtain complete forgiveness of sins and punishment.” As for the concern about “spiritual rewards with no requirement of penance and no mention of reparation,” it must be noted that the conditions of Confession and Holy Communion for the remittance of punishment due to sin are no different than the conditions required for the reception of a plenary indulgence. It is difficult to see how Msgr. Perez can take issue with the “spiritual rewards” of Divine Mercy Sunday without also denying the spiritual rewards that accompany a plenary indulgence.
In the last portion of his article, Msgr. Perez expresses concern over the intimate language Our Lord uses when speaking to St. Faustina. I will only say this … if Msgr. Perez is disturbed by the intimate language in the diary of St. Faustina, then he should avoid reading any of the other mystics who have had similar experiences. To this, I will only quote St. Catherine of Siena’s “Dialogue” as dictated by her while in a state of ecstasy:
“But, in no way, does the creature receive such a taste of the truth, or so brilliant a light therefrom, as by means of humble and continuous prayer, founded on knowledge of herself and of God; because prayer, exercising her in the above way, unites with God the soul that follows the footprints of Christ Crucified, and thus, by desire and affection, and union of love, makes her another Himself. Christ would seem to have meant this, when He said: To him who will love Me and will observe My commandment, will I manifest Myself; and he shall be one thing with Me and I with him. In several places we find similar words, by which we can see that it is, indeed, through the effect of love, that the soul becomes another Himself. That this may be seen more clearly, I will mention what I remember having heard from a handmaid of God, namely, that, when she was lifted up in prayer, with great elevation of mind, God was not wont to conceal, from the eye of her intellect, the love which He had for His servants, but rather to manifest it; and, that among other things, He used to say: “Open the eye of your intellect, and gaze into Me, and you shall see the beauty of My rational creature. And look at those creatures who, among the beauties which I have given to the soul, creating her in My image and similitude, are clothed with the nuptial garment (that is, the garment of love), adorned with many virtues, by which they are united with Me through love. And yet I tell you, if you should ask Me, who these are, I should reply” (said the sweet and amorous Word of God) “they are another Myself, inasmuch as they have lost and denied their own will, and are clothed with Mine, are united to Mine, are conformed to Mine.” It is therefore true, indeed, that the soul unites herself with God by the affection of love.”
There is one last point to be made with regard to the concerns of some traditionalists about the devotion to the Divine Mercy as written by St. Faustina. Cardinal Burke, when he was Archbishop of St. Louis, wrote a beautiful article about St. Faustina and the Divine Mercy. I highly recommend his article, and suggest that if Cardinal Burke is pleased with this devotion, then we ought to be at peace with it as well.
Msgr. Patrick Perez is known here in So. Cal. He runs a schismatic chapel and school in the Orange Diocese. To acknowledge his writings as even worthy of consideration is an insult to Our Lord. Sadly, Fr. Perez remains obstinately outside the Church along with those that continue to follow his persistence in this sin. This can be verified by contacting the Bishops office of the Diocese of Orange. Fr. Perez’s sacraments of penance and matrimony are invalid and at best his Masses are illicit. The people that attend his chapel know this very well.
Denise,
I was unaware of Msgr. Perez’s status. Could you show me where to find more information on this? God bless.
Hich, I did a quick search on his name and this website http://www.ourladyhelpofchristians.us/church-bulletin-for-easter-sunday-april-5-2015 came up – I provide the link to the latest bulletin there. The site is vague – it does not say it is a Catholic parish obviously, which is always a worrying sign.
But, that bulletin specifically mentions an “SSPX retreat” – another worrying trend as the group has (per Pope Benedict XVI) “no canonical status and cannot legitimately exercise ministry”.
Another link is this one http://www.stdorothychurch.com/parish/index.php/the-news/727-the-following-clergy-have-no-faculties-to-minister – someone of his name is mentioned there. Obviously, it may be a different priest – the name is, which not superbly common, not utterly unusual.
Me thinks Simon Rafe of Churchmilitant.com may be a free mason. Fatima is Church approved, but not Simon approved. Simon says disregard our Mother. Our mother is the masterpiece of creation whom Jesus loves above all. The choice is yours – listen to Simon or Jesus.
The devil fears our Blessed Mother, the one who instructs us to “Do whatever He says.”
Simon Rafe is a member of the church of nice. Michael Matt is much better
Hold on! Simon Rafe “may be a freemason.” Is he or is he not? And how is it that Rafe “disregards our Mother”? Please support these allegations. That is charity.
Please post where this can be found…Thank you.
First, I am not SSPX, and I spearheaded the Divine Mercy Devotion in our parish way back in 1997.
The SSPX is in irregular status, but they are NOT in schism. True, their sacraments of Penance and Matrimony are invalid, but their Mass, while illicit, is quite valid. They fight tooth and nail to keep Holy Mother Church from sinking beneath the waves of liberal heresy, which leads to apostasy. I have the greatest admiration for their zeal, and pray for their regularization with Rome. They love the Traditional Latin Mass, where people actually understand that the Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary, not primarily a meal. Msgr. Perez is mistaken on the Divine Mercy Devotion, but he fights bravely for what he sees as truth. If anything, that should add to his bona fides, not diminish them.
God bless.
>> The SSPX is in irregular status
The document from the Church says “no canonical status” – not irregular. But that might be dismissed as merely semantics. However;
>> their sacraments of Penance and Matrimony are invalid
and
>> Mass, while illicit
are SERIOUS issues, and they seem to be being dismissed. Msgr Perez challenges the Church’s authority re. the Divine Mercy (it is an approved apparition and an authorized liturgical feast) and with his membership of an organization (presuming he is a member – I am not sure if that has been established) which means his sacraments are deficient.
Since when did anyone passing on that which Christ gave us is not Catholic?
Is the Novus Ordo Catholic?
It is straight from Hell.
What Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did was to remain faithful to Our Lord.
Yet you all pretend you are in Our Lord’s House.
*
You can’t remain faithful to Christ while seperating yourself from his body. He was excommunicated for acts under canon law as “schismatic acts,” that’s a direct quotation from the article of his excommunication.
Now we know, according to Pope Francis, that the SSPX can validly and licitly administer the sacraments of Penance and Matrimony. Much adoo about nothing! All to the detriment of the faithful who are forced, due to psychological and spiritual violence against them, to flock to the SSPX for the sacramental rites and the Mass they are unjustly and uncharitably denied by the members of the Modernist sect in control of so many Catholic dioceses and parishes throughout the world.
No, nots not completely accurate. The SSPX still has no canonical status within the Church. It remains in schism because of the actions of disobedience under its founder not only in 1988, but orior to this as well when he ordined priests, no just bishops against the express order of Rome. Thse acts were defined under the order of excommunication as “schismatic acts,” direct quotation from the decree of the Pope. Lifting an excommunication does not automatically life a state of communication. His can be clearly see when Pope Paul VI lifted th excommunication on hPatriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church. We no longer mutually excommunicate, but are still in a stat of schism. The SSPX have supplied faculity to hear confession. They do not have the faculties to celebrate mass licitly, not do they have the faculties to celebrate marriage blessings. Pooe Francis encouraged local ordinaries to grant them them for the sake of married couples and the issues this causes marriage tribunals if an annulment is sought. But it still has to come from the local bishop. So far the only faculties strayed arise supplid by the Hokt See is confession. As to the canonical status of the SSPX, there is nothing under canon law that grants one an “irregular canonical status.” It simply doesn’t exist in canon law.therefore it is not a legal status according to the Church.
Bravo!
That’s not true according to the order of excommunication from 1988. Where it plays says it is being issued for violations inder canon law for “schismatic acts,” that’s a direct quotation. The only faculty supplid by Rome is to hear confessions. Priests of the SSPX do not have faculties to licitly celebrate mass, or bless weddings. Pope Famcis mcoursgd local Ordinaies to grant them this faculity for the sake of married couples, but the faculty still must be provided by the local bishop, no one is forced to flock towards schism. That’s a illegitimate justification for acts againist the rule of law in the body if Christ. Which has been the de facto position of the society since its founding, to its censoring, to its removal of canonical status, to its excommunication, to now.
The chapel is NOT schismatic. The priests say mass. They all have bishops and are not prohibited in any way from saying mass. They are doing what the Church has always done. Your information is inaccurate.
Bishops ordained without the will of Rome do not have jurisdiction to licitly ordain. Priests who have not been licitly ordained do not have faculties to celebrate mass licitly. Priests who do not have vows of obedience to the local ordinary and who otherwise have no licit ordination can not cel rate the mass licitly,mas these faculties Ono come theough the local Ordinary. A chapel by defnition under canon law is under the governance of a Pastor under obedience to the local ordinary and is an extended part of a licitly constructed paish. SSPX chapels meet none of these criteria.
What are you all smoking down in Califas? Look around you. Do you really believe all that stupidity is Roman Catholicism?
You mock Our Lady and Her Son openly.
May God have mercy on you all.
*
Denise Riggio, yours is a cheap shot. Why do you attack the messenger when you dislike the message? Why not refute what Msgr. Perez writes? Didn’t Saint Thomas Aquinas write that Truth remains true, even when said by the devil and lovers of truth must heed it, not so much because of who says it, but because of what it says?
What bothers me most is that many people are misled into thinking that there is something extraordinary about confession and reception of Holy Communion on “Divine Mercy Sunday”. This is bogus. Anytime you make a good confession with an act of perfect contrition and you have no attachment to any sin, venial or mortal, and receive Holy Communion worthily, you are pardoned for your sins and the temporal punishment due to sin.
Divine Mercy obviously is a private revelation and is not in any way binding on any Catholic to believe. Same as the “Luminous mysteries”, there is no obligation to follow these private devotions.
For me, I will continue to spread devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the solemn consecration of the Sacred Heart in our homes. http://www.marypages.com/MargaretMaryAlacoque.htm
That’s not an accurate understanding, as a plenarary indulgence is attached to certain feasts with the usual criteria of mass, confession, and praying for the good of the Holy Father. That is a special exercise reserved by the Holly Father.
Both devotion to the sacred heart and Divine Mercy are private devotions, but now enjoy the Sam ststue as both have feast days attached to their celebration. Both are officially approved, accepted, and promoted by the Church. You are free nit to participate, you are also not to gain the merits of both. You are also free not to pray the rosary with the luke ious mystery rise or any mysteries at all. I would however check your motivations for all the things you rejct as they aren’t accurstly understood.
What an appropriate typo! Many of the NO related things you mention – including the current obsession with the suspect Divine Mercy Devotion – are indeed accurstly accursed! Why? Because they seek to change the One, True, Holy and Apostolic Faith and should therefore be avoided at all costs. Do not approach doubtful sacraments, whatever the modern ‘Church’ tells you is great, cool or ‘of the spirit’. Stick with Tradition and you cannot go wrong.
Mary Alice Hoffman: I couldn’t have said it better. The so-called “Divine Mercy” devotion is obviously a private revelation and is not in any way binding on any Catholic to believe. Same as the so-called “Luminous mysteries.” Catholics are under no obligation to follow these private, doubtful, Modernist-era devotions.
My family, friends and I, too, will continue to spread devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the solemn consecration of the Sacred Heart in our homes.
http://www.marypages.com/MargaretMaryAlacoque.htm
Of course ‘Msgr.’ P. Perez is ‘outside’ the Church…but its the True Catholic Church of Tradition that he has fallen away from…..not the Novus Ordo or Vatican II church……and why would I contact the Bishops’ Office of the Diocese of Orange to get a ‘clarification’? They have both fallen from the same tree: “By their fruits you will know them”………………………..!
According to Vatican I this is a heretical and schismatic statement.
“No one shall sit in judgment of ther Hoky See, anathema sit.”
By your fruits we know you as well.
But the Holy See must be doing the job it is appointed for (as must the Pope himself) – that is to hand on and propagate the Faith as it has been handed down by Tradition. The Laity has a duty to judge whether the Church Hierarchy is doing that and if it is not, to correct it. No Catholic should blindly follow when the Hierarchy is not teaching the True Faith or he or she will sin along wih the members of the Hierarchy teaching/supporting those false doctrines/dogmas/ ‘pastoral accompaniment’.
The masses may be illicit, but they are valid. There is no prohibition for Catholics to receive valid communion. He can also hear confession now that the Pope has given permisdion. It is not a violation of Catholic teaching to attend his Mass, receive communion from him, or go to confession with him. Thank you Pope Francis for your mercy.
Schismatic chapel? You have no clue,neither the author of this post, but that’s ok, go ahead and pray a devotion that has no sacrifice and penance in it.
Msgr. Perez is as schismatic as the sspx. Go to his chapel and you’ll see a picture of Pope Francis, hear the rosary many times a day, and see the TLM. He just doesn’t get with the times and praise heretics like Rev. Schuler.
Regarding the article, it seems a devotion to the sacred heart produces better fruit.
“Msgr. Perez is as schismatic as the sspx”
So . . . he has no canonical status, cannot legitimately exercise any ministry and is invited to rediscover the path of full communion to the Church? Those are *direct quotes* about the SSPX from Pope Benedict, and nothing has changed in their status.
Obviously, Msgr. Perez might not be “as schismatic as the SSPX” – but, if he (as you say he is) is, then he has no canonical standing, cannot legitimately . . . etc. etc.
If you think everything in the church is okey dokey, then this may fall on deaf ears. But, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear, we are in a crisis. Canon law provides for this:
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htm
Also, a great column on this full communion nonsense:
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-0205-ferrara-gnostic-twaddle.htm
John Vennari and Fr. Gruner go into being “outside the church”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1BaA0ox2Dw
I’ve been going to Our Lady Help of Christians for three years and have yet to hear one statement that is in opposition to the perennial Catholic church. Sadly, if I go to any of the local diocesan church, I will hear heresies or witness sacrilege every single time. Ergo, canon law’s supplied jurisdiction is warranted because the salvation of souls is the church’s highest mission.
Lastly, if a smoker takes a pull on a cigarette and says, “smoking is bad for you”, is that statement made false because it was made by a smoker? Of course not, the truth stands on its own. Msgr Perez’s article should be judged on its own merit, which the author of this blog did quite well (though I disagree with his conclusions). Ad hominem attacks are not useful in sussing out the truth. Also, that is not catholic.
What in the world is going on here? Catholics spewing hatred against other Catholics? Aren’t there other things to worry about? Sounds like minor things here that these folks are arguing about. If this is what Catholicism is all about I can see how people can feel that they’d rather find a more united Church. So, so sad! Do these people do anything but argue about who is right? I bet if they would spend a quarter of that time evangelizing the right people, we might fill up our pews!?! May He have Mercy on us!!!!
Yep, yep, yep…
Canon law does not supply Jurisdiction as the SSPX conveniently redefine. The Rome Rota ruled that Marcel Lefevre’s justification for his actions under emergency so to speak, does not validly include when the Holy See has directly ahead of time told one NOt to do something under excommunication and they do it anyway.
The Porblem with the SSPX is that they invent definitions of words the Church does not teach and act disobediently reinventing canon law, which they have no right to interpret, as they go. The end justifying the means.
The Society of St. Pius X is not schismatic and never has been. I challenge you to produce a single official Church document stating the Society to be in schism. The labor of producing such document is a fool’s errand…
> The Society of St. Pius X is not schismatic and never has been
Never said otherwise. I said they had no canonical status and cannot legitimately exercise any ministry, and are invited to discover the path to full communion. Another commentator said (which I agree with) that their sacraments are in some cases invalid and in other illicit.
“Full communion”? A mother is not fully pregnant? Only a little pregnant? Only a little in communion? And the 6 protestant non ministers who put together the ‘new mass’ with all smiles n chuckles with Paul 6 in the Vatican, were in full communion? The words fool communists comes to mind. ABL said they only kicked him out of their “conciliar church” of which he never was a member. Popes, bishops priests etc. will be judged as with such titles. Fully.
But that’s just it the SSPX doesn’t have “some communion,” it has no communion. “Irregular canonical status,” is a phrase that does not appear under the Conde of canon law. It’s a made up term.
Pretty much everything you’ve said is either inaccurate or a complete defamatory fabrication.
Well, if one simply reads the issue of Marcel Lefevre’s excommunication its cited for “schismatic acts,” under canon law. That’s a direct quotation. It’s right ther for anyone to read and research.
One can never go wrong with devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus…
The devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus was officially recognized and approved by Pope Clement XIII in 1765, seventy-five years after her death. Margaret Mary was declared Venerable in March, 1824 by Pope Leo XII, and she was pronounced Blessed on September 18, 1864 by Pope Pius IX. The inauguration of the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus occurred in 1856, and Margaret Mary was canonized by Benedict XV in 1920.
So we have had this devotion since 1765 and after rigorous vetting, Margaret Mary was not canonized until 1920.
The Divine Mercy diary, picture, devotion, canonization was done very hurriedly by comparison and just doesn’t ring true to me. A gut feeling that something is not right and I wish to avoid it.
Isn’t it obvious that the so-called Divine Mercy painting and devotion is a Modernist battering ram to replace and, ultimately, obliterate the authentic and authenticated devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus? Can someone please show me where this analysis is wrong?
I don’t see how the two devotions are mutually exclusive. On the contrary. My pastor is exceedingly reverent and devout. He extensively and unceasingly promotes devotion to the Sacred Heart throughout the diocese, and the country. Yet, he conducts Divine Mercy services on Divine Mercy Sunday with all due solemnity. He has brought in priests from the Fathers of Mercy, as well as Polish nuns who sing the chaplet. (His background is Polish, which may explain his personal devotion.) Yet Divine Mercy is an established day in the Church calendar in its own right. Does devotion to the Immaculate Heart undermine that of the Sacred Heart? Not at all.
DM is an extension of the Sacred Heart Devotion and more specifically His Divine Mercy. How can we as sinners refuse or reject His Divine Mercy?
“An act of love always tends towards two things; to the good that one wills, and to the person for whom one wills it: since to love a person is to wish that person good. Hence, inasmuch as we love ourselves, we wish ourselves good; and, so far as possible, union with that good. So love is called the unitive force, even in God, yet without implying composition; for the good that He wills for Himself, is no other than Himself, Who is good by His essence, as above shown (I:6:1 and I:6:3). And by the fact that anyone loves another, he wills good to that other. Thus he puts the other, as it were, in the place of himself; and regards the good done to him as done to himself. So far love is a binding force, since it aggregates another to ourselves, and refers his good to our own. And then again the divine love is a binding force, inasmuch as God wills good to others; yet it implies no composition in God.” (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm)
Nor can you go wrong with any devotion given by a saint the Holy See has approved.
Very good and accurate
Anecdotal and subjective evidence is not a valid augment. The Hoky See has approved the devotion, your valuation judgment on its merits are not relevant. Nor are you granted to authority to publically judge the merits of whatnthe Hokynhas approved according to Vatican I.
I have a logical question but first will put before you inarguable God approved devotionals.
At Fatima Our Lady requested that we pray the 15 decades of the rosary for poor souls that have no one to pray for them and for the reparation of the sins of mankind through the 5 First Saturdays in order to appease Him Whom is so offended. The Miracle of The Sun approves this a and the Church followed.
It is NOT possible that Our Lady was not told the future by God Himself. So, why would She not include the Divine Mercy in order to obtain that which She already included in the other recommended devotionals? Why is it that suddenly, God changed His mind when God never changes? Why do we not behold with the eyes God gave us that with over 60,000,000 “legalized” murders of babies in the U.S. ,whose blood cries out to the heavens for vengeance, we are receiving His mercy now and it will be His justice we will receive after according to what we did or did not do during this period of grace? How many Catholics vote for pro abort or pro choice politicians?? How many of the faithful pray in front of abortion mills? The answers should wake everyone up from their slumber! You ask for “mercy” and don’t do as recommended and expect an offended Lord to grant you this request?? This generation will be given no sign as we sink deeper into our own sorrowful state.
In contrast, the devotion to the Sacred Heart has 12 specific promises as well as the devotions to Our Lady. We do well to heed them above all else.
I have a great devotion to the Blessed Mother, but that doesn’t mean that Jesus can’t appear to someone later. Jesus did not contradict anything that the Blessed Mother said at Fatima. Of course God wants the salvation of all his children. In order to receive his mercy, we have to repent. Nowhere in the diary does it say that Jesus will give mercy without repentance. He is offering us one last chance to receive this mercy. You seem so gung-ho on the justice part that you forget that the two go together. Even souls in hell are receiving both justice and mercy. They get just desserts for the sins they comitted on earth, and they get mercy by not suffering as much as they could have. Please show me in what way that God changed his mind. All he did was extend another gift to mankind. He didn’t say to stop praying the rosary, did he? So what you’ve just stated is illogical.
You are so right. If one reads the diary of Saint Faustina and the account written by Sister Lucia then it is impossible not to come to the conclusion that the Divine Mercy message is exactly the same as the Fatima message: To save souls from going to Hell.
Your article is most appreciated, but I would like to address a few points:
I concede that it is an unfortunate use of words on behalf of Msgr. Perez; rather than using the word ‘condemn’ the better choice would have been ‘reject’. The Church did indeed reject the diary and did indeed place it on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
The issue here is not the diction chosen by Msgr. Perez, but the diary of Sister Faustina itself. This is not a discussion regarding the piety of the sister, but rather the theological flaws contained in her writings. We are given a history of Faustina, being told she “had but a limited elementary education”. Any intentional theological errors would not likely have been supplied by her own doing.
As for the 1935 prediction of suppression and the lifting of the suppression provided in the diary, would not other forces be capable of issuing such a prediction, in order to fool even the elect?
There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. ~Matthew 24:24-5
Regarding Pope John XXIII’s rejections of the diary while also considering his failure to reveal the Third Secret, we can in turn use the same consideration and apply it to Pope John Paul II, the champion of the Divine Mercy devotion: while he attempted to reveal the Secret, the banal “Third Secret” he revealed was, as we all know, a very less-than-truthful version. (And his consecration of the world rather than Russia was also a far cry from obedience to Our Lady’s wishes, but that is another topic for another day.)
It is often cited by those that defend this devotion that Pope Pius XII blessed or venerated the image of the Divine Mercy. In all my research I have been unable to verify this claim. All that pops up in searches is the same copied and pasted sentence: Pius XII “blessed an Image of the Divine Mercy in Rome on 24 June 1956“, which seems to come only from wiki (not credible) and from a DM website. This supposed event is not even mentioned on the chronological timeline provided in the diary itself. This “blessing” in not mentioned in either of the 2 prefaces of the diary, nor can be found in the introduction. It is not mentioned in the index, nor VA websites. If you have a credible source to share I would be most appreciative, sincerely.
As far as the indulgences are concerned, I direct you to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/tribunals/apost_penit/documents/rc_trib_appen_doc_20020629_decree-ii_en.html
I can find nothing in that document that defines the indulgences, nothing assigning a length of days or years. This ambiguity leads one to wonder if it is a devotion after all. (there is nothing wrong with the prayers, of course.)
It is very often claimed that the reason that the diary was banned was because of a faulty Italian translation, but given the contradictions of Church teaching contained in the diary, this is clearly not the reason:
From Jesus to Faustina, October 2, 1936:
“Now, I know that it is not for the graces or gifts that you love Me, but because My Will is dearer to you than life. That is why I am uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.”
I am going to have to take issue with that, as did Msgr. Perez. Jesus is now seemingly holding Faustina in a higher regard than the Blessed Virgin?
From the Baltimore Catechism: hyperdulia, or that higher veneration which we give to the Blessed Virgin as the most exalted of all God’s creatures.
Should the definition of hyperdulia now be rewritten to include Sister Faustina? Or does she still only deserve dulia, “that secondary veneration we give to saints and angels as the special friends of God“? I, for one, and most comfortable with what the Church has always taught.
Sister Faustina claimed that Jesus said she will be exempt from Judgment, particular judgment and the general judgment. Again, she seems to now be on level with the Blessed Virgin.
Yes, the diary contains references to repentance, as you and so many have quoted entry 699, but it also contains contradictions to Catholic teachings regarding promises which omit the need for contrition and amendment of one’s life. Unconditional forgiveness is not Catholic. (We MUST “avoid the near occasion of sin”.) Presumption is not Catholic.
(“There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” ~Encyclical on Unity of the Church, Pope Leo XIII, 1896)
When we look to the authentic promises of the Sacred Heart, we do not see a promise that all temporal punishment will be remitted for Confession and Communion received on a particular day. Again, a need for contrition and amendment of lifestyle is paramount.
The Sacred Heart devotion is quickly being replaced with the frenzy that is the Divine Mercy devotion, even being hailed as “a second baptism”! On the Feast of the Divine Mercy one can obtain total remission from sins and all punishments that they should endure just by performing devotional acts and receiving the Blessed Sacrament/ Penance. This is not Catholic. This is borderline-superstitious.
In the May 26, 1937 Decree of the Holy Office we read a warning against devotions which are “new forms of worship and devotion, often enough ridiculous, usually useless imitations or corruptions of similar ones which are already legitimately established, are in many places, especially in these recent days, being daily multiplied and propagated among the faith, giving occasion to great astonishment and to bitter aspersion on the part of non-Catholics.”
What purpose does the Divine Mercy serve that the 12 Promises of the Sacred Heart does not? What message does the Divine Mercy reveal where the Sacred Heart falls short? Mercy? Infinite love? Christ reveled those in his true and perfect devotion, uncontested.
“An act of love always tends towards two things; to the good that one wills, and to the person for whom one wills it: since to love a person is to wish that person good. Hence, inasmuch as we love ourselves, we wish ourselves good; and, so far as possible, union with that good. So love is called the unitive force, even in God, yet without implying composition; for the good that He wills for Himself, is no other than Himself, Who is good by His essence, as above shown (I:6:1 and I:6:3). And by the fact that anyone loves another, he wills good to that other. Thus he puts the other, as it were, in the place of himself; and regards the good done to him as done to himself. So far love is a binding force, since it aggregates another to ourselves, and refers his good to our own. And then again the divine love is a binding force, inasmuch as God wills good to others; yet it implies no composition in God.” (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm)
It is presumptuous for Mr. Hichborn to put words into Cdl. Ottaviani’s mouth. If the cardinal had wanted to add the words, “at this time” to his suppression of the claimed apparitions of Sister Faustina, I’m sure Cdl. Ottaviani would’ve done so. In addition, if Pope Pius XII blessed a ‘Divine Mercy’ image in 1956, that was several years prior to the two suppressions issued by the Holy Office/CDF. And I’d like to know which image it may have been, since there appear to have been a number of different images floating being discussed by Sister Faustina and others, and under what circumstances the blessing of the image occurred.
Let us not forget, that Cdl. Ottaviani also relented and went along with the Novus Ordo Missae, so I’m not sure that merely his having appointed Karol Wojtyła of Krakow to ‘begin the informative process’ on the life/virtues of Sister Faustina and her claims of apparitions EQUATES with Cdl. Ottaviani’s approval of the claimed apparitions themselves. Cdl. Ottaviani’s suppression of the apparitions was with good reason, as was the decision of the Popes, to TWICE suppress the apparitions and to place Sister Faustina’s writings on the forbidden index. Therefore, Cdl. Ottaviani’s actions in suppressing the apparitions and subsequently approving of an ‘informative process’ into Sister Faustina’s life don’t merit equal footing, We don’t know what pressures may have come to bear on Cdl. Ottaviani to permit the ‘informative process’ to occur. To quote Mr. Hichborn, “One cannot weigh his opinion of the one without his opinion of the other.”
After all, and perhaps Mr. Hichborn accidently forgot to mention that it was Karol Wojtyla who gave final approval of his own ‘informative process’ and reversed the two, prior suppressions of the claimed apparitions, LONG AFTER Cdl. Ottaviani was no longer head of the Holy Office/CDF.
Conveniently, by the year 1978, the suppressions were attributed to mistranslated documents, which, we are told, were finally translated correctly, after the two, prior suppressions. Isn’t it curious how often the Vatican has claimed to have been the victim of mistranslations over these last 60 years?
In the end, private apparitions are just that, private. They are not dogmatic. We would do well to not place very much importance on them.
“I make an urgent appeal to the earth. I call on the true disciples of the living God who reigns in Heaven; I call on the true followers of Christ made man, the only true Savior of men; I call on my children, the true faithful, those who have given themselves to me so that I may lead them to my divine Son, those whom I carry in my arms, so to speak, those who have lived on my spirit. Finally, I call on the Apostles of the Last Days, the faithful disciples of Jesus Christ who have lived in scorn for the world and for themselves, in poverty and in humility, in scorn and in silence, in prayer and in mortification, in chastity and in union with God, in suffering and unknown to the world. It is time they came out and filled the world with light. Go and reveal yourselves to be my cherished children. I am at your side and within you, provided that your faith is the light which shines upon you in these unhappy days. May your zeal make you famished for the glory and the honor of Jesus Christ. Fight, children of light, you, the few who can see. For now is the time of all times, the end of all ends.”
~Our Lady of LaSalette
“My Immaculate Heart shall Triumph”- Our Lady At Fatima
Now if I recall Catholic history correctly, Pope Pius V had ordered all of Christendom to pray the rosary for a good victory against the Turks who were to be engaged in battle by the much smaller Christian fleet. Many of the soldiers were invested with the brown scapular prior to the battle and attended holy mass before setting sail. The flagship note a reproduction of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. All of these examples culminate into one of the most extraordinary battles ever fought and won with the aide of The Mediatrix Of All Graces at The Battle Of Lapanto! She, who is also given the title, “Destroyer Of Heresies” and the One chosen to crush the head of the serpent, is still the recommended intercessor whom even Our Lord says that honoring Her pleases Him more than the honors we do Him.
You at the institute have turned your ship and fired your guns at a priest who is fighting the battle you are called to by virtue of the very name, “Lapanto”.
Have you forgotten what has already been set by God Himself as the path to victory??
You know darned well that both Pius XII and John XXIII placed both Sr Faustina’s diary and the Divine Mercy “devotional” on the banned publication list and John XXIII went even further by ordering the bishops to remove the image from parishes. Why? Perhaps these popes who read the Fatima messages understood that this “devotional” contradicted what was preordained by God Himself with the Miracle Of The Sun which was also approved by the Church??
I will tear the blindfold from your own eyes…Are you calling Our Blessed Mother a liar?? Are you accusing Our Lord of spreading a falsehood? Are you actually saying that God did not know the future and therefore did not know that the Divine Mercy would be what His people would choose to do? Does disobedience gain “mercy”?
“Let your ‘yes’ mean yes and your ‘no’ mean no!
When you go into battle, be sure you have the correct armaments and follow orders precisely. “Men will fire bullets but God decides where they land”, to borrow a line from “For Greater Glory”.
Go contemplate If the words spoken to you are true.
Ave Maria!
Due to bad translations of the document, not its theological content. Which is why after it was retranslated with an accurate account it was approved. That would be like saying because Marcel Lefevre’s and company were officially excommunicated they could never be restored. Which would be silly because they did, and they have. Same thing with St. Faustina’s writings and devotional.
Cardinal Burke, as Archbishop of St. Louis, wrote this article about St. Faustina and the Divine Mercy devotion. http://www.piercedhearts.org/hearts_jesus_mary/christology/revelation_divine_mercy.htm
I neither have the time nor the theological training to continue a deep and detailed, point-by-point discussion on the writings of St. Faustina. That said, I am hoping to see Cdl. Burke next month. If I do see him and if he permits me, I promise to ask him about specific concerns that have been addressed regarding St. Faustina’s diary and will publish his answers.
Michael, when you speak to His Eminence, I think a few points need to be considered here.
1) The apparitions approved by the Church where Our Lady addresses the situation of “diabolical confusion” and “disorientation”.
2) Where She says that, “My Immaculate Heart shall triumph” which is also communicated by Jesus Himself that the honors we give to Her please Him more than those we give to Him.
3) The assigned title of “Mediatrix of All Graces” with the accepted title of “Coredemptress”.
4) The times that we live in that has seen more innocent blood spilled than ever before.
5) The rejection of those things truly Catholic by even Cardinals! (Examples, the embracing of secularism, persecution of Christians sometimes by those charged with shepherding the flock, abandoning of good Catholic bishops being persecuted by other bishops…USCCB comes to mind…)
6) The banning of Sr Faustina’s diary, which by her own words puts her on the same level as Our Lady, Queen of Heaven and Earth! The banning of the devotion by Pope Prius XII, who read the full content of the Fatima message, and his decision was most likely the result if a contradiction, aside from others, to what Our Lady communicated. The banning of the image by Pope John XXIII and instruction to bishops to remove it from all parishes which also seems to indicate a conflict.
I could go on and on…Kings of France refusing to consecrate the country to the Sacred Heart…Sr Lucia being spoken to by Christ at Rianjo…the 3 Days of Darkness predicted throughout Church history…Russia poised for WW III…
We don’t need to worry so much about hell anymore because even according to Fr Baron we all seem to be going to heaven! Who needs to pray for the dead if that’s true??
Divine Mercy may be okay as a personal prayer but a “devotional”?? No way! It’s flawed to ask for mercy when evidently we are receiving it now and justice will most assuredly follow according to the innocent blood spilled, the CATHOLICS who have hardened their hearts and disobedience in not doing what we have been told to do! There are very few people who understand what it means to be “Church Militant” and actually attack those who say they are…by fellow CATHOLICS! In the name of Christ +…don’t people see?!?!?! Catholics…for God’s sake, CATHOLICS, are at war with Christ!! I’m a vet…I get “divide and conquer”!
Divine Mercy?? No! “Divine Judgement” is what we deserve!
>> Divine Mercy?? No! “Divine Judgement” is what we deserve!
Obviously – that is the very DEFINITION of the terms. “Mercy” is underserved – that is what it is, that is why it is called “mercy”. Judgment is what is deserved.
That is the foundation of the Christian life – I am worried by many comments here, which seem to completely miss this fundamental point. God is perfectly just – if we want justice, we don’t need Christ, the Incarnation, the Church, anything. All we need is for God to exist – He will give us what we deserve. He is the just judge and He will judge fairly.
But because we are sinners, fair judgment is unpleasant (to say the least . . .)
The Incarnation is God’s way of bringing us mercy – the Divine Mercy.
I think much of the comments here can be addressed with a lovely exchange in a C.S.Lewis story;
“I just want my just deserts – I don’t want any bleeding charity.”
“Ask for it – ask for the Bleeding Charity.”
(‘bleeding charity’ is an English slang expression meaning “patronizing kindness offered as a largesse from a superior’.)
You miss a certain point here…that which has already been preordained BY GOD HIMSELF via the Miracle of The Sun when it comes to HOW we are to ask for His mercy. This is the sticking point..”My Immaculate Heart shall triumph”. It is She who will be the means of mercy because God will refuse Her nothing!
You cannot claim that Fatima (private revelation) tells us the exclusive method of asking for mercy when both public revelation and other private revelations give us other methods.
We ask for His mercy in confession, through baptism, through the use of sacramentals, through the use of other sacraments, through private prayer, and through specific prayers such as the Rosary and Divine Mercy devotion.
In every respect; every prayer is a petition for mercy.
And, again – this is tangential to your disturbing trend to reject the notion that divine mercy is all we can ask of Christ, and that one does not need to ask for judgment from a just judge.
From the beginning of your argument. “Fatima, a private revelation” falls flat on it’s face because the Miracle of The Sun was a PUBLIC revelation of God’s approval of the message. So, would you like to take your argument to God? 5 First Saturdays and the rosary are the weapons chosen and approved of by Him.
Put it to you another way, God tosses you a blue colored life line in order to pull you into His boat for safety. Are you really going to tell Him, “No…I’ll throw You a rope to pull me in with”?
“Private” and “Public” with regard to revelation have nothing to do with how many people saw it – public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. It is the scriptures and the other deposit of faith. It is a common misconception to call Fatima public because of ignorance of the Church’s teaching on revelation and a desire to use the common meaning of the term “public” rather than the technical one in the phrase “public revelation”.
And God HAS told us – that is what the APROVED DEVOTION AND REVELATION of the Divine Mercy are. They are a method approved by Him – one which you marginalize and reject.
Excellent article which will address your (very common, admittedly) error re. public & private revelation at Fatima. https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/PRIPUB.TXT
You’re error not mine. Where did I say that the message was “public revelation”? No, what I said and will now reword for it to be understood better is that the Miracle of The Sun was a public approval that the message should be believed. No other private revelation has ever gotten that sort of approval. Period.
Not at all – certainly, you didn’t say Fatima is public revelation (so it is private, so my argument remains valid, so your challenge is dismissed). You cannot say “the event was public, so this private revelation is special” – you are using the words “public” and “private” in different ways in order to bolster your argument.
Certainly – the Miracle of Sun is offered as proof. But even if the Miracle didn’t happen or hadn’t happened, then reason we *may* (not *must*) believe in the message of Fatima is because the Church says it is worthy of belief. And that is exactly what the Church says about the Divine Mercy message.
What you are doing is elevating your own personal opinion above that of the Church – you are saying that because you believe the people who say they saw the miracle of the sun you believe Fatima is somehow special. That is not in-line with the Church’s teaching on revelation and messages.
The Church has ruled the Divine Mercy message worthy of belief. It is an approved devotion. You are permitted to reject it (I don’t know if you do – or just marginalize it) – just as others are permitted to reject Fatima. Rejecting anything the Church has approved, however, is probably a really silly idea.
Any argument can be “valid”…Yes you did say it. But 8s it “licit”? Certainly not given the weight of evidence in support of the Fatima message. Are you calling God a liar? Something to contemplate.
Btw, in contrast popes do make mistakes…Liberius stands out. The errors lie in the diary according to Sr Faustina ‘s. Very own words which would put her on the same level as Our Blessed Mother! Error #1.
Error #2 is to assign the Divine Mercy as a “devotional” not only based on what She claimed Jesus told her but also because it contradicts what Jesus already proclaimed about His Mother and what God approved in the messages of Fatima. What? Our Lady didn’t know that the Divine Mercy wasn’t going to be put forth as a means to ask for Mercy?? That Her place that God gave Her was going to be taken away??
This is what is covertly being said!
Boy, if you had a healthy devotion to Our Lady, you would know that she always leads us to Christ as our final end. Christ and the Blessed Mother do not compete. What Simon said is the teaching of the Church. The Church only requires us to believe what is in the Creed, which contains all the truths of the Faith. Even though I believe what was given to us at Fatima, I am not required to put faith in it, as it is a private revelation. Fr. Groeschel wrote a book about this, in which he stated the process of approving private revelations. Do you put the private revelation of Fatima on a higher level than the Church or Scripture? It seems that way to me. As you mentioned before, Satan can perform great signs, so had the private revelation of Fatima not been approved, one could say that the outward sign was not proof that the Blessed Mother was there. Ultimately, Holy Church is the one who decides, and she has decided that both the Divine Mercy apparitions and Fatima apparitions can be believed, but we don’t have to. But as Simon said (ha ha) it would not be a good idea to go against what the Church has declared to be true or worthy of belief.
–Ultimately, Holy Church is the one who decides, and she has decided that both the Divine Mercy apparitions and Fatima apparitions can be believed, but we don’t have to. —
Actually, Holy Church did decide and, for all the very good reasons mentioned in this thread, decided against it. Then others for their own ends, it would appear, decided to go against Holy Church which was indeed not a good idea.
Special pledging is a fallacy.. Your entire argument rests on special pleading.
Here are the prayers that God approved at Fatima.
Monday
My God, I believe, I adore, I hope and I love You! I ask pardon of You for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not hope and do not love You!
Tuesday
O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Wednesday
O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who are most in need.
Thursday
O Most Holy Trinity, I adore You! My God, my God, I love You in the most Blessed Sacrament!
Friday
Sweet Heart of Mary, be the salvation of Russia, Spain, Portugal, Europe and the whole world.
Saturday
By your pure and Immaculate Conception, O Mary, obtain for me the conversion of Russia, Spain, Portugal, Europe and the entire world.
Sunday
Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I offer You the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the sacrileges, outrages and indifference by which He Himself is offended. And through the infinite merits of His most Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of you the conversion of poor sinners.”
Why is it these prayers are so poorly promulgated in contrast to Divine Mercy which are connected to a diary that puts Sr Faustina on the same level as Our Blessed Mother?
Does anyone bother to familiarize themselves with Our Lady of Good Success? Have we not been given the example of Our Lady of Guadalupe as to how quickly She will crush the head of the serpent? Our Lady of LaSalette had much to say also.
Seeing with the “eyes” God gave me, I would question if Sr Faustina and the Divine Mercy devotional were being used as a sort of trump card.
When a people continues in disobedience towards God, and there are hundreds of examples in the past and now, is it logical to ask for to turn to this particular “devotional” while remaining disobedient to God? The prayers above come with GOD’S approval as a means that is pleasing to Him. How is it that these can replaced by the Divine Mercy devotional? Pity that the 5 First Saturdays are not given the attention Divine Mercy Sunday is nor the prayers.
St. Faustina did not say she is on the same level as Our Blessed Mother. St. Thomas Aquinas aptly puts it on the Love of God! You can Love God as a small thimble or greater than the universe! Which one do you choose? St. Francis of Assisi fell into that same category and so did St. Thomas Aquinas.
“An act of love always tends towards two things; to the good that one wills, and to the person for whom one wills it: since to love a person is to wish that person good. Hence, inasmuch as we love ourselves, we wish ourselves good; and, so far as possible, union with that good. So love is called the unitive force, even in God, yet without implying composition; for the good that He wills for Himself, is no other than Himself, Who is good by His essence, as above shown (I:6:1 and I:6:3). And by the fact that anyone loves another, he wills good to that other. Thus he puts the other, as it were, in the place of himself; and regards the good done to him as done to himself. So far love is a binding force, since it aggregates another to ourselves, and refers his good to our own. And then again the divine love is a binding force, inasmuch as God wills good to others; yet it implies no composition in God.” (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm)
Given what I have seen of Msgr. Perez on YouTube it is rather amusing to me that he cites a decree of Pope Saint John XXIII supporting his position here, considering how hostile he is to every other aspect of the man’s pontificate.
If you read Saint Faustina’s diary Confession and repentance are everywhere. Our Lord even gives the saint advice on how to approach the Confessional and to confess one’s sins every day, if you have the opportunity. I would agree with the good Monsignor if he stated that this element of the revelation isn’t emphasized nearly enough in the contemporary promotion of the Divine Mercy devotion, but it is all in there if people will only look.
A personal opinion here, and you can take it for what it is worth, our Lord makes several references, in paragraph 965 most specifically, of a day of His justice following the feast of His mercy. Since this feast has now been in existence for more than a decade and the Holy Father has declared a Jubilee Year of Divine Mercy starting next December 8, and given the sad state of the Church and the world right now, I would take advantage of every opportunity for mercy that He gives us. Let the Judgement come in its own time because, without His mercy, none of us will be able to stand before Him on that terrible day, whenever it comes.
To those who posted above unwisely wanting to create some sort of conflict between the Divine Mercy devotion and Our Lady of Fatima: THERE IS NONE. Saint Faustina endlessly expresses in her diary her great veneration of the Blessed Mother, and she NEVER puts herself on par with her.
If you don’t like the Divine Mercy devotion don’t pray it. Or you can combine it with the Rosary and with the Fatima prayers like I do. They make an excellent combination since they basically say the same thing. Get over yourselves.
Here,here. There need be no discourse in praising Our Lord or Blessed Mother. Who would dare fain to belive giving DIRECT praise to Jesus would offend his Mother?
ALL GLORY IS TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST. One does not ” lessen ” the other. Praise to “God Alone( Triune) ” is the SOLE PRAISE EXPLICITLY written in sacred script. Every other teaching Mandated by the Church stems soley from scripture . An interpretation from scripture is soley where Tradition and Magistirium come from. No Tradition exists that does not grow from the root of Holy Scripture.
Well Said!
No cinflict? I beg to differ on several facts.
At Fatima we were given specific prayers for the times we find ourselves in today which were approved in a public display by God Himself. Are these prayers given the devotional promulgation that the Divine Mercy receives?
Second, in Sr Faustina’s diary she makes claims that Our Lord told her she will not suffer any judgement and in essence is more united with Him than any of His other creatures. That would at best put her in the same level as Our Blessed Mother and at worst, above even Her.
Twice her writings were banned by successive popes Pius XII and John XXIII. Most likely because of it’s heretical texts against the place which Our Lady singularly occupies.
Divine Mercy is already included in other devotionals which have existed for decades in the Sacred Heart devotional and again, in the Fatima devotionals.
No one is claiming that Divine Mercy as a personal prayer is wrong. However, as a “devotional” eclipsing those long approved, it certainly does give the impression that this is the acceptable way out of current insanities. Clearly, it isn’t given the times since it’s institution. I personally know of people who believe that this devotional trumps even the rosary! Errors across the board!
The Divine Mercy devotion does not eclipse anything. Its message is the same as Fatima. Prayer and penance and Confession and Divine Mercy as a last chance before the Day of Judgement. What is the prayer the children were taught at Fatima and that we all say after each decade of the Rosary?
“Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins; save us from the fires of Hell; lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of thy Mercy.”
How is that any different than the authentic Divine Mercy devotion? You can’t because that is in fact the essence of the Divine Mercy devotion.
And Saint Faustina repeatedly refers to the Blessed Mother with the greatest devotion and cites our Lady as her model. You need to read the diary in that context.
Stay away from divine mercy devotion and the V2 religion. Everything is forced on you in order to replace real Catholic devotions. Everyone is going to heaven and every antipope is a saint. I saw mention of Mr. Baron, he’s a joke too. Try an experiment, when you say you will pray for someone you should actually do it and try getting on your knees and praying the Rosary( the 15 decades as given to us by Our Lady). Devote your home to His Sacred Heart. It’s amazing how many websites there are where we can argue with each other to no end. We have no hierarchy, no priests and no nuns with which to guide us. We suffer the fruits of modernism as condemned by Pope Saint Pius X (the last real pope who is an actual saint) while the Protestants, atheists and the lot laugh at us in wonder. We should all be on the cover of Time and Rolling Stone as the joke of the past century.One thing is for sure we will all be going to hell for standing around and not standing for Christ and The One True Faith.
The Divine Mercy devotion predates the Second Vatican Council by almost three decades. Try actually reading Saint Faustina’s diary before you diss on it too much with ill informed arguments Aunt Margaret.
Let’s backtrack this one, shall we?
Google+
Calendar
Web
more
Sent Mail
Divine Mercy vs Fatima
D
Damian Keller
to [email protected]
8 days agoDetails
Tim,
Having put myself in service to Our Blessed Mother, it was only recently that something was bugging me about the Divine Mercy devotion.
I was aware of several things already which just didn’t add up with praying that devotional.
1) Our Lady has many titles of which 3 are of special names, Queen of Heaven and Earth, Mediatrix of All Graces and CoRedemtrix. No one occupies this place given by God but Her.
2) Our Lord has made it known to us that the honors we give His Mother are more pleasing to Him than those we give Him.
3) Our Lord also made known that He would demand much more from us in His direct servitude than those under His Holy Mother’s.
4) Our Lady has recommended to us praying the holy rosary, devotion to the brown scapular and 5 First Saturdays devotional for the times we face the greatest of trials. The Battle of Lepanto is a good example of the first two where the rosary was prayed as called for by the pope and soldiers were enrolled in the brown scapular prior to the battle. It was a replica of Our Lady of Guadalupe that was displayed on the flagship as an added entrustment for victory.
5) Specifically, we were given 7 prayers at Fatima to say by an Angel of The Lord and also at Our Lady’s request for the times we now live to please God, obtain graces and mitigate the great chastisement. Shockingly, these prayers have not been properly promulgated and the Divine Mercy seems to eclipse.
6) The apparitions of the Angel, Our Lady of The Rosary, Our Lady of Mt Carmel holding the Infant Jesus and that of St Joseph followed by the Miracle of The Sun would indicate the greatest of endorsements ever given in history. When followed by Christ’s warning to Sr Lucia at Rianjo one should feel more impelled to say these prayers devoutly.
7) Sr Faustina wrote some very disturbing things in her diary which Pope Pius XII found so erroneous as to have been placed on the banned publication list. John XXIII placed the Divine Mercy and it’s image on the same list and ordered the removal of the image from all parishes. The following are excerpts which defenders try to rationalize by injecting their own interpretations as meaning something else which would indicate a lack of clarity on Our Lord’s part when speaking to Sr Faustina.
On page 168, it says: “The moment I knelt down to cross out my own will, as the Lord had bid me to do, I heard this voice in my soul: From now on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.” (from Feb. 4, 1935)
On page 176, “Jesus” says to her: “You are a sweet grape and a chosen cluster; I want others to have a share in the juice that is flowing within you.”
On page 191, “Jesus” says to her: “For your sake I will withhold the hand which punishes; for your sake I will bless the Earth.” (see also page 378.)
On page 247, “Jesus” says: “And know this, too, my daughter: All creatures, whether they know it or not, and whether they want to or not, always fulfill my will… My daughter, if you wish, I will this instant create a new world, more beautiful than this one, and you will live there for the rest of your life.”
On page 260, “Jesus” says: “For many souls will turn back from the gates of Hell and worship My mercy.”
On page 374, “Jesus” says: “If they will not adore My mercy, they will perish for all eternity.”
On page 382, “Jesus” says: “I desire that My mercy be worshipped.”
On page 288, “Jesus” says: “That is why I am uniting myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.”
On page 400, “Jesus” says: “I see your love so pure, purer than that of the angels, and all the more so because you keep fighting. For your sake I bless the world.”
On page 417, we read that “Jesus” supposedly gave Sr. Faustina this instruction: “Tell the Superior General to count on you as the most faithful daughter in the Order.”
On page 583, we read that Sr. Faustina said: “When I took the Messenger of the Sacred Heart into my hand and read the account of the canonization of St. Andrew Bobola, my soul was instantly filled with a great longing that our congregation, too, might have a saint and I wept like a child that there was no saint in our midst. And I said to the Lord, ‘I know your generosity, and yet it seems to me that you are less generous towards us.’ And I began again to weep like a little child. And the Lord Jesus said to me, ‘Don’t cry. You are that saint.’”
Further, it seems that Our Lord’s words are such as to instill pride in Sr Faustina which is a flaw we are admonished to avoid.
Are you using page numbers or paragraph numbers?
Odyssey753,
I am well informed of the Divine Mercy devotion predating the second Vatican Council. I will not read it because it has been banned. Marian Defender has already tackled the problems with it, to which I will add decrees by the Holy Office.
“New forms of worship and devotion, often enough ridiculous, usually useless imitations or corruptions of similar ones which are already legitimately established, are in many places, especially in these recent days, being daily multiplied and propagated among the faithful, giving occasion to great astonishment and to bitter aspersion on the part of non-Catholics”. (May 26, 1937; AAS 29-304)
Also:
“The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, having examined the alleged visions and revelations of Sister Faustina Kowalska of the Institute of Our Lady of Mercy, who died in 1938 near Cracow, has decreed as follows: The distribution of pictures and writings which present the devotion to the Divine Mercy in the forms proposed by Sister Faustina, should be forbidden…”( March 6, 1959; AAS 51-271)
Yes I did read the article and I know the the suppression was lifted. The problem is it was lifted by the Polish pride (pride= not a good thing) of a V2 anti-pope. I never stated that the devotion of The Divine Mercy was an original product of the V2 new religion, but I will say it has been promoted in order to displace the Sacred Heart devotion which is well promoted by saints and popes.
I will pray for you. I know you read my previous post which confirms that I actually will do that.
On a side note. You wrote “diss on it” in your response to my post. Are you 10 years old and “hangin wit yo homeys”? Are we to take you seriously?
Who banned reading Saint Faustina’s diary?
What I mean to say Aunt Margaret is this: wasn’t that ban put in place by Saint John XXIII, one of your ‘anti-popes’? So by that reckoning that ban would be invalid would it not? Or do we pick and choose our anti-popes according to our own opinion of them?
Aunt Margaret,
Are you denying the validity of Pope John-Paul II? Before you answer, consider carefully the host of doctrinal, theological, and scriptural problems with the idea that the popes since Vatican II are all invalid and false anti-popes.
Appealing to pride as a justification of another to act is an argument based on appeal to emotion, which is a fallacy, and not a valid argument.
I think the conversation is straying here.
However, the words “valid” and “anti-pope” are either misused or misunderstood as the case may be. Vaild is the same as saying “it happened”. Was JP II a valid pope? He was elected, no?
Anti-popes most certainly have existed and it doesn’t invalidate their papacy. Anti-popes make frequent theological or canon errors regarding how they guide and protect the Church, mostly against a particular heresy. The exception is when they pronounce something ex cathedra in which The Holy Spirit will not allow an error to be pronounced.
We forget, the pope is a human being fully capable of committing an error or sin. He is the “Vicar of Christ” which means he is the second in command.
Since the freemasons were founded, popes have warned against modernism creeping into the Church. That is something to take seriously because such errors are meant to bend us more to a man centric attitude rather than a God centric one.
Our Blessed Mother has been given the title, “Destroyer of Heresies” because She always points to Her Son and tells us, “Do as He says”. It is because of Her undeserving loyalty as His mother that God has given to Her the triumph against the devil. Imagine how Satan must feel about that! She alone occupies the office She was given and charged to accomplish through God’s will.
The disorientation and diabolical confusion Our Lady has warned about was not just about the world but the Church as well. Traditions of the Church are being removed so that it is demolished. “Cling to tradition” is what we are commanded to do in the scripture. The changes introduced since Our Lady requested the Secret of Fatima to be revealed before 1961 (there are no coincidences) have made it so not even Pius XII would not recognize the Church he piloted.
Sr Faustina’s diary and the Divine Mercy were banned. The ban was lifted only because the list of banned publications was removed. Think about that. You can study any ridiculous writing you want, fill your head with various errors and that’s perfectly fine. Would that also not follow that a pope would further cause confusion in approving erroneous writings? Logically, the answer is “yes” . Not only does this change cause disorientation but also the change in assigning indults to a devotion. In the past, devotionals had an explicit indult, the granting of specific favors by God. It may have been specific years of pardon from purgatory or a definite outcome to a situation. That changed and the Vatican can just grant an indult without specifying it’s nature.
Again, the 7 Fatima prayers are what has the absolute approval of God Himself to appease Him, not the Divine Mercy which is surrounded by the aforementioned errors. You cannot expect to gain good fruit from a bad tree. How has this plea for mercy been working out since it’s installation as a devotional? Take a good look at the world and I think you will see very clearly.
Fatima has always had the specific answers. Only foolishness would say to God, “No. We’ll give you what we want.”
I would just warn you: do not oppose Fatima and the Divine Mercy devotion. They are the same thing. Do not oppose the Mother to her Son.
An antipope is someone elected in opposition to a canonically elected pope. They take the functions of the pope, usually because of some political intrigue, but someone else (usually in prison) is the actual pope. THEREFORE NOTHING AN ANTIPOPE EVER DOES ANYWHERE IS VALID. They CANNOT speak ex cathedra because they are NOT THE POPE, at anytime ever.
So get your facts straight before citing the ban implemented by a Saint whom you choose to call an antipope in support of a flawed argument.
^Unswerving was substituted by auto correct with “undeserving”.
You are correct the conversation has strayed and thank you Marian Defender for answering the questions put to me. In conclusion I will say, as a veteran chaperone of two World Youth Days (Australia and Spain) before I came to my senses, from John XXIII through Francis ” by their fruits you shall know them”. We have been warned of them and here they are. You can (and will eventually) put “saint” before each of their names and cling to false devotions but the V2 sect and it’s Protestant mass lead to a broad gate. A very broad gate. The crowd is rushing towards those gates and I am in the middle, clawing my way back.I am a great sinner. Please keep me in your prayers.
I will also conclude, being a military veteran, I am keenly aware of the spiritual battle that is taking place on every front including those against the hearts and minds of the Church’s people. Many of the ordained are on the road to perdition and taking with them many more souls to hell, as Our Lady forewarned. Divine Mercy grants no indult to combat this. You bring a cap gun to a battle and not only are you neutralized but good as dead. That is what is happening now. Abortion, euthanasia, pornography, war, rioting, attacks on the Church, Christians being beheaded, etc…
It is the only weapon against the greatest enemy of the fallen human race… despair.
Odyssey, I believe that you should do some reading and compare the diary of Sr Faustina to any of the Fatima books where Sr Lucia is interviewed. It is obvious through your accusation of “opposing Jesus to His Mother” that you have not read nor even counter what I have posted above.
In her diary, it is Sr Faustina, whom through some sort of error, believes that Jesus told her that she is more United to Him than “any other creature”. That is contrary to the position Our Blessed Mother was given to hold. Given the errors of her diary, which are pitted against the messages of Fatima, various apparitions and Miracle of The Sun included which indicate an astoundingly unique approval if The 7 Fatima Prayers to obtain the graces we need for our times, it seems apparent that Divine Mercy, which by the way has had no visible sign of gaining mercy for a world bursting with evil.
The 7 Fatima prayers and 5 First Saturdays have not been given the promulgation that Divine Mercy has and Our Lord decreed that He wanted the devotion to the Immaculate Heart established in the world.
How have we been doing with fulfilling His wishes?
If Saint Faustina is, as you say, ‘making herself equal to the Blessed Mother,’ how is it that she relates many, many instances of herself going to Confession? That is something that our Lady never needed to do.
Good point. Also, when Our Lord says that she is united to Him more than any other creature, that would obviously includ “minus the Blessed Mother since She is greater”. Our Lord knows that St. Faustina knows (like every other Catholic) that Our Lady is higher than any other creature, so there is no need for Jesus to state something that St. Faustina (and the rest of us) already know!
For example, in his Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul states that all have sinned, but he fails to say “except Jesus and Mary” – why? Because he assumes that his readers already know these two Persons are exempt from sin! The same with this “Faustina makes herself equal to Mary” business.
I have noticed this trend amongst certain people to use St. John XXIII (an ‘anti-pope’ in their eyes) to prove that the Divine Mercy Devotion is bad! Erm, if St. John XXIII is an “anti-pope” how is he an authority on anything, least of all what devotions should be approved?! Faulty reasoning there.
Modern man has distorted the Christian message so as to suggest everyone goes to heaven. The Church has never taught that. However, Divine Mercy is the very essence God’s entry into history. “God so Lloved the world that He sent His own Son…” Faustina’ life work was to shine light on God’s mercy. If you read the diary her humility shines through constantly. She’s very unsure of herself, very human. Like with many saints her union with our Lord is intimate and mystical. Such union can strike a person as shocking even inappropriate. Lastly the chaplet is really quite eucharistic: We offer to you (God the Father) the body and blood….in ATONEMENT for our SINS. This prayer is really quite traditional.
Jesus so loved the world that He gave us Mary to be our mother. Who needs a secretary of mercy, faustina, when we have the mother of Mercy, Mary?
Then why do we need saints if we have the Blessed Mother? Isn’t she Queen of all Saints? Why do we need apostles if we have the Blessed Mother? Isn’t she Queen of Apostles? Are not we all created in the likeness and image of God, and doesn’t he have a plan for each of us? Each of us is made to reflect an aspect of God, so St. Faustina reflected his mercy. Does that mean she is competing with the Blessed Mother? No. God uses each one of us, and sometimes he uses us for similar purposes. Some of these comments are childish, as if Jesus, his mother, and and the saints can’t do the same thing. Aren’t we the body of Christ? Don’t we all work together? Each one is important, even the weakest among us. I think that needs more reflection here.
I am the person who raised this subject with Michael Hinchborn because I was concerned that he was, in effect, torpedoing any possible good he could achieve by virtue of, in my opinion, his unwisely promoting what is a Devotion of extremely doubtful validity – the fact that Pope John Paul II approved it should be a sufficient warning to any prudent Catholic to proceed with great caution.
As the Admin. of the FB Forum Catholic Prophecy, Consecration of Russia and the Seven Ages of the Church I posted a link to a very revealing article which revealed that Sr Faustina’s alleged spiritual experience was, for all intents and purposes, a re-run of the Alleged Apparitions experienced by a Mariavite Nun (since excommunicated) some 50 years before.
The evidence and the relevant part of the discussion on that FB forum can be read here –
EXCERPT – (LJM – I did not realise that some of the links in the above article are down and that they do not take you to the respective articles. I did a little google research to see if I could find a comparison between the visions of Sr Maria Franciszkia Kozlowska and Sr Maria Faustyna Kowalska and I found the following – whilst the website is written in the Polish language there is a translation link which appears on each page – it seems to me that there is a remarkable similarity between the visions of the two sisters sufficient for me to say “Beware – be prudent – be careful” before accepting this Divine Mercy Devotion as being from Almighty God. Here is the link (there is an English translation link at the top of the webpage):
http://www.miesiecznik.znak.com.pl/3875/meandry-mistyki-miedzy-herezja-i-ortodoksja
Meandry mistyki: między herezją i ortodoksją – Józef Maciejowski – Miesięcznik Znak
Magazyn o tematyce społeczno-religijno-kulturalnej. Wydawany od 1946…
MIESIECZNIK.ZNAK.COM.PL
April 10 at 11:54am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Duc Berwick Good lot of comments, I will certainly go through them. As I am looking to refute Sr. Faustina.
April 11 at 4:14am · Like
Lawrence John Myers I have never heard of such a thing happening in the Catholic Church before. When researching this subject I found a Mariavite site which rejoiced in the fact that JPII approved the visions of Sr Faustina because, in their opinion, that ratified the visions of Sr Kozlowska. How about that for logic? smile emoticon
April 11 at 4:18am · Edited · Like · 2
Lawrence John Myers Duc, What I find interesting about these sorts of subjects is the passion that people have who support one view or the other. Friendships have been lost because many people can’t accept that they might be wrong in their opinions.
April 11 at 4:23am · Like · 2
Duc Berwick Yes……..i am still working on it. I am getting close though. It is becoming alarmingly evident that DVM is overwhelming the adoration for Rosary.
But in the SSPX Christian Warfare blue book that depraved prayer is there unsure emoticon
April 11 at 4:27am · Like
Lawrence John Myers Speaking from a legal perspective I think a case could be made out that Sr Faustina plagiarised a lot of her ideas from Sr Kozlowska.
April 11 at 4:35am · Like · 2
Duc Berwick That would be brilliant, I hope someone does it.
April 11 at 4:35am · Like
Lawrence John Myers Whoever does it could make a lot of money and become extremely famous but who would be bothered? The wise person would not touch this devotion with a forty foot pole (hahaha!!! pun intended!!! LOL!!!)
What is your problem with Pope John Paul II?
Lawrence,
I’m not finding a link to an English version of the website.
You shoot yourself in the foot, Lawrence myers when you suggest that DVM ought to be avoided with a forty foot pole. How can you assert that and at the same time urge for a scholarly comparison of Faustina with some other nun. If academic study of the obscure problematic writings of some specific nun is so essential for understanding Faustina then maybe you better get to work!
Btw. fearing and dismissing the DVM devotion because it seems to come at the expense of the rosary strikes me as childish. The rosary is also based on private revelations, to st dominic. Yes, it played a decisive role in the battle at Lepanto and has a glorious history. Perhaps when the rosary was gaining support it may have seemed to supplant some other prayers. Perhaps some felt threatened by this new prayer with beads. The Divine Mercy devotion by comparison is newly developed. Something being of recent development ought not to alarm the serious catholic. If God ‘s Providence is still at work today then why shouldn’t His members today continue to bring devotions to his flock. The divine mercy may prove to be another powerful weapon in the arsenal of Church militant. Especially today as the Church is in a fight as great as ever in her history, we believers ought to find one another and help one another. Yes, disorientation and diabolical confusion abound, all the more reason to try to avoid frothing at the mouth. Yes it is frustrating and demeaning to be ridiculed and cast aside by modernists but Christ forgave even those who crucify Him. No one said being a believer would be easy.
This is what Fr Paul Kramer has to say about the Maria Divine Mercy Devotion…anyone interested can access his Timeline on Facebook to confirm it…I would suggest that any prudent Catholic should stay well clear of this devotion but I note that there are a lot of people on this blog who can’t seem to think clearly on this subject as they are not deterred by Sr Faustina plagiarising her material from an excommunicated nun 50 years beforehand.
I really am amazed there are people professing to be Catholic who are taken in by this deception –
WHOEVER PROFESSES THE HERESY OF MARIA DIVINE MERCY FALLS INTO HERESY AND OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Moira Murphy O Mahoney, Gianna Rae, Donna Ayers-Vorbach, Teresa Koenig Hoffmann, Lori Micklas Bonner, Amy Unholzer, Kathy Lopez, Patricia Maria Arrachea, Rosa A. Lopes:
Are MDM followers not aware that Jesus Christ bestowed upon His Church the authority to “bind and loose”??? (MATTHEW 18:18) — which includes the power to permit and forbid, approve and CONDEMN, absolve and EXCOMMUNICATE.
IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE: MDM’s HERESY is based on Mary Carberry’s private interpretation of scripture which opposes the Catholic Faith. Whoever professes the heresies of MDM CEASES TO BE CATHOLIC. The first bond of communion is FAITH. If you deny even ONE article of faith, you cease to have the Catholic faith; and thus, you excommunicate yourself and cease to be a member of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church professes the ARTICLE OF FAITH that the Canon of Scripture is DEFINED and CLOSED. There is no missing book. Christ did not promise the Book of Truth to be found at the End Time and added to Sacred Scripture: THAT IS MARY CARBERRY’S BIZARRE, PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 2 Peter 1:20 –
“Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.”
This article is not about Maria Divine Mercy.
Msgr. patrick perez states in his article that “centainly the graces are always from heaven but the devotion may not be. in my own view if something does not come from God it comes from the devil. But why will God give graces to people through the divine mercy devotion that supposedly does not come from God as some people are saying. Msgr patrick perez also says that the light that were eminating from the heart of jesus were three; red blue and white but it is two light that were eminiting from the heart of jesus the red and the white rays which symbolises the blood and water that gushed forth from the side of our lord Jesus Christ on the cross of calvary. Please can someone explain, i am confused on why people continue to say that divine mercy devotion is not a devotion from God.
If our Pope and therefore our Church gives us a teaching, we should obey. Obedience is more valuable than nitpicking over whether the Divine Mercy image looks “creepy” to one Msgr. I am not obligated to be in obedience to Msgr Perez. I am obligated to obedience to the Pope. If Pope St JP II declared The Feast of Divine Mercy and subsequent popes have not changed this, I obey my Church and my Pope.
The spirit of division is from the evil one.
Amen Maria Burmaster!!!!
And you would kiss the koran as did J2?
No! You are NOT obligated to be in obedience to the Pope!
Baltimore Catechism 4 125
—125 Q. When does the Church teach infallibly?
A. The Church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and bishops united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals.
But how will we know when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, when he is speaking daily to people from all parts of the world? To speak ex cathedra or infallibly, three things are required:
(1) He must speak as the head of the whole Church, not as a private person; and in certain forms of words by which we know he is speaking ex cathedra.
(2) What he says must hold good for the whole Church—that is, for all the faithful, and not merely for this or that particular person or country.
(3) He must speak on matters of faith or morals—that is, when the Holy Father tells all the faithful that they are to believe a certain thing as a part of their faith; or when he tells them that certain things are sins, they must believe him and avoid what he declares to be sin. He could not make a mistake in such things. He could not say that Our Lord taught us to believe and do such and such, if Our Lord did not so teach, because Our Lord promised to be with His Church for all time, and to send the Holy Ghost, who would teach it all truth and abide with it forever. If then the Church could make mistakes in teaching faith and morals, the Holy Ghost could not be with it, and Our Lord did not tell the truth—to say which would be blasphemy.
But remember, the Pope is not infallible unless he is teaching faith or morals; that is, what we believe or do in order to save our souls. If the Holy Father wrote a book on astronomy, mathematics, grammar, or even theology, he could make mistakes as other men do, because the Holy Ghost has not promised to guide him in such things. —–
Very interesting discussion with a broad view of many Catholics with good intentions. We must study this further, especially about the Feast of Mercy, which the Church has established as Divine Mercy Sunday. Simply put, the Feast of Mercy, which Jesus specifically asked to be placed on the Sunday after Easter, is actually a Grande Finale of the 8 day Feast of Easter, called the Octave Day of Easter. The former nickname “Low Sunday” for that day, was a very terrible mistake, and went against every good liturgical teaching for the 8 day Easter feast. Like many great feast, festivals, carnivals, and the like, if a grand prize is offered, it is always given out on the Grande Finale. So it is with the gift of the total forgiveness of sins and punishment offered for the Feast of Mercy.
I kind of wondered that since the words of Faustina say in the Chaplet: “For the sake of His Sorrowful Passion”…one would have put the Divine Mercy Sunday on the same day as Passion Sunday ..which I believe was removed after VII. I think it would have made more sense to have combined Mercy Sunday along with Passion Sunday. Just a thought. I think poor doubting St. Thomas has lost his place on the First Sunday after Easter and to be honest, I would have rather hear a good sermon on him. his doubting, and his ‘My Lord and My God,” and also remember that Easter is a joy-filled season of Christ is Risen!! It is His Resurrection that we should honor during Easter. Mercy is given to us through good confessions, and also when our dear Lord gives each of us another day to be in this world in order to get better spiritually. I have found however that because of the issue of Faustina and her mercy, the Sacred Heart of Jesus is hardly, if at all recognized, including first Fridays as well. That seems very sad.
Divine mercy was created to supercede saying the Rosary. With the Rosary we meditate on decades. With Divine mercy we meditate on nothing.
Divine mercy was forbidden prior to V2.
While the pope is the pope, he is not catholic (“i believe in God but not the Catholic god.”) And all the popes since V2 have worked towards the destruction of the Catholic Church (banjo masses, clown masses, pervert priests, etc) without so much as a slapping wrists. It makes me want to vomit.
Just stick to what was approved prior to V2 and what Our Lady gave us.
Do 15 decades a day and remember that God takes care of fools and little children.
Viva Cristo rey!
ST. FAUSTINA IS A FRAUD AND DIVINE MERCY DEVOTION IS FROM SATAN TO CONFUSE & MISLEAD SOULS
MY EXPERIENCE READING THE DIARY OF FAUSTINA- 2014 https://www.facebook.com/marie.desilva.353
https://www.facebook.com/marie.desilva.353/posts/10211730427789662
Our Lord is portrayed as a clown, a man obsessed with Faustina alone who contradicts himself according to Faustina.
FAUSTINA’S DIARY
In #1489 FAUSTINA CALLS HERSELF “A PERFECT SOUL” : CONVERSATION OF THE MERCIFUL GOD WITH A PERFECT SOUL – MESSAGES Faustina supposedly alleges Jesus gave her
1605 My daughter…your thoughts are united to My thoughts, so write whatever comes to your mind. ..
1760 Know that you are now on a great stage where all heaven and earth are watching you.
535: “The smallest act of My spouse, is of infinite value.”
587 Then I heard these words: With no other soul do I unite Myself as closely and in such a way as I do with you…
I guess, our Lord forgot His Blessed Mother??????
According to you, not the Holy See which has not only authority to rule on such matters, but an obligation to obedience to follow and accept the judgments it rules. To still proclaim contrary to this is a heresy under Vatican encuring the centure of “an anthema.”
You cannot at the same time claim faithfulness to Christ, and willfully and wantonly defame the lawful decisions of his. Body.
I have a YEAR 1944 Divine Mercy chaplet that states.
“Through the most sorrowful passion of JESUS”
JESUS IS THE IMPORTANT SACRED WORD IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
Millions of people could be saying the HOLY NAME OF JESUS
Philippians 2 : 10
That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:
“Through HIS most sorrowful passion” is not the Holy Name of JESUS.
Help return the Holy Name
Timothy, — Is it the same Divine Mercy chaplet you refer (1944) as we pray today? Do you have a booklet you could share the entire text? Thank you! God Bless, — Alex.
Reading this a bit late, but Mr Hichborn and the Lepanto Institute are just about to be removed from my email box – or rather I am about to remove myself from their mailing lists! anyone who ‘defends’ this devotion is suspect, as far as I’m concerned. These days, it’s getting increasingly difficult to find any solidly reliable sources for Roman Catholicism.
I honestly believed the Lepanto Institute could be trusted to be authentically Catholic. Now I don’t know what to believe. There is more than sufficient grounds to believe that the so-called “Divine Mercy” devotion is a Modernist invention being pushed to ultimately replace devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, a devotion given by Jesus Christ Himself to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647–1690). When in doubt, the Saints teach that we should stick with Tradition. Many things surrounding the “Divine Mercy” image and story are quite doubtful at best. Forewarned is forearmed. Prudence is never wrong! Long Live the Sacred Heart of Jesus!
Just a question: One objection to the Divine Mercy image is that one cannot see any wounds in Our Lord’s hands or feet. Yet this is supposed to be the image Sister Faustina saw and the painting of it was approved by her. Am I wrong?
Brian, the wounds of Christ are visible in the Divine Mercy image. Look carefully.
The Divine Mercy diary and image stands condemned, just like the first polish revelations of “ the Work of Great Mercy”. These Mariavites claimed the same merciful Jesus was about to punish the world but would first offer this mercy without contrition. The “ little mother “ who got the messages along with John Kowalski were visiting a certain Abbe Boullan to learn satanic arts. Boullan inherited leadership of the Great Mercy from
Eugene Vintras. That should suffice to get you going. They were the most satanic group out, and JPII wanted ecumenism with them, he allowed a heretic from the sect to say a “mass”. JPII was part of the Satanic theatre group of Blavatsky. He also tried to exalt Sopocko who was censured for trying to get the Devine mercy into the Liturgy. At VII they got a lot of what they wanted .
Schismatic chapel? You have no clue,neither the author of this post, but that’s ok, go ahead and pray a devotion that has no sacrifice and penance in it.
Well if you like a devotion with no sacrifice and no penance, go ahead, pray it all day long.
Have you read the Diary?
Show me where it says no sacrifice, no penance?
You are totally equivocating according to your emotional senses and not Prudence and understanding God’s Divine Justice, and His Merciful Love!
“An act of love always tends towards two things; to the good that one wills, and to the person for whom one wills it: since to love a person is to wish that person good. Hence, inasmuch as we love ourselves, we wish ourselves good; and, so far as possible, union with that good. So love is called the unitive force, even in God, yet without implying composition; for the good that He wills for Himself, is no other than Himself, Who is good by His essence, as above shown (I:6:1 and I:6:3). And by the fact that anyone loves another, he wills good to that other. Thus he puts the other, as it were, in the place of himself; and regards the good done to him as done to himself. So far love is a binding force, since it aggregates another to ourselves, and refers his good to our own. And then again the Divine Love is a binding force, inasmuch as God wills good to others; yet it implies no composition in God.” (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm)