To My Readers: This coming Sunday, April 16, 2023, will be for Traditionalist Catholics, Low Sunday, bringing Easter Week to a glorious conclusion. For members of the Vatican II sect, they will celebrate Divine Mercy Sunday, a false devotion coming from false private revelations given to a pseudo-saint and promoted by John Paul the Great Apostate. I can't thank my guest poster, Lee, enough for this eye-opening post! Please feel free to comment as usual. If anyone has a specific comment or question for me, I will answer as always, but it may take me longer than usual to respond this week.
God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo
Divine or Diabolical?
By Lee
One thing I remember most in my Novus Ordo days was April 30, 2000, when John Paul II canonized Sr. Maria Faustina Kowalska. He didn't just do that but he also established what is now known as Divine Mercy Sunday, which takes place on the Sunday after Easter. At that time, before social media was a part of everybody's daily life, news of the event was still able to spread throughout the world.
EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) or as I like to call it, Eternal Wishful Thinking Network started playing the Divine Mercy chaplet every day at 3 PM. Parishes adopted the same practice and erected images of the Divine Mercy in just about every church you entered. Sr. Faustina's Diary was recommended at "Catholic" book stores and by clergy universally. Divine Mercy Sunday, which replaced Low Sunday, seemed as if it was as popular as Easter in many places where its diehard devotees dwelt.
For a short while, I was devoted to saying the chaplet, passing out images, and promoting the message of mercy from the Diary, even though I hadn't read it yet. It was highly recommended by my confessor at the time, along with some nuns whom I knew, and so I figured it was a safe devotion just as any devotion approved by the Church. "Pope" John Paul II fully endorsed Divine Mercy.
As pious and harmless as it may seem, there are numerous problems with the Divine Mercy devotions; from its overall message to the Diary itself.
Background Info.
Maria Faustina Kowalska was born in Glogowiec, Poland on 8-25-1905, the third of ten children of a poor family whose father was a carpenter by trade and a mother who was very pious. She later stated in her Diary that she first felt a calling to the religious life while she attended the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament at the age of 7. She wanted to enter the convent after she had completed her time at school, but her parents would not give her permission. When she was 16, she went to work as a housekeeper to support herself and to help her parents.
When she was 18, she went with her sister to a dance in a park in Lodz. At the dance, she had a vision of a suffering Jesus, who she believed asked her: 'How long shall I put up with you and how long will you keep putting Me off?" From there she immediately went to the Cathedral in Lodz, where, as she later said, Jesus instructed her to depart for Warsaw immediately and to enter a convent. Without asking her parents' permission, and despite not knowing anybody in Warsaw, she took a train to go to Warsaw, which was about 85 miles away. When she arrived at her destination, she entered the first church that she saw which was named Saint James, and attended Mass. She asked the priest, Father Dąbrowski, for suggestions, and he recommended staying with Mrs. Lipszycowa, a local woman, until she found a convent.
Being rejected by several convents it was not until 1925 that the mother superior of the Sisters of Mercy accepted her after she had worked as a housemaid to save up some money to enter. On April 30, 1926 (ironically the same day she was canonized by JPII 74 years later) she took the religious name of Sister Maria Faustina (coming from the masculine form of the Roman Martyr Faustinus) of the Blessed Sacrament. By 1928, she completed the novitiate and took her first vows.
In 1930 she would end up in Plock, Poland. After recovering from a severe illness, it wasn't until 1931 when she started having more visions of Jesus. On the night of February 22 of that year, she claims Jesus appeared to her in her cell dressed in white garments with rays of red and white pouring forth from His chest, and that He said to her, "Paint an image according to the pattern you see, with the signature: "Jesus, I trust in You" (in Polish: "Jezu, ufam Tobie"). I desire that this image be venerated, first in your chapel, and then throughout the world. I promise that the soul that will venerate this image will not perish." (Diary #47-48).
The only problem was Sr. Faustina did not know how to paint so she approached some other nuns of her Order to help. Her confessor hired an artist and in 1934 the first painting of the image was produced as seen here: https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message/devotions/image
After taking her final vows in 1933, she was transferred to the convent of Vilnius (what is now Lithuania) with 18 other sisters, and worked as a gardener. It was here where she for the first time met Fr. Michael Sopocko whom she confessed to and claimed she had been conversing with Jesus. Fr. Sopocko insisted on that she complete a full psychiatric evaluation conducted by Helena Maciejewska, who was the psychiatrist and physician associated with the convent. This took place in 1933 and she passed the required tests declaring her sound of mind. As a result of this, Fr. Sopocko began to trust her visions and supported her efforts.
In his memoirs, Fr. Sopocko shared a recollection: "During the Holy Week of 1935 Sr. Faustina said to me that the Lord Jesus demanded that I place the picture in the Gate of Dawn for three days where the triduum at the end of the jubilee of Redemption was to be held...The triduum, he continued, was planned on the same days as the coveted feast of Mercy. Soon I learnt that the said triduum was going to be held indeed and the parish priest of the Gate of Dawn asked me to say the sermon. I agreed, on condition that the picture would be placed as a decoration in the window of the cloister where the picture looked impressive and attracted more attention than the picture of Our Lady." (The Gate of Dawn, was a chapel dedicated to Mary, Mother of Mercy, 400 years earlier.)
In her diary, Sr. Faustina wrote: "On Friday, when I was at the Gate of Dawn to attend the ceremony during which the image was displayed, I heard a sermon given by my confessor Father Sopocko. This sermon about Divine Mercy was the first of the things that Jesus had asked for so very long ago. When he began to speak about the great mercy of the Lord, the image came alive, and the rays pierced the hearts of the people gathered there. Great joy filled my soul to see the grace of God."
After the image was painted under her direction in 1935, Sr. Faustina claimed to have received a vision of an angel sent by God to chastise a certain city. She began to pray for mercy, but her prayers were powerless. Suddenly she saw the Holy Trinity and felt the power of Jesus’ grace within her as she claims. At the same time she found herself pleading with God for mercy with "words she heard interiorly."
Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world; for the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us. (Diary, Notebook 1 Entry 475).
As she continued saying this prayer, the angel supposedly became helpless and could not carry out the deserved punishment (entry 474). The next day, as she was entering the chapel, she again heard this interior voice, instructing her how to recite the prayer that our Lord later called "the Chaplet." This time, after "have mercy on us" were added the words "and on the whole world" (entry 476). From then on, she recited this form of prayer almost constantly, offering it especially for the dying.
In subsequent revelations, the Lord made it clear that the Chaplet was not just for her, but for the whole world. He also attached extraordinary promises to its recitation.
Prayed on ordinary rosary beads, The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy is an intercessory prayer that extends the offering of the Eucharist, so it is especially appropriate to use it after having received Holy Communion at Holy Mass. It may be said at any time, but our Lord specifically told Sr. Faustina to recite it during the nine days before the Feast of Mercy (the first Sunday after Easter). He then added: "By this Novena, [of Chaplets] I will grant every possible grace to souls." (Notebook 2 Entry 796).
It is claimed to be likewise appropriate to pray the Chaplet during the "Hour of Great Mercy" at three o'clock each afternoon (recalling the time of Christ’s death on the cross). In His revelations to Sr. Faustina, Our Lord asked for a special remembrance of His Passion at that hour. The purpose of reciting the prayer of mercy (as she writes) was threefold: to obtain mercy, to trust in Christ's mercy, and to show mercy to others.
By 1936, Sr. Faustina had to return to Poland. In the meantime her confessor, Fr. Sopocko, wrote the first brochure on the Divine Mercy devotion, and Bp. Jalbrzykowski provided his imprimatur (Latin: Let it be printed) for it. The brochure carried the Divine Mercy image on the cover. Fr. Sopocko sent copies of the brochure to Kowalska in Warsaw. At first, she went to Walendow, south-east of Warsaw. After she was diagnosed with tuberculosis, she was sent to the sanatorium in Pradnik, Krakow.
In July 1937, the first holy cards with the Divine Mercy image were printed. In August, Sopocko asked Kowalska to write the instructions for the Novena of Divine Mercy, which she had reported as a message from Jesus on Good Friday of that year.
Finally, in 1938, her health deteriorated due to her aggressive disease, and Fr. Sopocko saw her for the last time in September of that year. She died 10/5/1938.
The Main Problems
Many proponents who argue in favor of the image and its devotions will point to where Pope Pius XII blessed the image in 1956. However, in the same year, after his blessing, the Diary of Sr. Faustina was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. This fact is written off by its promoters, claiming the Pope was given faulty translations and that later it was dismissed. The real reason wasn't due to faulty translations, but because of the revelations themselves, and other circumstances of the so-called apparitions Sr. Faustina claimed to have had. Things alarming enough for the pope to have a second look at it based on what Our Lord supposedly told Sr. Faustina to make public. Any writings placed on the Index means the content poses as a danger to souls by potentially leading the faithful astray. Therefore, it was a serious matter.
Shortly after the death of Pope Pius XII, it was under John XXIII (when the Supreme sacred Congregation of the Holy Office still existed) that two prohibitions were placed on her writings. The first condemnation was in a plenary meeting held on November 19, 1958. The declaration from the Holy Office issued these three statements about this devotion:
1. There is no evidence of the supernatural origin of these revelations. This would mean that the members of the Holy Office (the same clergy under Pius XII from the previous month of his death) examined the content and decided that there was nothing to indicate the apparitions were supernatural.
2. No feast of Divine Mercy should be instituted. The Church cannot institute a feast based on something that's not without doubt coming from God and if it be false that would mean the Church would err, which is impossible.
3. It is forbidden to disseminate writings propagating this devotion under the form received by Sr. Faustina, as well as the image typical of it. In other words, no image, no book, no chaplet (prayers). It's all forbidden
On March 6, 1959, the Holy Office issued a second decree which stated that it was up to the bishops to decide how they were going to remove the images that had already been displayed for public honor.
What in the Diary could lead souls astray?
Let us start examining some passages in the Diary:
Red Flag #1
In her diary the following is stated by Jesus "I desire that the Feast of Mercy be a refuge and shelter for all souls, and especially for poor sinners. On that day the very depths of My tender mercy are open. I pour out a whole ocean of graces upon those souls who approach the Fount of My Mercy. The soul that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion shall obtain complete forgiveness of sins and punishment. On that day all the divine floodgates through which graces flow are opened. Let no soul fear to draw near to Me, even though its sins be as scarlet." (Notebook 2 Entry #699; Emphasis added).
It's true that when a Catholic goes to confession, he/she can be morally certain that he/she is in the state of grace and is forgiven. However, the Church teaches that in order to avoid the punishment due to sin (Purgatory) a Catholic must do penance, receive the sacraments, and pray, which are the conditions for receiving plenary indulgences if the Church grants them. Punishment due to sin doesn't just go away once you've gone to confession and I would highly doubt that Our Lord would intend for Catholics to believe something contrary to what His Church teaches.
Red Flag #2
On February 4, 1935, Our Lord supposedly tells her “From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.” (Notebook 1 Entry 374; Emphasis added).
When someone dies, they go to the particular Judgement. This is dogma. At Fatima, the Blessed Mother told Jacinta and Francisco they would go to Heaven, but not that they would be exempt from Judgement. The statement attributed to Our Lord is also very problematic because there would be no point for Faustina to stay on earth if she is already worthy of Heaven.
Red Flag #3
On October 2, 1936, she states that the “Lord Jesus” appeared to her and said, “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.” (Notebook 2 Entry 707; Emphasis added).
Are we to believe that Our Lord unites Himself more intimately with Sr. Faustina than with the Blessed Virgin Mary? Or how about St. Joseph or St. John the Baptist or even some of the highest angels? This statement is no doubt at least erroneous.
Red Flag #4
May 23, 1937 she exclaims that Jesus says this in her diary "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.” (Notebook 3 Entry 1061; Emphasis mine).
This is not only absurd but contrary to the purpose of needing mercy. Why should she ask for mercy before she dies if her love is already purer than the angels? Also if Our Lord, for her sake, was about to bless the world by pouring out His mercy, why did WWII happen shortly after these visions?
Red Flag #5
In her diary she claims “And the Host came out of the Tabernacle and came to rest in my hands and I, with joy, placed It back in the Tabernacle. This was repeated a second time, and I did the same thing. Despite this, it happened a third time.” (Notebook 1 entry #44)
This is by far the most bizarre statement. Why would a consecrated Host of Our Lord do this three times? For what purpose? Is is because Sr. Faustina is purer than the angels or Our Lord is united Himself more intimately with her than any other creature?
Quietism: A Forgotten Heresy
Quietism was a 17th century heresy espoused by Michael Molinos whose heresy denied the necessity of human activity in contemplation and sanctification. It asserted that the highest spirituality is attained when the mind and will are completely inactive (quiet); any sort of attachment to a divine image and all external forms of worship are hindrances to union with God (passive).
In other words, if one puts trust in mercy alone without the need to make reparation then it is unconditional mercy that person is inclined to believe in, leading that soul to the same error as Michael Molinos who was condemned for presuming God's Mercy by simply believing in being inactive. As Holy Sculpture states, "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, with fear and trembling work out your salvation." Phil. 2:12 (Emphasis added). The image itself doesn't even show the Heart of Jesus which represents His real mercy towards those who intend on doing penance for their sins, as it is understood in the Sacred Heart of Jesus devotion.
Below are a couple of examples taken from the Diary giving the notion that unconditional mercy is all based on total trust:
Tell aching mankind to snuggle close to My merciful Heart, and I will fill it with peace. Tell [all people], My daughter, that I am Love and Mercy itself. When a soul approaches Me with trust, I fill it with such an abundance of graces that it cannot contain them within itself, but radiates them to other souls. (Notebook 3 #1074; Emphasis added).
and
Let souls who are striving for perfection particularly adore My mercy, because the abundance of graces which I grant them flows from My mercy. I desire that these souls distinguish themselves by boundless trust in My mercy. I myself will attend to the sanctification of such souls. I will provide them with everything they will need to attain sanctity. The graces of My mercy are drawn by means of one vessel only, and that is – trust. The more a soul trusts, the more it will receive. Souls that trust boundlessly are a great comfort to Me, because I pour all the treasures of My graces into them. I rejoice that they ask for much, because it is My desire to give much, very much. On the other hand, I am sad when souls ask for little, when they narrow their hearts. (Notebook 3 #1578; Emphasis added).
Adore His mercy? Should we also adore His justice?
Actual graces are what God gives to everyone including the most wretched of sinners regardless of their trust. It's true that we should trust in God and adore Him but we also must fear God in such a way as to avoid offending Him, and if we fall we are suppose to make reparation for the damage done. Confession also brings us into the state of sanctifying grace and we are taught that there are conditions on receiving such graces. That is contrition for sin and a firm resolution not to commit the sin again. This means we hope in His mercy by fulfilling the conditions. Merely trusting in His mercy alone without any action is what is being suggested in the above quotes. This can be understood as the same above mentioned heresy.
"The Deuce" gets his way
Had the Church not gone the way it did in the 60's and 70's, and things were as Catholic as they had always been, we probably wouldn't even know of the Divine Mercy today. It would be as remembered as the Mariavites or Mystic priests (also from Poland) who were condemned by St. Pius X in his 1906 encyclical Tribus Circiter for believing in a Sr. Maria Francesca.
Unfortunately, in 1965 Karol Woytyla, then bishop of Krakow, opened up an investigation into Sr. Faustina's life and virtues and was permitted by the Holy Office to once more look into what the witnesses had to say. Coincidentally enough, the Second Vatican (Robber) Council ended that year and the Holy Office was renamed the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine (Destruction) of the Faith, which by order of Paul VI, in the very next year on June 14th, 1966, abolished the Index of Forbidden Books. (If only Klaus Schwab could re-set things that fast by agenda 2030!). By 1978, Woytyla took the name John Paul II ("The Deuce" as a commenter frequently calls him), and was known as the "Great Mercy Pope."
According to https://www.thedivinemercy.org:
It was "St." "Pope" John Paul II who told the Marian Fathers: “Be apostles of Divine Mercy under the maternal and loving guidance of Mary.” We've been faithfully following his instructions ever since."
Both in his teaching and personal life, "St." "Pope" John Paul II strove to live and teach the message of Divine Mercy. As the great Mercy Pope, he wrote an encyclical on Divine Mercy:
"The Message of Divine Mercy has always been near and dear to me… which I took with me to the See of Peter and which it in a sense forms the image of this Pontificate."
In his writings and homilies, he has described Divine Mercy as the answer to the world’s problems and the message of the third millennium...
In 2002, the "Pope" entrusted the whole world to Divine Mercy when he consecrated the International Shrine of The Divine Mercy in Lagiewniki, a suburb of Krakow in Poland. This is where "St." Faustina’s mortal remains are entombed. The saint lived in a convent nearby. The "Pope" himself remembers as a young man working in the Solvay Quarry, just a few meters from the present-day Shrine. He also says that he had been thinking about Sr. Faustina for a long time when he wrote his encyclical on Divine Mercy. Further, the "Holy Father" has frequently quoted from the Diary of "Saint" Maria Faustina Kowalska and has prayed The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy at the saint’s tomb. (Italics added).
Conclusion
The Divine Mercy was placed on the Index by a true pope and for good reasons, as explained above. It does nothing but replace long standing Catholic devotions such as the Sacred Heart and the Rosary. It fits perfectly with the Vatican II sect agenda: "Out with the old and in with the new." There is nothing wrong with progression so long it conforms with all Catholic truth, but there is something wrong with a new faith that is not Catholic.
The new Magisterium, new Mass, new sacraments, new catechisms, new code of canon law, new evangelization, new theology, new disciplinary laws, new saints, new devotions such as the Divine Mercy and Luminous Mysteries, and even the new acceptance of the LGBTQIA+, have led people down many wrong paths. The Catholic Church leads to salvation. The ape Sect of Vatican II leads to Hell. It's that simple.
Addendum--4/16/23
By Introibo
My apologies to Lee for adding an Addendum to his post, but some are claiming that this devotion may be legitimate because of the "faulty translation" of Faustina's Diary. In this Addendum, I will point out insurmountable obstacles with the CONTENT OF THE DEVOTION ITSELF.
Fatima is an unquestionably approved apparition, and while the Faith does not depend on private revelations, it comports perfectly with Church teaching. Let's compare the two; Fatima vs. Divine Mercy:
1. Fatima gives a very Catholic message that involves stopping sin, praying the Rosary daily, going to Mass on the First Five Saturdays, wearing the scapular, performing penance/acts of reparation, etc.
Faustina's Divine Mercy writings promise mercy for those who believe ('trust'), rather for than those who repent and act rightly. It pervades all her writings and cannot be some alleged "mistranslation." The entire "trust in Jesus" and be cleansed from sin by His Mercy without contrition and penance is very Protestant and pleasing to Vatican II sect ecumenists. Relying on Mercy does nothing to inculcate virtue as does the practices urged at Fatima.
2. Fatima promotes the Most Holy Rosary.
Divine Mercy obliterates the Rosary, by using the Rosary beads for a faux chaplet of Mercy. On the ten beads of each decade where the Hail Mary would be said, it is replaced with "For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world"--a prayer that a Protestant could recite. It also deprives us of imploring the Blessed Mother to pray for us "now and at the hour of our death" at least 50 times. Heaven gave us the Rosary, but Wojtyla who gave us the "Illuminati Mysteries" would do away with it completely an replace it with an ecumenical plea for Mercy apart from penance. At Fatima, Mary added at the end of each decade of the Rosary, "O My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, and lead all souls to Heaven especially those most in need of Thy Mercy."
There is no mention of Hell in the Divine Mercy Chaplet. The closest it comes is "Although sin is an abyss of wickedness and ingratitude, the price paid for us can never be equaled. Therefore, let every soul trust in the Passion of the Lord, and place its hope in His mercy. God will not deny His mercy to anyone." Yes, God will deny His mercy to those who refuse to repent and do penance!! More, "saved by trust in Jesus" Protestant heresy.
3. Fatima promotes the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a perfect complement to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Divine Mercy never mentions the Immaculate Heart, downplays Mary's role in our salvation, and obliterates the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Faustina puts forth an image which can be used by Protestants--a "Heartless" Christ with rays coming from His robes and no Heart pierced by thorns.
As a result, Divine Mercy can lead to: the sin of presumption, failing to do penance and make acts of reparation for sin, and the neglect of approved devotions like the Rosary and the Most Sacred Heart.
Don't let anyone fool you into thinking these grave errors are the result of some "mistranslation." Divine Mercy is a false devotion given by Hell to a false saint and promoted by a false "pope-saint," John Paul the Great Apostate. Be warned.
I haven't read the Diary of "Saint" Faustina but I have already prayed the Rosary of Divine Mercy and I had some images of the merciful Jesus. I threw everything away when I left the V2 sect. The devil managed to deceive everyone with an imitation of the Catholic Church and almost everyone fell into the trap. It is better to trust true approved devotions, we are sure not to be deceived. Happy Easter everyone !
ReplyDeleteSimon,
DeleteHope your Easter was a Blessed one!
God Bless,
---Introibo
I don't have access to Mass so my Easter time was mainly in prayer and meditation on the Passion. It's a great time for that. And I do some reading to educate myself in Catholic doctrine, which I should have done a long time ago but God knows what prevented me from doing so. And it's never too late to seriously study our faith, especially in these difficult times.
DeleteSimon,
ReplyDeleteI used to be a devotee to the Chaplet as well for a short time. In my opinion, it's one of those devotions which is used to legitimatize the Vatican II sect. Surprisingly I have seen the image among a couple traditional Catholic churches either in the church itself or in the vestibule where holy cards were being distributed.
Lee
There are other false devotions in the V2 sect, such as Medjugorje. Christ had warned that there would be false messiahs and false wonders before the end of the world. We are in this period. Unfortunately, the vast majority of members of the V2 sect, who call themselves sincerely Catholic, do not realize that they are being deceived.
DeleteHello Introibo:
ReplyDelete1. When Father Anthony Cekada died, did SSPV announce it publicly?
2. Did Father DePauw have much contact with SSPV when he was alive?
3. When Cardinal Spellman died, did Father DePauw have a Requiem Mass for the Cardinal?
4. Who ordained Father Carl Sulzen of SSPX?
Thank you. Anonymous
Anonymous,
DeleteI had your exact same question regarding (4.). When seeing the options that a close friend of mine in New York had, I came across him, but I don't know myself how to retrieve this information, in general. I've wondered if one should just contact the potential priest personally and ask him, but I don't know. Let's see if Introibo has an answer for us.
God bless,
Dapouf
@anon12:10
Delete1. Not to the best of my knowledge and belief.
2. No, although Clarence Kelly came to Fr. for advice prior to his going to Econe. Say a prayer for Bp. Kelly who celebrates his Golden Anniversary in the priesthood on April 14th. Pray that he may also reverse his obstinate stand against "Thuc Bishops."
3. Yes. The Cardinal died in 1967, prior to his purchase and opening of the Ave Maria Chapel in 1968. He offered the Mass at CTM Headquarters, which were in the Pan Am Building in Manhattan at that time.
4. I have no idea. If one of my readers knows, please comment. In my opinion, ask the priest about his ordination. Any priest who objects, gets upset, or refuses to answer, should be avoided--in my opinion.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Father Carl Sulzen was ordained by Bishop Richard Williamson.We were at his ordination at Winona.
DeleteRegarding (1), I remember Fr. Jenkins asking for prayers for Fr. Cecada before his death, then announcing his death from the pulpit and on WCB, and then asking for prayers for the repose of his soul many Sundays afterward.
Delete@anon2:50,
DeleteThank you for the information!
God bless,
Dapouf
@anon4:26
DeleteThank you! There is no doubt Fr. Sulzen is validly ordained.
God Bless,
---Introibo
We know that just because JP2 promoted the Rosary, that doesn't all of a sudden make it bad. The Divine Mercy devotion was allowed in Poland and Pius XII permitted it. I think we should reject the Novus Ordo usage and someone find a translation from the original Polish to see what's happening instead of rushing to judgment about the whole thing because of mere guilt by association.
ReplyDeleteCorky,
DeletePius XII permitted it at first but later had it put on the index, then the Holy Office condemned it in 1958-1959. I showed the reasons why. Thank you for the comment though.
Lee
Lee, please point me to where Pius XII put it on the index. I've been thru this controversy before and have never seen it yet. Thanks.
DeleteCorky,
DeleteI got it from the Divine Mercy website: https://www.thedivinemercy.org/articles/answering-radical-traditionalist-critiques-divine-mercy-message-and-devotion
About two thirds of the way down they quote Msgr. Patrick Perez who said it was placed on the index by Pius XII. Interestingly they don't deny it but say, "But again, that was in the 1950s, when all the Vatican had was a faulty translation of Faustina’s Diary"
We do know he (Pius XII) blessed the image in 1956 and some local bishops approved of the devotion in the 50's but it was to my understanding that it didn't last long because on November 19th 1958, a couple months after Pius XII's death it was for certain declared by the Holy Office:
1. There is no evidence of the supernatural origin of these revelations.
2. No feast of Divine Mercy should be instituted.
3. It is forbidden to disseminate writings propagating this devotion under the form received by Sr. Faustina, as well as the image typical of it.
I'm not sure where Msgr. Patrick Perez got his information on Pius XII putting it on the index but why would the Holy Office shortly after his death make such profound decrees against the devotion which the Divine Mercy website doesn't deny?
Thank you for pointing out your concern about Pius XII. If I can find out any more details from the Acts of the Apostolic See from the years 1956-1957 to see if he for sure placed it in on the index I will let you know.
Lee
Corky,
DeleteLee is correct, and I wish to add two additional points against so-called "Divine Mercy:"
1. Back in the 1930s, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office warned against any devotion which was a more or less replication of already approved devotions, and would thereby detract from those approved devotions. For this reason, the Holy Office condemned e.g., a devotion to the "Sacred Head of Jesus," which was similar to (and take away from) the approved devotion to the Most Holy Face of Jesus. Divine Mercy detracts from the Mercy of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. Notice that His Heart is obstructed from view in by "rays of mercy" in the Divine Mercy picture/statue.
2. Like John Paul the Great Apostate, "mercy" is not true mercy as it is divorced from the need for CONTRITION and PENANCE--which the Church always stresses as necessary components to obtain mercy.
God Bless,
---Introibo
As Sedevacantists, does it pose an issue for our position that Pius XII blessed the image and allowed its spread for a time?
DeleteAnon 5:36,
DeleteNo. The reason is twofold:
1. In his day it was a relatively new devotion and some bishops were already approving it.
2. The Church hadn't made an official decree on it yet.
The real problem is where the Holy Office condemns it and so many years later John Paul II not only approves it but says:
1. It's of supernatural origin
2. Establishes a feast day for Divine Mercy
3. Allows the Diary and the use of its image to be disseminated throughout the whole world
All three things that the Holy Office had officially said NOT to do.
Lee
Perhaps Lee and Introibo can sign up at http://catholicism.boards.net and we can discuss this? Blogspot is so clunky for discussion it's painful. Or direct me to another forum where discussion is easy.
Delete"Msgr. Patrick Perez" really is just a priest ordained in 1978 and was basically a part of the Novus Ordo. No authority to me. The idea that Pius XII put it on the Index is an error that really refers to the Sacred Congregation after his death. You admit Pius XII blessed the image, so really reasonably we know that what surrounds the devotion was acceptable to that pope. This is why we need to look at the original documents of the devotion to see what is going on.
Corky,
DeleteIt's not a matter a whether "Msgr." Patrick Perez is an authority. He could very well be right about Pius XII. Unfortunately, I don't know where he got his information at this time but I'm sure he didn't make it up or otherwise he wouldn't have said it.
In the article did you read where I talked about the red flags? I quoted directly from the Diary. Do you agree with what is contained in those parts of the book? Would you say that it is not part of the original? If so, why is this version used by everyone familiar with it today?
Also why do you question the Holy Office's take on the matter? Do you not trust in the their judgment?
It seems to me that you must be a devotee to this devotion. Are you and if so why this devotion over the other ones?
Lee
Lee,
DeleteI've made it clear that we should NOT be following this devotion until we know what is really going on with it. Having Pius XII bless the picture and allow it in Poland, and then suddenly the Sacred Congregation waits until his death to quickly condemn it under J23, clearly leaves it open that maybe the original was acceptable and a translation altered it.
I saw where Fr. Perez said what he said, and he was referring to the Congregation after Pius XII died.
Corky,
DeleteLet's assume, ad arguendo, that we "find the original." Who will determine if it is orthodox and worthy to be followed? Neither Lee, you, or me have Magisterial authority to make such a determination. We still have an unapproved devotion. To take matters into your own hands is both foolish and dangerous. Let us leave unapproved devotions alone. There are plenty of approved devotions, such as the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus that deserve to be made part of our spiritual lives.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThe fact that Pius XII allowed the devotion in Poland and blessed the picture, by default, puts the approval on it despite the SC suppressing it under John XIII as soon as Pius XII died.
I am against following this devotion because I don't trust the Novus Ordo to have a correct translation. I want to see what Pius XII approved of. We should all want that rather than rush to judgment because J23 suppressed it and then the Novus Ordo approved of it.
Corky,
DeletePope Pius XII allowed the bishops to decide whether or not to permit the devotion until a through investigation was made. This and a blessing of a picture are in NO WAY a formal approval of a devotion. The Holy Office, all members with Ordinary Jurisdiction to make such judgements, condemned it--- and for good reasons. They were led by Anti-Modernist Cardinal Ottavianni.
So your assertion "I want to see what Pius XII approved of" is misleading because he approved nothing. No Roman Congregation and no papal decree ever approved of Divine Mercy. It is therefore UNAPPROVED.
If we find the "real translation" again, who has Magisterial Authority for a real approval?
God Bless,
---Introibo
Corky- "I've made it clear that we should NOT be following this devotion until we know what is really going on with it." respectfully you've not written anything until your last 2 comments making that "clear", regardless there is so much funny business with this thing you can't ignore it
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteI made it clear 3 days ago when I first commented. You missed it.
Introibo,
DeleteIn the divine Church, "tacit approval" is approval and can be infallible even. Pius XII didn't merely say he didn't know what to think and then ask the bishops to decide (they didn't either). Pius XII blessing the picture shows his approval. It was allowed in Poland.
Now, the SC waited until Pius XII died and rushed to disapprove, under J23. Normally we attribute everything done is done with the approval of the pope, but now you are deliberately disassociating the SC disapproval from J23. That's not the way it is done, unless you are saying J23 was debilitated for some reason.
Corky,
DeleteFrom the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:
"It must not, however, be supposed that devotional extravagances are suffered to multiply unchecked. Although the Holy See as a rule refrains from intervention, except when abuses are directly denounced to it (the practice being in such matters to leave the repression of what is unseemly or fantastic to the local ordinary), still, every now and again, where some theological principle is involved, action is taken by one of the Roman Congregations, and some objectionable practice is prohibited. Not very long since, for example, the propagation of a particular form of prayer was forbidden in connetion with the so-called "Brief of St. Anthony". The history of the slow recognition by the Church of the devotion to the Sacred Heart might very well serve as an illustration of the caution with which the Holy See proceeds in matters where there is question of any theological principle."
Action was taken by the Holy Office with jurisdiction. I disavow nothing. Roncalli approved, but he wanted to seem orthodox in the beginning. Teilhard de Chardin's writings were also censured under Roncalli; do you think that was mistaken in 1962? Roncalli's approval or disapproval mean nothing since he was not pope. The members of the Holy Office ALL APPOINTED BY POPE PIUS XII is another story. Why would Cardinal Ottaviani, a strong supporter of Pope Pius XII "rush" to condemn something you allege Pius approved?
Even pro-Divine Mercy sites agree Pope Pius XII placed it on the Index. This is a strong indication he did do so, or they would simply dismiss it as untrue.
Please give me citations to approved theologians and canonists (or Magisterial decrees) that teach a blessing by a pope and allowing a devotion to stand while it was under investigation by the Holy Office (which it was at the time of the blessing) constitutes "implicit approval" and that said implicit approval is infallible.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThanks for the CE quote.
So, we have the people of Poland practicing the devotion, with the knowledge of their bishops & Pope Pius XII in good health, with the pope actually blessing the picture, which shows some special interest.
Years go by, and silence by the authorities.
Now, I mentioned the principle of "tacit Approval" because it comes into play. I didn't say that in this instance it is infallible, I said that the principle CAN amount to that, in some circumstances. Example:
Omnem Sollicitudinem (1874):
"the liturgy of the Ruthenians can be no other than that which was either instituted by the holy fathers of the Church or ratified by the canons of synods or introduced by legitimate use, always with the express or tacit approval of the Apostolic See."
Now, we cannot ignore that Pope Pius XII and the bishops of Poland were silent. We don't have to wait for an actual document of approval to have significance.
NOTHING suspicious up to then.
Then, we have the claim out there that Pius XII put something on the index. But this is an error. I have been thru this controversy before and he did not. It is a mistake of which pope was reigning at the time.
In fact, something was proscribed by the Sacred Congregation as soon as Roncalli was elected, and then a few months later it was done again to confirm.
Two suspicious things here. Why did the SC wait until Roncalli was elected to do this? And, why did the SC do it again a few months later?
You also have to consider that Roncalli, as being the head, initiated the SC to do the proscribing.
Now, we have to consider whether the proscribing was of a bad translation, or of the writings and not the devotion, or of both.
The Church can question writings and still allow a devotion.
The devotion should not be practiced unless and until we get some answers to these things from a quality investigation, not this rush to judgment.
Corky,
DeleteYou write: Now, we cannot ignore that Pope Pius XII and the bishops of Poland were silent. We don't have to wait for an actual document of approval to have significance.
Reply: Yes, we do need a formal approval. This is not the same as the Liturgy. "Although the Holy See as a rule refrains from intervention, except when abuses are directly denounced to it (the practice being in such matters to leave the repression of what is unseemly or fantastic to the local ordinary), still, every now and again, where some theological principle is involved, action is taken by one of the Roman Congregations, and some objectionable practice is prohibited." The devotion WAS denounced to the Holy Office in 1955 and its response came three years later. Hardly "rushing."
You write: Why did the SC wait until Roncalli was elected to do this? And, why did the SC do it again a few months later?
Reply; Because the final report and decision was not ready until such time? Because this devotion was continuing to spread? Why did the Holy Office wait until 1962 to ban all of Teilhard's writings?
You write: You also have to consider that Roncalli, as being the head, initiated the SC to do the proscribing.
Reply: No. Card. Ottavianni was a close personal friend of Fr. DePauw. In a letter to Fr., the Cardinal wrote that HE HIMSELF was urging Roncalli (JXXIII) to approve the condemnation. It was NOT at the urging of Roncalli.
You write: Now, we have to consider whether the proscribing was of a bad translation, or of the writings and not the devotion, or of both.
Reply: The Holy Office claimed "There is no evidence of the supernatural origin of these revelations. This would mean that the members of the Holy Office (the same clergy under Pius XII from the previous month of his death) examined the content and decided that there was nothing to indicate the apparitions were supernatural."
It does not come from God as does e.g., the Rosary.
Moreover, the devotion detracts (and continues to detract) from the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.
(Continued below)
Here is the full warning from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office
Delete"Long ago the Sacred Council of Trent, after declaring that the worship of the saints and the use of their images to obtain favors from God is legitimate, solemnly warned the Bishops that, if they found that any abuses were creeping in or had crept into these holy and salutary practices, they must take great care to eradicate them, so that no images that are theologically false and might be an occasion of dangerous error to the unlearned be set up; that all superstition in the invocation of saints and in the use of sacred images be removed; that all profit seeking be eliminated; and finally that nothing inordinate, nothing distorted or hasty, nothing profane, nothing unworthy be observed.
Faithful to these prescriptions, the Roman Pontiffs have been diligent in calling them to mind upon various occasions and in demanding that they be fully observed. In particular, Pius IX of holy memory, through a decree of the Holy Office dated January 13, 1875, by his supreme authority decreed: “that writers who exercise their talents upon subjects savoring of novelty, and who under the guise of piety try to promote unaccustomed forms of devotion even through papers and magazines, be warned to cease from these activities and to consider the danger which they incur of drawing the faithful into error even regarding the dogmas of the Faith, and of giving to those who hate religion the opportunity to disparage the purity of Catholic doctrine and of true devotion.” These same provisions have lately been confirmed by being introduced, almost in the same words, into the Code of Canon Law, especially in canons 1259, 1261, and 1279.
Unfortunately, however, so many grave warnings and injunctions of the Supreme ecclesiastical Authority have thus far failed to obtain full obedience. In fact, as everyone knows, these 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.
Again and again therefore, this Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, which is charged with the guardianship of the purity and integrity of faith and morals, by express mandate of His Holiness, by Divine Providence Pope, Pius XI, earnestly appeals to the zeal and pastoral solicitude of the Bishops who have the care of souls throughout the Catholic world, and charges them in conscience to urge at last the strictest observance of the aforesaid admonitions and injunctions, by firmly abolishing abuses which have already arisen, and taking the most diligent precautions lest any new ones come into vogue.
Approved and confirmed in every respect, and ordered to be published, by His Holiness, in the audience of May 20, 1937. Given at Rome, from the Palace of the Holy Office, May 26, 1937."
Full approval from Pope Pius XI, a true pope.
Lastly, Divine Mercy gives a false and un-Catholic notion of mercy apart from CONTRITION AND PENANCE.
This is no "rush to judgment." It is a false and unapproved devotion that detracts from Our Lord's Most Sacred Heart.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThe facets of discussion are growing. I am willing to touch on them all, but there needs to be some focus. At this point I see it to be a priority to cover John XXIII.
All sedevacantists simply reject John XXIII and anything done under his Pontificate. Why don't you?
Corky,
DeleteI do reject the acts (or inaction) of Roncalli. The Holy Office, all with orthodox theologians with jurisdiction (having all been appointed by Pope Pius XII) is another matter. Even if not binding because of the lack of papal approbation, it was a unanimous decision of eminent and approved theologians. Likewise, I accept all theology manuals up until 1962, as long as the approving bishop was appointed by a true pope and had jurisdiction.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Which you shouldn't be doing. It's all under a false pope, and you have no idea at all what that false pope's interaction and influence was with the plenary session to decide the matter. Once you open that door, there is no defending when you cut it off. Why did you choose 1962 and no further? What happened in what month of that year that makes you decide that?
DeleteCorky,
DeleteWell, yes, I'm privileged to know what happened via Fr DePauw's personal correspondence with Cardinal Ottaviani at that time. The Cardinal and the other members of the Holy Office also wanted Divine Mercy condemned. It was Roncalli who was resistant, and gave in after numerous meetings with the Cardinal. Now, this info is specific to me, and I can't expect someone else to believe it.
However, we still have the problem that a blessing and allowing the devotion to be practiced WHILE THE HOLY OFFICE WAS ACTIVELY INVESTIGATING IT doth not "papal approbation" make. (And this is granting, ad arguendo, that it wasn't placed on the Index by Pius).
So we have a devotion:
1. Where there is no sign of supernatural origin
2. That runs afoul of imitating another Devotion (the Sacred Heart) as warned by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XI
3. Is promoting by John Paul the Great Apostate
4. Gives an Un-Catholic perspective on Mercy
Who can approve it now, anyway? No one.
Finally, why 1962 as the year I stop? I heed the wisdom of Fr. DePauw. The "old guard" was still with jurisdiction doing its job. In 1963, Roncalli came out with Pacem in Terris and compromises began at Vatican II (yes, he was there and saw first hand as a peritus). He did recommend books 1958 and before as best, but 1959 to 1962 as acceptable if the bishop was not appointed by Roncalli. Father was the "first Catholic Traditionalist" and an approved canonist at V2. I've always found his advice sagacious. If we want to stop at 1958, would you reject a book published in November of that year? We need a "bright line rule" as we say in the law, and I find the one adopted by Fr. DePauw to be the wisest. You can decide otherwise.
---Introibo
This amounts to nothing for the public unless you can publicize the correspondence.
DeletePublicly, Roncalli was a false pope, and therefore a false pope squelched it.
You gave a quote about how the pope relies on bishops. Well, the bishops in Poland allowed the devotion, and the true pope blessed the image. This amounts to approbation UNLESS a valid future disapproval nixes it.
It means something. It doesn't take long at all to look over a devotion and revelations. It can be done in a month. The bishops of Poland were under the pope and to think they didn't do their duty, or were so incompetent as to not notice the problems shouldn't be done without positive evidence. They should be assumed to do their duty and to do it well.
It begs to the question to bring up the problems with it because there is some question of a bad translation. And the allegation is very credible because there are some alleged problems with it that are SO obvious that it cries out there is a bad translation rather than think those legitimate bishops weren't able to notice.
You want to make Fr. DePauw to be wise and sagacious, but he lived to 2005 and he never cooperated with any of the major sedevacantists. He didn't publicize about false popes. He was near the SSPV, and Bp. Robert McKenna and stayed away. He seemed legalistic like the home-aloners and couldn't accept epikeia. Was he wise with that very major decision for the good of the Church?
The way I look at it there was a very minimal acceptance of the devotion in one country before V2 and then it flowered after V2. That alone is suspicious which should nix the devotion until further investigation. My first suspicion is to look into the original and see what has been changed.
Where is the evidence that a true pope blessed the image? I know people assert this, but where the proof or documentation?
DeletePerhaps it would be helpful to look at this another way:
DeleteIn the late 19th century, there was a woman, Feliksa Magdalena Kozlowska, who formed a religious congregation in Plock, Poland called the Congregation of Sisters of the Poor of Saint Mother Clare. In 1893, she supposedly started receiving visions, the first of which called for her to found a new clerical order devoted to Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and devotion to Our Lady of Perpetual Help. This group she founded, the Mariavites, was suppressed in 1904 and the priests who joined it were directed to have nothing further to do with this woman.
In the 1906 Encyclical on this same matter, Pope St. Pius X explains his initial understanding of the priests associated with this woman whose visions denounced as hallucinations:
A few weeks ago two of these priests came to Rome: Romanus Prochniewsky and Joannes Kowalski, the latter of whom is recognized, in virtue of some kind of delegation from the woman referred to, as their Superior by all the members of the Society. Both of them, in a petition alleged by them to have been written by the express order of Our Lord Jesus Christ, ask the Supreme Pastor of the Church, or the Congregation of the Holy Office in his name, to issue a document conceived in these terms: "That Maria Francesca (the woman mentioned above) has been made most holy by God, that she is the mother of mercy for all men called and elected to salvation by God in these days; and that all Mariavite priests are commanded by God to promote throughout the world devotion to the Most Holy Sacrament and to the Blessed Virgin Mary of Perpetual Succor, free from all restriction of ecclesiastical or human law or custom, and from all ecclesiastical and human power whatsoever. . ."
6. From these words We were disposed to believe that the priests in question were blinded not so much by conscious pride as by ignorance and delusion, like those false prophets of whom Ezechiel writes: "They see vain things and they foretell lies, saying: The Lord saith: whereas the Lord hath not sent them: and they have persisted to confirm what they have said. Have you not seen a vain vision and spoken a lying divination: and you say: The Lord saith: whereas I have not spoken" (Ezechiel xiii. 6, 7) [emphasis added].
Part 2:
DeleteA new "mother of mercy," this woman was, according to the supposed apparitions, elected especially by God for our times. This sounded familiar.
Eventually, the Mariavites were excommunicated, the aforementioned Fr. Kowalski was made a bishop by the schismatic Old Catholics, and this woman's congregation continued to carry out their 'charism', known as the "Great Work of Mercy."
I thought, of course, of the significant overlap between this woman's life and that of Sr. Faustina: the connection to Plock, Poland, the role of prophetess of mercy, the condemnation of their mystical experiences by the Church.
It seems certain to me that Sr. Faustina would have been aware of, and influenced by, the spiritual climate in Poland at the time owing to the activities of the Mariavites. I found myself asking several questions, therefore:
1) Even putting aside the Church's judgement of the mystical experiences as theologically unsound and hyper-focused on Sr. Faustina herself, did Sr. Faustina actually even have such experiences (even if of demonic origin) or was the Diary the product of her imagination mingled with the recollection of the 'visions' the Mariavites' founder had?
2) What is to be made of the fact that two known individuals claim to be the bearers of the most important divine message of our times when the message raises serious concerns? I read elsewhere that one of the specific issues with the Mariavites' founder's 'message' was its promotion of vain belief without repentance similar to a Protestant creed. In other words, a type of false mercy.
3) Pope St. Pius X declared the Mariavites' founder to be "delusional" and given what now know in hindsight regarding the fall of the Mariavites, at what point do the counter-arguments in favor of this wave of "mercy" that God supposedly wanted us to know via Sr. Faustina become untenable given the Church's decision to act against it as it did the Mariavites? Can the Church be wrong on something seemingly so important? In other words, is it not more than suspicious that in the same region of Poland, a "mercy" message purported to be the most important divine communication in our day appears twice in a matter of approximately 40 years and both are shut down by the Church?
4) What is to be made of this 'devotion' to mercy during a time that coincides very closely with the Fatima apparitions where the Rosary is the focus ("You must recite the Rosary every day in honor of Our Lady of the Rosary to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war for only she can obtain this")? Would it not be very clever of the devil to deceive those pious and good-willed Catholics with a new 'devotion', supposedly urgently called for from Heaven, that draws on the use of the Rosary beads, yet not for the Rosary but for the "Chaplet of Divine Mercy," precisely during a time when our Blessed Mother saw it fit to renew devotion to the Rosary?
Corky,
DeleteOnce more you write:
Publicly, Roncalli was a false pope, and therefore a false pope squelched it.
Reply: False. It was condemned by the unanimous decision of the Holy Office all of whom had jurisdiction from Pope Pius XII. He agreed with the decision. He also agreed with this decision:
"Several works of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, some of which were posthumously published, are being edited and are gaining a good deal of success.
"Prescinding from a judgement about those points that concern the positive sciences, it is sufficiently clear that the above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine.
"For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.
"Given at Rome, from the palace of the Holy Office, on the thirtieth day of June, 1962.
Sebastianus Masala, Notarius"
Do you think the posthumous works of Teilhard are NOT contrary to Catholic doctrine? They were "squelched" by Roncalli. Maybe it was only a bad translation?
You write:
You gave a quote about how the pope relies on bishops. Well, the bishops in Poland allowed the devotion, and the true pope blessed the image. This amounts to approbation UNLESS a valid future disapproval nixes it.
Reply: Says who? You have yet to cite a source that teaches a mere blessing by a pope and the allowance for a devotion UNTIL RULED UPON BY THE HOLY OFFICE constitutes "approval." It does not, and unless you have a citation to prove the opposite, your assertion is meaningless.
(Continued below)
You write:
DeleteIt means something. It doesn't take long at all to look over a devotion and revelations. It can be done in a month. The bishops of Poland were under the pope and to think they didn't do their duty, or were so incompetent as to not notice the problems shouldn't be done without positive evidence. They should be assumed to do their duty and to do it well.
Reply: They did do their job. IT WAS DENOUNCED TO THE HOLY OFFICE. A denunciation is almost always done by a bishop. Until then, if some bishops allowed it until a formal decision was made, that is fine.
You write:
It begs to the question to bring up the problems with it because there is some question of a bad translation. And the allegation is very credible because there are some alleged problems with it that are SO obvious that it cries out there is a bad translation rather than think those legitimate bishops weren't able to notice.
Reply:
There is much more wrong than a (alleged) faulty translation.
So we have a devotion:
1. Where there is no sign of supernatural origin
2. That runs afoul of imitating another Devotion (the Sacred Heart) as warned by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XI
3. Is promoting by John Paul the Great Apostate
4. Gives an Un-Catholic perspective on Mercy
You have not refuted any of these points, and I will add an addendum to Lee's post on this point.
You write:
You want to make Fr. DePauw to be wise and sagacious, but he lived to 2005 and he never cooperated with any of the major sedevacantists. He didn't publicize about false popes. He was near the SSPV, and Bp. Robert McKenna and stayed away. He seemed legalistic like the home-aloners and couldn't accept epikeia. Was he wise with that very major decision for the good of the Church?
Reply:
Yes, it was for many reasons. (He accepted epikeia) By the time he came about to the sede position he was already 81 and ill. He didn't want to alienate the members of the CTM and he didn't have the strength for more battles. "I believe I've done what God has wanted." Indeed he did. Who else denounced the Council in 1964? Not SSPV (non-existent), not Bp. McKenna (a mere priest for 5 years at the time), not Archbishop Lefebvre who wanted to "keep things in Rome" and did nothing until 1970 AFTER seeing what Fr. DePauw accomplished. No Abp. Thuc or Bp. Mendez at that time either who would go public. Only Fr. DePauw and Bp. Kurz. So the next time you go to the True Mass, say a prayer for Fr. DePauw's soul and thank God for sending him to do His work.
---Introibo
Introibo,
Delete1) As soon as a man is elected pope, he has full jurisdiction to do anything he wants. He can remove all and replace, or replace some, or choose to keep all the members of a congregation. Choosing to keep all means the decision, in PLENARY session, is the pope's decision, because he didn't have to agree with it. A false pope made the decision, and nobody should be accepting it. OTHERWISE, you would be looking into every decision of the false popes to try to discern whether YOU think the subordinates involved were competent enough to do it right on their own. That's like SSPX thinking.
2) Your bringing up Teilhard shows you don't understand what I am saying. I am NOT saying just because Roncali was a false pope that it means Teilhard was okay. Nor am I saying the DM devotion was okay just because of that. I am saying there are real reasons to suspect the DM devotion had lost its original meaning.
3) Approval by bishops "until"...means tentative approval. I didn't say it was approved forever more. Just like with imprimatured books which have been corrected or retracted.
4) You will have to provide receipts for your claim that the bishops of Poland approved it, and then showed some public hesitancy, AND that they denounced it to Rome. I have seen no such proof.
5) Notice your list of points completely beg the question that there may be faulty translations. For instance, I don't care if JP2 is promoted, because if there was faulty translation, this would mean the man was pushing the faulty work not the original.
6) It is no good excuse to defend that Fr. De Pauw realized in 1999 that V2 produced false popes and then kept quiet about it for any reason. It doesn't matter whether there were traditionalist clergy who didn't get it right away for many years. The point is, sedevacantists were absolutely public, growing, organized and working together for decades, and all he had to do was travel 15 minutes by car and talk with the SSPV priests at Oyster Bay. The members of the CTM deserved the truth for the good of their souls. If they didn't hear it from Fr. DePauw, they wouldn't be likely to believe any sedevacantist priest after his death.
Corky,
Delete1. The decision presented was that of the approved theologians of Pope Pius XII. Roncalli went along with it. Their findings came PRIOR to his approval, and he had to be talked into it.
2. And I have yet to hear those "good reasons" and see my Addendum showing it is the CONTENT ITSELF that presents a real problem.
3. Ok. And that approval was local, not universal--and undone by the Holy Office--Roncalli means nothing in that equation.
4. Says who? You? The Holy Office acts upon denunciations from clerics--almost always bishops.
5. So a faulty translation is responsible for the Image approve by Faustina that omits the Sacred Heart? There's so much wrong, it's not a "faulty translation" rather you would have to claim a complete and total forgery as well as excusing Faustina's bizarre claims and behaviors.
6. Fr. DePauw needs no excuse. That priest, I'm convinced, will one day be St. Gommar of Westbury. I spent 24 years of my life with him on a regular basis--not just Sundays. He HAD spoken with SSPV. Please don't assume things about the priest who FIRST SOUNDED THE ALARM AGAINST VATICAN II when you are clueless about what transpired and I was there.
Over and Out,
---Introibo
Intriobo,
Delete1) Let me explain this with a logical syllogism:
Major Premise:
A plenary session is only conclusive with a true pope.
Minor Premise:
The 1958 plenary session had a false pope.
Conclusion:
The 1958 plenary session was inconclusive.
Corky,
DeleteYour syllogism, while true, is inapposite.
The Holy Office in 1958 was filled with approved theologians of the highest intelligence and orthodoxy.
These theologians unanimously condemned Divine Mercy, and they were QUALIFIED to make such judgements.
So while the decision is non-binding, it would be the height of foolishness to disregard their findings. Their collective opinion certainly outweighs those of the Polish bishops.
---Introibo
The syllogism is solid. You just twisted it to say that some theologians believed.... but WITHOUT a true pope it is merely "some theologians" and NOT "the Church" or their plenary "sessions" or "sacred congregation". You cannot be use any of those without dishonesty at this point. You can only say some individual theologians didn't approve, but yet there are also some theologians who did....so it remains inconclusive.
DeleteCorky,
DeleteALL of the theologians of the Holy Office--picked by the Holy Father for their eminence in learning and orthodoxy--condemned Divine Mercy. They had jurisdiction to make such decisions--albeit this one was not binding since there was no true pope. These are far and away above what some other theologians may have taught. Please see my Addendum. There is MUCH wrong with Divine Mercy, and you cannot wish it away on a "bad translation."
---Introibo
Corky,
DeleteI quoted from the very Divine Mercy website itself and the actual book which everybody uses. You can find it online. Bad translation or good translation its the one everybody uses. If you want to believe Sr. Faustina's Diary words about her judgment, her love being purer than the angels, the blessed sacrament coming out of the tabernacle just to be in her hands two times, people receiving complete satisfaction from punishment after going to confession, adoring mercy and not justice, then believe it.
There is no point going on all day about Pius XII or the Holy Office if those things don't bother you.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteYes, it does matter what I am talking about. It's a matter of truth whether the Church Congregation condemned it or not, and it didn't, if the pope was false.
When we find one good reason to condemn something, it doesn't give us the right to be negligent in piling further reasons for condemnation. Such as running off and calling Paul VI a homo. Truth matters.
I'll say it again. The fact that DM flowered after Vatican II tells me we should warn people against it. That's very simple and very clear. But I don't consider the door shut on the subject since the NovusOrdo is known for turning good things bad, and there is some substantial reason to see if this is the case here.
Introibo,
DeleteThose men did not have the jurisdiction WITHOUT the pope confirming. So what you are saying is false.
It's a matter of truth, and your article should be removed and redone.
Sure, normally you could point to the fact they were appointed by Pope Pius XII to give some weight in conscience to following what they thought. But these aren't normal times. The Church was being infiltrated and oppressed. The Congregation of Sacred rites just 3 years previously (1955) were also appointed by the same pope and seem to have slipped in experimental changes contrary to Mediator Dei of 1947 after Pius XII became gravely ill and considered abdicating.
But let's say every member of the Sacred Congregation handling Sr. Faustina were upright competent theologians. What then? Do you follow them thru the various changes of J23 and P6 that they didn't object to, and then accept them to avoid the "height of foolishness"? Your method publicly promoted here is opening a can of worms for Catholics. For instance, perhaps with Montini. He didn't have a history of heterodoxy, and was given the papal mandate by Pius XII to become a bishop in 1954. Will people start to stand on that to accept what Montini did a decade later as Paul VI?
Corky,
DeleteThe fact that you believe that people should be warned against it is agreement with us. Why should people be warned against it if you just said that the door shouldn't be shut on the matter?
Make up your mind!
Lee
Lee,
DeleteIt's hard to believe you responded like that. You apparently didn't really read all I have written. I warn people tentatively to stay away. I made this absolutely clear. I said stay away because it's clear by default that the current craze is driven by the NovusOrdo. Keeping the door open means to keep in mind that the original may have been corrupted and investigation is in order to determine that.
Corky,
DeleteIt's hard to believe all your responses as well. May have been corrupted according to whom? You'll never be satisfied.
Lee
That's a silly response. You haven't understood me, but I perfectly understand you.
Delete"Corrupted" according to reason.
The fact, which I already mentioned, of the modus operandi of the Novus Ordo of corrupting what is good.
The fact that a conscientious true pope felt it was safe to bless a picture stemming from a private revelation.
The fact that bishops in Poland having the jurisdiction and responsibility given them by Rome all felt the devotion was allowable at that time.
The fact that it doesn't take long at all to look over the revelation, yet it took many years for the Congregation to do so and 3 weeks after J23 was elected.
Feel free, Lee & Introibo, to present documents of those Polish bishops showing hesitancy to the devotion. That would be significant for me.
Corky,
DeleteThis will be my final response:
The theologians of the Holy Office DID have competency and jurisdiction to form opinions on such matters since they were all appointed to the task by a true pope. The decision is, admittedly, not binding, but it holds tremendous weight.
Our Lord told us, "By their fruits thou shalt know them." Divine Mercy detracts from the Rosary, from the scapular, from the Sacred Heart, and gives a Protestant idea of salvation by trust in Jesus alone without contrition and Penance. All of this is not the result of some "mistranslation." Faustina also exhibited behaviors that suggest mental imbalance. This cannot be of God.
Do we even know if Pius blessed this image, and if he could fully see it being approx. 80 years of age at the time? Since when does a blessing constitute "implicit approval"? That's YOUR opinion--you have not cited any theologians or Magisterial documents to back up your assertion.
This post by Lee and my Addendum stand as written. The manifest weight of the credible evidence is clearly against Divine Mercy---no documents from Polish bishops necessary.
---Introibo
Introibo & Lee,
DeleteMy final response:
You will have to live with the possibility that had the Sacred Congregation had a true pope at their plenary session, he may NOT have given his confirmation.
You say nothing about opening the can of worms for Catholics with your method of "weight" of clergy even though the same you consider competent had shortly thereafter gone with Vatican II.
You keep considering, without evidence, that there was no corruption from the original.
You keep assuming the bishops of Poland either had a problem with the devotion and contacted the SC (even though they permitted the devotion), or allowing that the bishops were so dumb as to not notice what you say is easy-to-see problems with it. Doesn't pass the smell test.
Without investigation on these, with some timeline, I consider the research into the subject incomplete and handled rather sloppily.
Corky,
DeleteThis may not be my last response depending on if you continue responding even though you said your last response was your last response.
Nobody ever disputes that Pius XII put it in on the index except you. Even the DM website doesn't question it.
Whether he did or did not does not matter because it's been demonstrated why the devotion leads people astray.
Even in the book her confessor Fr. Bukowski is talking with and she writes it down in Notebook 1 #643 (I should have put this in the article):
"Sister, this is an illusion. The Lord Jesus cannot be demanding this. You have made your perpetual vows. All this is an illusion. You are inventing some sort of heresy!" And he was shouting at me, almost at the top of his voice. I asked him whether all of this was an illusion, and He said, "Everything." "Then please tell me what course I must take." "Well, Sister, you must not follow any inspiration. You should get your mind off all this. You should pay no attention to what you hear in your soul and try to carry out your exterior duties well. Give no thought to these things and put them completely out of your mind."
She answered: "Very well; I will TRY to be obedient. "I do not know why Father was being so severe."
Further proof that if her confessor didn't believe it why shouldn't anybody else. He even said she was inventing heresy!
Lee
Lee,
DeleteI said it's my last reply, not on the subject, but to Introibo. Perhaps I will reply to you, I don't know. I don't get the feeling you really want to have a back and forth discussion on your own.
Corky,
DeleteYou said:
"Introibo & Lee,
My final response"
Then your next response:
"Lee,
I said it's my last reply, not on the subject, but to Introibo."
So here we see how in simple things you don't get facts straight.
And early on when I asked you who the original documents were corrupted by you say:
"'Corrupted according to reason."
Your answer translates as corrupted according to Corky.
I've been having a back and forth discussion with you on my own. I don't call Introibo and ask him what to say to you.
If you are going to be dishonest, snooty, and opinionated all day then no I don't really want to discuss anything with you.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteThere is nothing snooty, dishonest or opinionated in what I have written. I am being as logical and reasonable as possible here.
When I mentioned you with "& Lee" in my response to Introibo, it was to make sure that you saw it by having your name text attached to it. This is such a mess as a discussion platform that is all I knew how to do to make it easier for you to see the final message in that thread. I always felt I was discussing it with Introibo alone.
You mentioned in your article here that Pius XII put it on the Index in 1956. You gave no details of that at all so won't accept it until I see the details.
Do you trust the translators of Sr. Faustina's diary from Polish to English around 1979? Read the forward or preface to it, it is informative. Even they recognized the difficulty of capturing the true theological sense in English (as well mentioning they had edited it). You apparently trust the Novus Ordo to translate it, which is why you freely quote it. I don't trust them with it, and I don't think you should either.
Corky,
DeleteI gave you details in the comments as to who I got the information from (Perez). Where he got it, I don't know.
You didn't deal with with what Fr. Bukowski (her confessor) said to Faustina. How could the translators botch that whole part? He told her she was being heretical and to stop following her visions.
The message is heretical and is identical to the heresy of Quietism as I described in the article.
Do you or don't you believe in the Divine Mercy and Diary? Yes or No?
Lee
Lee,
DeleteI've see nothing yet detailed about a 1956 index. It's been all about 1958 under J23.
I can easily think the translators correctly conveyed that portion related to Fr. Bukowski. It's quite an expected thing for one confessor to totally thing the opposite of another confessor, particular when dealing with extraordianry mystical experiences. Bukowski was an extraordinary confessor. Her ordinary confessor didn't think that. So, why would you instantly grasp for what the extraordinary confessor thought over her ordinary confessor that knew her soul most intimately?
Instead of directly answering my last question, you decide to ask me a question which I have already clearly answered. Why?
Corky,
DeleteWhy not trust the translators? Are you saying they are incompetent translators? What would in their translations differ from the original translations and how would that be a game changer as to help it?
Give me an example of something with a faulty translation and demonstrate how it matters.
The fact that one confessor thought she was inventing heresy proves that there was something seriously wrong what she was doing. He wasn't alone. Other sisters thought she should stop also.
You never have answered a yes or no as to whether you believe in the Divine Mercy or Diary. You've contradicted yourself on that and answered by not answering. Be honest do you believe it or not?
Lee
Lee,
DeleteI made myself perfectly clear, more than once, how I reject the practice of this devotion. In my very first comment on this article, April 10th, I wrote:
"I think we should reject the Novus Ordo usage and someone find a translation from the original Polish to see what's happening...."
Within 3 hours you thanked me for my comment.
You have a problem, at least with retention.
You accept Novus Ordo translation of religious/doctrinal material. I don't.
I don't mean to say they get everything wrong. Just not trustworthy where it really counts.
Did you know that it is quite common for Saints to be misunderstood and accused of heresy? Read about St. Joan of Arc, St. Bernadine of Sienna and St. Teresa of Avila, for starters.
Corky,
DeleteI thanked you for the first comment out of courtesy, not because I agreed with your take on it nor was it clear as to what you were saying.
The Novus Ordo usage is the official usage. This is what everybody goes by. It doesn't matter what the Polish translation is if nobody uses it including Polish people. The damage is done to the whole world and what we know about the book and the message is problematic hence the reason you reject the "Novus Ordo usage."
I don't believe there is a another supposed translation because you cannot give one example of a faulty translation.
The reason I asked you whether you believe it is because in one instance you say you reject the Novus Ordo usage and another instance you say it was blessed by Pius XII and it was never condemned by a real pope and there is a Polish version out there we need to investigate as if was really good from the beginning.
It comes across as flip floppy and yet you say I'm sloppy.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteNothing flip floppy about it. I have been absolutely consistent, honest and clear throughout this. You just have a problem comprehending and/or retaining something quite simple to understand, and which I have repeated in detail. Perhaps you are just giving things a quick glance and not even trying to comprehend.
Corky,
DeleteI read the preface of the Diary regarding your objection to the translations. Who would you say are the ones responsible for the "Novus Ordo" usage?
*Was it Adam and Danuta Pasicki who were the first literal translators of the English?
* Was it Archbishop George Pearce, S.M who re-translated portions of it in accordance with proper English terminology for the various theological concepts and spiritual experiences referred to throughout the diary supported by Fahters George Kosicki, C.S.B., Gerald Farrel, M.M., Leo McCauley, S.J, and an Oblate, Francis Baga, O.M.I.
*Or was it Father George Kosicki, C.S.B. and Sister Sophia Michalenko, C.M.G.T who subjected it to a complete editing, re-typing, and proofing process for clarity of expression and readability according to current English grammar and usage
Give me an example of how these people made a "faulty translations."
Lee
"Corky,
DeleteALL of the theologians of the Holy Office--picked by the Holy Father for their eminence in learning and orthodoxy--condemned Divine Mercy. They had jurisdiction to make such decisions--albeit this one was not binding since there was no true pope. These are far and away above what some other theologians may have taught. Please see my Addendum. There is MUCH wrong with Divine Mercy, and you cannot wish it away on a "bad translation."
---Introibo"
The acts of AntiPope when they are for the common good of the Church are supplied with jurisdiction according to the principle of common error.
Everyone at the time believed Roncalli to be Pope and there has been no ruling against him by Church authorities.
I would argue that the principle of common error applies in this situation and the condemnation is in reality binding upon all Catholics because suppressing false devotions is for the common good of the Church.
This was after 1979. They were all Novus Ordo and all had their hands on it. As I said before, not trustworthy on the most important aspects concerning theology. No examples need be given when at the very get go we know the Novus Ordo is not trustworthy. Why would you think they are?
DeleteYour musings about supplied jurisdiction are your own. The Sacred Congregation is appointed a duty. It's not jurisdiction in a territory over subjects like bishops have and don't have to ask the pope for approvals. The pope is the Prefect (president) of the Sacred Congregation, and what they do is by permission. This is why they waited until Pius XII was dead and pushed J23 three weeks after his election to try to convince him to approve of putting a hold on the devotion. Or are you suggesting J23 had supplied jurisdiction to also legitimately place St. Joseph in the canon of the Mass?
Wikipedia includes:
"Under both Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, writings on devotion to the Divine Mercy were given imprimaturs by many bishops, making it an approved devotion. Cardinals Adam Stefan Sapieha and August Hlond were among those who gave their approval. During the papacy of Pope Pius XII, Vatican Radio broadcast several times about the Divine Mercy."
Take note, two cardinals, officially considered to be pope material, and from Poland itself, approved. As well as other bishops. Pretty impressive.
The research that should be done is to find out the specifics of what the S.C. was hesitant on. And find out what glaring specific problems traditionalists see, and on those few things, compare them to the original Polish to see what is going on.
Corky,
DeleteIf you are going to make a claim that the Novus Ordo translators mis-translated something purposefully in the book which would be theological incorrect, you must give an example. Otherwise, what's the point of saying it's untrustworthy if you are not sure if it's really untrustworthy? It's mere conjecture on your part.
You also make it sound like it was some sort of conspiracy that the Holy Office waited until Pope Pius XII died to fully condemn it. Nonsense.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteI didn't claim the translators "purposefully" mis-translated anything. I claim they are not competent because of the handicap of being Novus Ordo. You know, like not having the true Faith.
Here is a quote taken from the preface by a Fr. Drabik (1987) who apparently was involved in the translation:
"Since the Polish diary is the official text, we have made every effort to be truly faithful to it, and to retain the various shades of meaning implied in the theological and spiritual terms used by Sister Faustina - a definite challenge, indeed! In translating the diary, we dealt with the same kind of challenge that faces the translators of Sacred Scripture. Some terms allow for a variety of expressions even though the meanings are the same, and the final translation thus becomes a personal choice of style and expression on the part of the translator."
Besides not having the Faith, the "personal choice" business shows additional incompetency. You still trust them?
I didn't suggest some sort of conspiracy, but you do know there is suspicioun with the Holy Office in regard to the liturgy a few years before? That's another topic.
As far as the S.C. goes with this topic I only suggest an ordinary opportunism. It's well known in history that when one thinks a prelate's decision is wrong, or likely to be wrong, one goes to one that seems more likely to give them what they want. The laity often do this when going to confession.
Final note, the members of the S.C. didn't "condemn" it, but merely expressed concern to put a halt on it.
Corky
Corky,
DeleteIt doesn't show incompetency on their part. This is your opinion. I disagree and I could care less what the original said because I doubt the parts which have problems have much of a different meaning than the original. Go ahead and think differently all you want.
I have no problem with the changes of holy week in 1955. You probably follow some of them yourself. For example, are you against evening Masses on Sunday? Are you against the 3 hr fast before Communion? Are you against fasting and abstaining all day on Holy Saturday? Are you against the added feast of Our Lady Queen of the Universe? These were part of the changes under the authority of Pius XII. I think they are beautiful and perfectly orthodox.
You are making a general assumption on the part of the prelates and laity regarding the second to last paragraph.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteWell, at least you doubt. I guess it's good you have less of a doubt than I do, so that curiosity doesn't drive you to investigate further; research doesn't appear to be your thing. As for me, knowing that two Polish cardinals approved of it, I think, should normally make anyone curious.
Fr. Benedict Hughes, CMRI, published a post about "Divine Mercy":
ReplyDeletehttps://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/the-divine-mercy-devotion-why-did-the-holy-office-ban-it/
Anon. 3:45,
DeleteI wasn't aware that he wrote about it. Thank you for posting the link.
Lee
We all trusted until we studied for ourselves. You need to post this frequently so everyone can learn the truth. Our Lady of Fatima told us the special graces given to the rosary for these end times were "our last help from heaven." Our Lady's star sign in the book of Rev. was seen for the first time in human history in Sept 2017, 100 years after the Fatima miracle. What should this tell us!
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:30,
DeleteWe certainly need to be praying the rosary every day and spreading the need to pray it.
15 promises to those who faithfully pray it daily (a good reminder):
1. Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive signal graces.
2. I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary.
3. The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies.
4. The Rosary will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of men from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire for eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means.
5. The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish.
6. Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying himself to the consideration of its sacred mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise him in His justice, he shall not perish by an unprovided death; if he be just he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life.
7. Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the sacraments of the Church.
8. Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plenititude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the saints in paradise.
9. I shall deliver from Purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary.
10. The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven.
11. You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary.
12. All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities.
13. I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the Rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death.
14. All who recite the Rosary are my sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters of my only Son Jesus Christ.
15. Devotion of my Rosary is a great sign of predestination
The only thing I might add is avoid the luminous mysteries created by John Paul II not because the mysteries are bad (the mysteries are fine) but because it breaks with the 150 psalter of Our Lady and it recognizes John Paul II's legitimacy as pope.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteA wonderful comment! I agree with you 100%. I want to stress that the so-called "Luminous Mysteries" don't merely break the 150 psalter of Our Lady--they are evil and odious as well. See my post, "The Illuminati Mysteries:"
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-illuminati-mysteries.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteJust read the Illuminati Mysteries article. Now I see what you mean with how the Mysteries themselves were used in an evil way.
Chills ran down my back when you stated: "If you divide the 150 Hail Marys of the Rosary by the three sets of mysteries (a Trinitarian number), that's 50 Haily Marys. Divide the 200 Hail Marys of the Modernist Rosary by the Trinitarian number 3 and you get 66.6!"
Great work,
Lee
This is an excellent post on the Rosary, Introibo ! I don't remember being taught to pray the Rosary in my Novus Ordo catechism classes at school or at church. I learned it as an adult thanks to the Internet. The V2 sect destroyed everything Catholic so as not to offend non-Catholics. Vatican 2 and its sequels are truly the work of the devil !
DeleteThere is so much misinterpretation by whoever put Divine Mercy in such horrendous view. That view is not correct . Throughout the world at their 3 pm people pray the Chaplet of Divine Mercy! Since when is laity to tell Jesus what He said or want???? Priests are needed to help straighten out the mess the author of this post has done!! Jezu ufam Tobie 🙏
ReplyDeleteJesus I trust in You🙏
Anon 11:30,
DeleteDemonstrate for me how I misrepresented the Diary. I quoted directly from the very book itself and made a commentary based on what is wrong with the quotes themselves. Did you even read it? I showed exactly the timeline as to when it was condemned and how the new church through John Paul II fully endorsed and spread the devotion.
Since when is the laity to believe in private revelations that have been condemned? I trust in Our Lord's Sacred Heart fully approved by the Catholic Church not some private revelation fully approved by the Counterfeit Church.
Lee
agreed
ReplyDeleteDear Friend
ReplyDeleteNo one objects to the idea of Divine mercy, that would be as wrong as objecting to Divine justice. The two, as Lee pointed out, go hand in hand.
To meditate on the positive aspects of the Divine mercy is a positive and beautiful thing. The problem is the cult of personality that has grown around Sr. Faustina. There is a misplaced emphasis on her; I am thinking of the passages in her writings that exaggerate her importance even beyond that of the Blessed Virgin. That is a bad sign.
And as Lee pointed out, there has been no corroboration of these events through miracles. There is only Sr Faustina's word on it all.
Traditional Catholic priests have indeed spoken on this subject and they have warned the laity against attaching themselves to this "devotion".
Peace!
God Bless you,
-Jannie
Thank you Jannie for explaining that to the commenter who misunderstood the entire article.
DeleteLee
Hello Introibo:
ReplyDeleteWhat is your current opinion of the various SSPX Resistance groups?
Thank you. Anonymous
@anon1:57
DeleteDefinitely a step above SSPX as they will do nothing to endanger the validity of the sacraments and they will not accept V2 sect "priests" without conditional ordination in the Traditional Rite (so I have been repeatedly told).
Their R&R stand remains untenable and will ultimately undermine them in one way or another.
God Bless,
---Introibo
"as they will do nothing to endanger the validity of the sacraments" That's true except for good old Pfeifferville led by none other than the dubiously consecrated Bishop Pfeiffer and assisted by a warlock. I don't think I could, in good faith, ever go to a Pfeiffer-ordained priest for sacraments on concerns over validity alone. Other than that, the rest of the resistance seems to be safe for valid sacraments.
DeleteSneed,
DeleteCould you please tell me about Bp. Pfeiffer and why you doubt his consecration and what do you mean "assisted by a warlock." (Male Wiccans are called witches--same as females).
God Bless,
---Introibo
The standard response is Bishop Neal Webster garbled the Preface & Essential Form so badly on video that many thought it rendered his Episcopal Consecration either doubtful or outright invalid. Bishop Pfieffer claims Bishop Webster reread the entire preface & performed the 16 word essential form with hands in his head the following morning. It wasn't captured on video so many people claimed either it didn't happen or was garbled & butchered just as badly as the day before. Bishop Pfieffer did himself no favors by not having it captured on video & uploaded to the Net. He should find a valid Thuc line Bishop for Conditional Episcopal Consecration.
DeleteGod bless -Andrew
Lee,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post. Very timely, as this chaplet is being pushed hard right now. I prayed it for a while too, in the past before my conversion. I was listening to an R&R show (didn’t know what R&R or the N.O. was at the time), and the chaplet came up. No one seemed to want to discuss it in the comments, but they did say they didn’t want to pray it, and that people should practice the Sacred Heart devotion instead and have their homes enshrined. This caused me to look into the matter, and thankfully I found a number of resources and videos including Fr. Hughes’ article.
Like Jannie wrote, it really does have a cult-like following. People do not want to be challenged with facts, or what is actually written in the diary. They believe what they want. All they need is a celebrity “priest” like Dave Nix (to justify it) or a youtuber they like (to ease any concerns – “it was just mistranslated!”). After all, we’re just laity! Let’s keep our mouths shut, and our brains turned off. Well, that’s partly what got us into many of the messes of today. Sometimes, I make the "mistake" of trying to bring people a few facts (hopefully charitably and within the scope of my abilities). I recently did this on youtube when reading a few comments on this devotion/chaplet. Most of my comments were either censored or deleted by the channel.
“You will not be judged” – I often forget this red flag. Statements like this exaggerate her, like Jannie wrote. People love novelty, and after all, the rosary is just so old.
I don’t remember where I read it, but one article or video described the Host hopping or jumping out of the tabernacle, like a little mouse, into Sr. Faustina’s hands. Quite the visual.
“Tell aching mankind to snuggle close to My merciful Heart”… Hmm, I have a reservation about the word choice here. Perhaps it’s a poor translation by whomever did it, but it makes me wonder. Perhaps it is intentional to increase the imagery of all sins and punishment being swept away.
I don’t need to comment on our Blessed Mother and the claim of Sr. Faustina’s intimate union with Our Lord. This is the main red flag I always bring up with people.
Anything the N.W. Ordo is pushing hard should give people pause. I believe Fr. Uttley said something to the effect that God’s divine mercy is tempered with his divine wisdom and justice. Sorry I can’t remember better, but I think this was in response to a question about how people still go to Hell with the the Lord’s divine mercy. No one goes that doesn’t want to go or truly deserves to go. It is hard for us to understand this sometimes, but we must remember His ways are above our ways.
For what it’s worth, I suspect more read the articles here that you think, based on my belief that many don’t comment. I certainly never thought I would be making any comments on blogs or youtube channels. In many professions, a few “troublemakers” or “energy-vampires” can suck up most of one’s energy although they perhaps didn’t take up that much of one’s time. Please don’t let them drain you. Easier said than done, I know.
God bless you,
-Seeking Truth
Seeking Truth,
DeleteThank you very much for your sincere comment. I certainly appreciate them and it's as Introibo says comments like that which keep me going.
I grew up mainly around diocesan priests but in my teenage years when I started getting a little more conservative got involved with some missionary priests called the Fathers of Mercy who are spread out all over the U.S and other countries and who are very much involved with the Franciscans located in Alabama where the home of EWTN is.
They used to be (not sure about now) great preachers. They gave good sermons, were active in converting Protestants, very devout considering they did not say the Latin Mass and very friendly.
One of the most cringe worthy things about them was their devotion to the Divine Mercy and it was a deep devotion. So much so that their main seminary located in Auburn Ky had an artist paint a mural of the Divine Mercy above the altar. Picture here: https://fathersofmercy.com/about-us-fom/
They did emphasize going to confession frequently and were balanced as far as how they understood mercy but you couldn't dare tell them what was wrong with the Divine Mercy. They wouldn't have it. They were so enamored with it that if you questioned it, they viewed it as questioning John Paul II and considered you suspect.
I will give them credit, they were consistent with the new norms and were totally in line with Vatican II so long as it was understood "in light of tradition."
They did have their doozys though. I remember telling one priest of that Order (and I knew many of them) how I thought the new Mass was Protestant and imitated Cranmer's service and he got so mad with me that he started shouting at me telling me the New Mass was completely fine and just as valid as the Latin Mass and that I better be careful or else I would be in schism like the SSPX. He finally calmed down as soon as I started to back off a little he made a joke saying that I was making him a "father of no mercy" (it was funny now that I think about it).
I even knew a nun named Sr. Faustina. Sweet as can be but very much Novus Ordo. Unfortunately, you can't tell these people the truth because it breaks their heart and they will not change. It's a shame how screwed up everything is. I still love these people and hope God truly has mercy on them and helps them at the hour of their deaths.
Lee
Weren't some of her prophecies (or "prophecies") nicked from elsewhere?
ReplyDeleteMKDAWUSS,
DeleteI honestly don't know. If any of my readers know, please leave a comment.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Excellent post as always, Lee. The Divine Mercy false devotion needs to be exposed extensively to as many Catholics as possible. The devotion is definitely appealing to the Novus Ordites because it never reminds them of "problematic" things like the consequences of mortal sin, the final judgment of souls, etc.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how anyone could defend the fake devotion if they actually read all of the red flag quotes from Faustina's diary. The "faulty translation" cope doesn't hold up either, because there have been modern translations that still have these same quotes, and the frequency and variety of the problematic quotes makes it utterly improbable to all be chalked up to a bad translation. I've tried sharing the quotes with Novus Ordo Catholics online before, but they, predictably, were not receptive to their favorite devotion promoted by their favorite Nope being called into question. If Joann is reading this, can you settle the debate on the authenticity of the translation of the quotes?
Also, coincidentally (though they announced that they were going to make the video months before this post was made), the Dimonds recently put out a video about the Divine Mercy devotion that went into an incredible level of detail. They even used quotes from the approved biography of Sr Faustina to help contextualize her delusions. I know a lot of people here aren't fond of them (and for good reason), but it's actually one of their good videos for once. I wish they would make more content like this instead of their routine slander of traditional priests and other traditional Catholics who believe in the Church's teaching on BOB and BOD (funny enough, they now call us "John 3:5 deniers" because they're so mad about being called Feeneyites lol).
Sneedevacantist,
DeleteI've noticed that the formation Novus Ordos receive on top of having Divine Mercy on their minds makes them more presumptuous of Our Lord's mercy. They like the Protestants cultivate this idea that Our Lord will not send many people, including themselves to hell, except for those who are truly bad which is few. It's an I'm saved point of view, so long as I accept the mercy of Jesus.
It's true that Jesus is all merciful but He is also all just. We should certainly trust in Jesus, but not have this idea in our minds that our sins will not undergo punishment or that we shouldn't fear Him by merely trusting in Jesus. How many people really fear God these days?
Our Lord said "Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" Mt 7:13-14
Lee
Sneedevacantist,
DeleteGood points. Perhaps I'll watch that video. Maybe it'll drive home a few more points for me or teach me some new things. This chaplet definitely comes up now and then. I typically ask people if they are also praying the rosary. My guess is that for most, this has become a replacement as Lee mentioned, and this is by design. You taught me a new one: favorite "Nope".
Lee - I agree, it's a shame how screwed up things are. I try to remember that all I can do for some people is pray and fast.
-S.T.
Dear Introibo,
ReplyDeleteI recently posted a comment to your Homeopathy Part II article with a link to the paper that Michelle wrote. I am also aware that Michelle previously tried to publish the link. In the past, I thought I had seen you explain that you tolerate all comments as long as they are respectful. If you have additional criteria for censorship, don't you have a duty in charity, if not justice, to advise any readers that Michelle did indeed write her paper and attempt to share it, and explain that you blocked her attempt and mine?
Respectfully,
Stephanie
Stephanie,
DeleteI do indeed tolerate all comments as long as they are respectful and do not contain vulgarity or blasphemy. Michelle (and your comments) meet that requirement. However, what I have no duty to publish is an article (or a link to an article) that goes against my post.
I read the article which is both respectful and well-written, but has errors in its attempted rehabilitation of homeopathy. I would have a duty to respond, and I want to put that topic to rest for awhile. You are asking me to link to an article that defends that which I am convinced is an occult practice and would lead people down the wrong path. I likewise would not publish a link to an article defending Feenyism. If you wish to publish it somewhere on the web, or start a pro-homeopathy website, you have a legal right to do so. I have no corresponding duty to publicize it. If you do set up such a website, I will respond here in due time.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Dear Introibo,
DeleteThank you for publishing my comment and responding. On another site, I have seen the moderator publish a comment with a link, but where the link was, it instead had: “[Link removed by moderator]” and then the moderator would comment below with a short explanation of why the link was removed. If you would make the concession of doing something to this effect, I would be very gratified, because more so than the content of the paper, I care about your readers (current AND future!) knowing that Michelle did take the time to write it and make it publicly available. In my opinion, these actions reflect her goodwill and charity, and I want your readers to think of her this way.
Thank you again, and respectfully,
Stephanie
Stephanie,
DeleteWhat you say makes good sense. I will publish Michelle's comment with the link removed.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThank you.
God bless you also,
Stephanie
There is a Catholic blogger called Kirk, who has a twitter account titled:
ReplyDeleteAscent of Mount Carmel
@ascent_of
He has been tweeting and retweeting this week about the "Divine Mercy" devotion, and the dangers of it as presented by Sr Faustina and Fr Sopocko and promoted by JPII.
That the Holy Office suppressed it before V2 and never rehabbed it is bottom line.
I know some "Semi-Trads" who are very attached to the DM. It is clothed in Traditional garments.
(I think sometimes, that they are harder to reach out to than Novus Ordites; the NO is under water, while the Semi's have one foot in the boat. Or so they think.)
Thanks again for the timely warning in your article, Lee.
-Jannie
Jannie,
DeleteYou welcome. It's a shame to see so many in the Novus Ordo world focus as much on or even more so on the Divine Mercy than Easter Sunday and the rest of the Easter Season.
Lee
Hello Introibo, Lee, and anybody else who wants to comment:
ReplyDeleteWhat would you say to somebody who is low income, and cannot afford to come to the traditional Mass regularly, and has been told by a priest to not bother coming until they can come regularly by themselves?
The person does not want to get in trouble, or get anybody else in trouble, by asking for a ride from, or accepting a ride from, ANYBODY.
The person was previously able to attend regularly for a while, and stopped for personal reasons. The person was never disruptive at Mass, and the person always dressed appropriately.
In contrast, there is another traditional Catholic Mass location, MUCH smaller that the previous location, and VERY far away from the person, that says that if somebody needs a ride to Mass, to contact them, and they will see what they can do.
Do you think that it is a good thing to give a person a ride to Mass(or anywhere else!)? I thought that charity was a GOOD thing, and that it was a GOOD thing to help somebody to live the best traditional Catholic life possible.
Shouldn't a traditional Catholic chapel WANT more people to attend, even if they are low income and cannot afford to contribute much financially?
Thank you. Anonymous
Anon 12:58,
DeleteFirst off without going into detail why did the person stop going to the first place for Mass? If it's truly Catholic then that person ought to just go to Mass and leave afterwards.
In regards to the second option for Mass how much further away is it and far would it be for the person driving would it take to pick the other person up? 30 min., 1 hr, 2 hrs, 3 hrs?
It's good to help out lower income people, but unless there is a very good reason not to go to the first place for Mass because either the priest is doubtfully valid or is teaching heretical doctrines or grave scandal goes on there etc. (merely personal reason don't cut it) than that person should continue going and suck it up.
Lee
Anon 12:58,
DeleteI believe that person should contact the other chapel and explain his or her situation. Perhaps there's a parishioner living in their vicinity commuting to that chapel by car and has a free seat - you never know until you ask.
Driving a needy person to Mass is one of the most beautiful charitable works I can think of. It should be a standard for Catholics who are well-off to offer their help to their less fortunate brothers and sisters in Christ. Charity covers a multitude of sin yet there are clergy and laity who seem to believe that once you declare sedevacante, you're good to go and treat your fellow man, nay, even a fellow Catholic, like he's a bad egg.
Could please elaborate on the personal reasons that hinder that person from going to the first chapel you mentioned? Was it something he observed at the chapel (the priest's or the people's behavior)?
God Bless You,
Joanna S.
What is the source of Pope Pius Xll's alleged approval? This is fake news. There is no proof of this "approval." It's all phony. Demand the document. There's no such document.
ReplyDeleteDr. Rios,
DeleteYou are correct. A defender of this false devotion claims that Pope Pius XII blessing a picture of Divine mercy and allowing some bishops to permit the devotion while it was under review by the Holy Office somehow constitutes "implicit approval."
God Bless,
---Introibo
In the Liturgical Year by Dom Gueranger, he writes for Low Sunday:
ReplyDelete"Such is the solemnity of this Sunday that not only is it of Greater Double rite, but no feast, however great, can ever be kept upon it."
Thank you Introibo and Lee for all your good work on this site.
Barbara,
DeleteIn the St. Joseph Daily Missal, the collect prayer says:
"Grant we beseech Thee, Almighty God, that we who have been celebrating the Paschal Festivities, may, through Thy bounty, ever retain their effect, both in life and in conversation."
Hopefully if people read the problems with Divine Mercy they'll understand not as a doubting Thomas but as a believing Thomas after they have seen.
Thank you for all you sweet comments from previous posts.
Lee
Barbara,
DeleteThank you for both the kind words and great information!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Novus Ordo Watch published a post on Divine Mercy:
ReplyDeletehttps://novusordowatch.org/2023/04/kowalska-divine-mercy-vatican-condemnation-1959/
I get the impression this discussion is much like nailing arguments on the Vatican door. Much like was done before and split the church and caused many offshoot churches. I see this as a dangerous division and weakening of the church. As a Catholic “revert” I’m inclined to walk away again after reading all this. Thank You?
ReplyDeleteAnon. 5:46
DeleteChrist said, "Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household." Matthew 10:34-36
What we are talking about is private revelation. Not the deposit of Faith. Catholics do not have to believe in private revelations. This one specifically is dangerous according to the Church for the various reasons and must be avoided. Those who don't want to avoid it treat private revelation as if it is of the Faith, when it is not.
If you let the article or combox discussion bother you so much, you only have yourself to blame if you leave.
Lee
I wonder if Faustina’s body was ever exhumed during her so called canonization process by the modernists? If she was right up there with the Blessed Virgin, one would think she was incorruptible.
ReplyDeletePart 1
ReplyDeleteI value the content of this blog and would like to see it reach a wider audience and achieve more good in the world. I provide the following feedback on this blog in the hope that the author will consider it and revise the text in order to make it more convincing. The first thing I will suggest is that the authors use footnotes to reference all of their sources so that readers can cross-check them. This doesn’t seem to have occurred with this particular article.
The title of the blog “Divine or Diabolical?” while attention grabbing doesn’t seem to be justified by the content of the article given the Holy Office declared the revelations to not be of supernatural origin and little evidence is provided for the latter. It is possible they were of entirely natural origin, the Church did not rule on this matter.
The title runs the risk of giving the impression that it is an article of tabloid style sensationalism rather than one of serious scholarship before the reader gets to the solid information. I do not believe that is the intended goal of the blog, but the effect on the readers mind is to take the content and treat it as an opinion piece when it is not meant to be one.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether the article might come across as less of an opinion piece if the first sentence was changed to a historical statement of fact. While there is a broader context in which we exist, introducing topics like “novus ordo days” limits the audience who might otherwise read this article. The comment giving a nickname for EWTN isn’t really helpful in this regard, though the other personal experiences of this devotion are helpful as they illustrate your background as someone who previously supported this devotion. What changed your mind is the teaching of the Church on this topic.
The next section of text seems well written. I might suggest greater separation of the Holy Office’s decree from your own commentary might be helpful for a first-time reader and allow a smoother transition into your examination of the diary itself as at present there isn’t one.
I was unsure about and could use further I’m unsure what you mean by the subheading “”The Deuce” gets his way.” Is this a nickname for JPII? I wonder whether “Had the Church not gone the way it did…” might be better explained using the phrase “Had modernists not seized control of the structures of the Church in the 1960s and 70’s…” as the situation we’re in is one of an eclipse of the Catholic Church by a false sect, not one where the Church has gone astray. This is an important distinction.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteI think it is also important to consider whether it is accurate to say that the Holy Office was “renamed.” I would argue that it was in fact replaced with an institution with a very different purpose to that of the Holy Office (of the Inquisition) and it was more than simply a rebranding exercise.
You then re-introduce John Paul II and his quote referring to whom I assume are the Mariavite Fathers who you quote as being condemned by Pius X earlier on? I think that juxtaposing these two ideas in adjacent paragraphs might be more helpful to the reader as the contradiction is not clear on initial reading. I think more needs to be written on the contradiction between Catholic teaching and the ideas of JPII, however I think it would be prudent to link to other articles on the blog for this purpose rather than try and introduce too many new ideas in a single article.
At present there are too many new concepts introduced in the final paragraph without any evidence to support the claims being made. For those unfamiliar with these topics this new information is unhelpful and may contribute to a negative impression of the article overall and the impression that the devotion is being rejected due to private judgements. Given the above feedback, I would encourage the author to revise the conclusion section of the article, focusing on the judgement of the Holy Office on this topic and other Catholic teaching and the reasons why this devotion was condemned and should be avoided by Catholics in favour of those promoted and approved by the Church and the messages of Fatima.
I hope this feedback is helpful and assists you in your writing to help reach more hearts and minds.
John,
DeleteThank you for the constructive criticism. I'll take note of what you say and hopefully you'll be satisfied next time.
Lee
Not to play "devil's advocate" but I would point out something which appears to be inexact to me. You wrote:
ReplyDelete'The statement (“From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged”) attributed to Our Lord is also very problematic because there would be no point for Faustina to stay on earth if she is already worthy of Heaven.'
Not necessarily. Some who are already worthy of Heaven nevertheless remain to accomplish a task God sets out for them. Sr. Lucia being a prime example.
Back in the day, before I went sede, this false devotion was suggested to me by acquaintances of the time. I tried it briefly before I concluded "Why bother, the Rosary is enough".
cairsahr_stjoseph,
DeleteOur Lord would never tell something like this to His faithful servants on earth. It puffs a person up in pride and it gives them too much of an assurance of salvation which none of us are guaranteed until after we have died and have been judged if we have proved ourselves worthy of it. Very few make it. It's a scary thought.
Lee
Was John a valid pope the Vatican II began under him, the dismantling of the church
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHe shall gather the lambs with his arm - This is a most beautiful expression, denoting the care of God the Saviour for the feeblest and weakest of his people, and for the young and feeble in years and piety. A similar thing is often done by a shepherd. The tender lamb, unable to keep up with the flock, becomes weary and exhausted; and the shepherd naturally takes it in his arms and carries it.
https://www.biblehub.com/isaiah/40-11.htm
Isaiah 40:11 ►
He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.
Douay-Rheims Bible
He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather together the lambs with his arm, and shall take them up in his bosom, and he himself shall carry them that are with young.
the lambs snuggle in Jesus' bosom