How Faustina’s postconciliar cult eclipsed the Sacred Heart, renamed Low Sunday, and sold Catholics a mercy discourse that too easily slips from repentance into presumption
The DM "revelations" are from the devil, just like Medjugorje & Garabandal.
"Saint" John Paul II illicitly rehabilitated the false revelations & devotion. "Saint" Paul VI, the Chief Destroyer of Catholic Tradition just got rid of the Index of Forbidden Books altogether, which included these "revelations." Besides the dubious image (no heart, often no wounds, etc.), some of the revelations raise a red flag. Sr Faustina states that the “Lord Jesus” appeared to her and said, “...I am uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.” (Divine Mercy in My Soul, The Diary of Sr. Faustina, Stockbridge, MA: Marian Press, 1987, p. 288)
She claimed to hear this voice in her soul, “From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.” (ibid., p. 168)
It even encourages irreverence toward the Eucharist:
“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.” (ibid., p. 23)
Jesus promises to forgive all sins and the punishment due to them for those who go to Confession and receive Holy Communion on Divine Mercy Sunday. This forgiveness is equivalent to a second baptism. No reparation needed.
It is the Rosary and devotion and reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary that God wants of us today, as the REAL Sr Lucia (sisterlucytruth.org) said in her last public words on Dec. 26, 1957 to Fr Augustin Fuentes.
John Paul II, who resurrected it, fast tracked his own false "canonization" & that of many others, including John XXIII, Paul VI & Sr Faustina by eliminating the important "Devil's Advocate" from the process.
“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.” (ibid., p. 23)
This passage alone should discredit Faustina’s diary and the divine mercy for all faithful Catholics. The pushing of this diabolical replacement for the Sacred Heart in so-called conservative novus ordo churches is one of the reasons why I am now a full-time Traditional Catholic.
"The DM "revelations" are from the devil, just like Medjugorje & Garabandal."
100% with you on this one. Much like the diabolical replacement of Sister Lucy with an imposter who reversed pretty well everything Sister Lucy had said.
Attending a TLM Mass today at an FSSP Apostolate it was 1. Correct for the FSSP to include a Divine Mercy Chaplet at the end Mass, 2. Correct that the Mass celebration was the 1st Sunday after Easter with the gospel story of Thomas.
The priest gave a wonderful sermon on justice and mercy, and how “for the sake of His Sorrowful Passion is the key..”
If … you’re claiming the Universal Church, the FSSP, JP2 and Mother Angelica Foundress of EWTN were ALL deceived but you “rosary knight” were not… that’s quite the accomplishment.
I'm claiming not the Universal Church but the counterfeit V2 church, the FSSP, JP2 and Mother Angelica Foundress of EWTN were ALL deceived but pre-V2ers, the only true Catholics, objectively at least, understand the DM deception (only God knows who are the elect who are inculpably deceived), which is one of many peripheral parts of the V2 church deception.
Do some homework at novusordowatch.org, e.g., & see if you think differently than you do now.
You say these private revelations are from the devil, and I agree. Yet you conclude by saying "it is the Rosary and devotion and reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary that God wants of us today..." Words and commands from another private revelation, but one you choose to accept because it suits your narrative. Faith in Jesus, His words, His commandments: those alone are what He left the world. Not a set of beads and devotion to a human woman, regardless of how amazing she was. Jesus is the mediator, noone else. You are part of the very problem that is destroying the true faith you purport to uphold.
Lol. I'm Catholic, but thank you for the acknowledgement that I was protesting against something antithetical to the original catholic and true faith of Christ.
Catholic? "Not a set of beads and devotion to a human woman, regardless of how amazing she was." I think you need to revise the role of Mary in Church doctrine and dogma, especially that on the Rosary.
Show me where, anywhere in scripture or traditional, that Mary is elevated to the role she has now. Can you explain how it was only in less than 200 years that 2 Marian Dogmas were forced on Catholics on pain of excommunication? I think YOU need to revise your understanding of the true faith and The Way of Christ through Scripture and the very earliest Patristic Fathers. I will pray for you.
Too bad you speak out of your ignorance. Know what you are talking about before you opine like an expert.
Popes that spoke of Our Lady, Mary as Co-Redemptrix:
PopeYearDocument or AddressKey Quote or Context
St. Pius X 1904 Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum (encyclical on the Immaculate Conception)"It was she [Mary] who gave her own Son to redeem the human race... hence we rightly call her Co-Redemptrix of the human race."
Benedict XV 1918 Compertum Sane (apostolic letter on St. Boniface)Refers to Mary as "Co-Redemptrix" in the context of her sorrowful participation in Christ's Passion.
Pius XI 1933 Explorata Res (encyclical to the bishops of Peru)Describes Mary as "the Co-Redemptrix who, united with her Son, redeemed the human race." (Also used in Miserentissimus Redemptor, 1928.)
Pius XII 1950 Radio message on the Jubilee YearCalls Mary "Co-Redemptrix" while proclaiming the dogma of the Assumption. (Also in Haurietis Aquas, 1956.)
St. John Paul II 1997 Address to the Pontifical International Marian Academy"Mary, Co-Redemptrix, who cooperates fully in the redemptive work of her Son." (Also referenced in Redemptoris Mater, 1987, and a 1982 address.)
These references are drawn from the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (official Vatican records) and papal writings, confirming the term's magisterial endorsement without implying equality with Christ.
Saints:
St. John Eudes 1601–1680 Le Cœur Admirable (on the Hearts of Jesus and Mary)Credited as the first to systematically use "Co-Redemptrix," calling her "the Co-Redemptrix of the world" for her meritorious suffering with Christ.
St. Alphonsus Liguori 1696–1787 The Glories of MaryDescribes Mary as "Co-Redemptrix" who "paid the ransom for our sins" through her compassion at Calvary.
St. Leonard of Port Maurice 1676–1751 Sermons on the PassionRefers to her as "Co-Redemptrix" in preaching on her role in offering Christ to the Father.
St. Gemma Galgani 1878–1903 Autobiography and letters In visions, calls Mary her "Co-Redemptrix," uniting her sufferings to Mary's for souls' redemption.
St. Maximilian Kolbe 1894–1941Writings on Mariology (e.g., Knight of the Immaculata) Frequently uses "Co-Redemptrix," teaching that Mary "redeems with Christ" as Mediatrix of all graces.
St. Padre Pio (Pio of Pietrelcina) 1887–1968 Letters and spiritual counselsPromoted the title, writing to supporters of the dogma that Mary is "our Co-Redemptrix."
In addition, Brant Pitre, Biblical Scholar, wrote a book in 2019, "Jesus And The Jewish Roots Of The Virgin Mary" You might be enlightened by his evidence.
The Church honors many saints who lived well after the time of Christ and of the Apostles and of Scripture and Tradition. There's nothing wrong with this. There's nothing wrong with honoring Mary most of all of all the saints.
You say you are a Catholic. But no-one would recognise you as such by the Protestant shibboleths that you parrot. Please do some more study about "the original catholic and true faith in Christ" using authentic Catholic sources, and not deceitful anti-Catholic narratives that are designed to undermine the Catholic religion, and attempt to lead faithful Catholics astray.
Mmm... "Not a set of beads and devotion to a human woman, regardless of how amazing she was. Jesus is the mediator, noone else." Maybe I've been dealing with too many anti-Catholic Protestants on FB lately... Sounds exactly like something they would say... I'm guessing you can understand why I thought you were Protestant?
You are entitled to think what you like. But to actually come out and say it without any knowledge of me apart from a comment based on the very earliest teachings and traditions of Jesus, the Apostles and the Patristic Fathers is premature to say the least.
I absolutely agree that you do not have to believe in Fatima OR Sr Faustina’s visions. I have a wariness for the whole idea of “Sr. Faustina’s visions”. I, frankly, get a little tired of the Fatima pushers, too.
If you sum up the common denominator of all pre-VII approved private revelation Marian apparitions, it would be -increase prayer, repentance, and penance-. Obviously we place Our Lady as the holiest and, truly, greatest of saints whose life is most worthy of veneration and emulation. Her purity is without equal of all purely human creatures.
At the same time, it’s kind of bizarre to watch Catholics squabble over “is this real or fake Lucia?”, “was this the secret or was this?” (Honestly the devils are big on secrets, secret societies, etc.), or “is the world consecrated or isn’t it?”. Then, they go on slamming or picking apart this individual or another. It reminds me of the Pharisees and the Old Mosaic Law. Did I stand in my tiptoes and touch my nose while saying a prayer in May? So strange! Why?
Do I actually think Fatima apparitions happened? Sure.
The private revelation silliness gets tiresome. I love Our Lady as all Catholics should. I certainly have a special devotion to her. I try to live my life going to the sacraments, praying, God-willing, repenting, and, God help me, doing penance.
You are tarring with too broad a brush, your crowning argument being the imputation of connections to the Evil One. And you are being uncharitable towards your fellow Catholics in doing so. Striving to find out the truth about the apparition of Fatima which has played such a central role in the life of the Church and the faithful, especially now when the depths of deceit in today's world have become so obvious, is a work of zeal and charity. Not to do so would be to succumb to lukewarmness, sloth and indifference. You shouldn't deny others the right to act even if you aren't interested.
When mocking the behaviour of your fellow Catholics you say: "So strange!" and ask: "Why?" The answer is, perhaps for the same reason you found it necessary to write such a lengthy comment about the peccadilloes of others.
What sort of red herring is this? It has always been the position of the Church to not require belief in private revelation. You have shown your lack of charity towards someone who is perfectly within their right. I can state my case for why I do not harp on Fatima. If you are scandalized by it, that’s on you.
Fatima is not at the center of the Church. The Blessed Trinity is. Fatima is private revelation. It is not at all required for the salvation of souls. I certainly don’t plan on fretting over an apparition that happened over a century ago. I care about now and getting to heaven. The vague Fatima stuff goes in the “whatever” pile.
That's fine if you don't care. But don't criticize those who do care by referencing the Evil One. They have just as much right to care as you have not to care.
Did you even read it? I was talking about people who squabble about what secret is the right secret. It’s pathetic. It’s true that the devil works in secrets. Whether it was your lack of comprehension or not paying attention, I know not. You switched it into what you wanted it to say and then got insulted by your own incorrect interpretation. So, again, whatever.
Cartholics believe it is God's will that His Mother is Mediatrix of all grace and co-redemprix and advocate. She will crush the devil's head,scripture. You present your self as an expert but scripture and the infallible church teaching prove you wrong!
With the greatest of respect, I find your answer disingenuous at best, and completely theolologically uneducated at worst. Jesus left us: the Holy Spirit, the Bible, prayer, the Sacraments, the church/Church, individual believers, suffering, obedience and love and the very name of Jesus Himself. And for a map, he left us the Beatitudes.
Woah woah woah... did Jesus leave us the Bible? when did Jesus hand one of the disciples a book and say "take this and preach it" ? When was the fisrt Bible made? and what in the world do you mean by 'church/Church' ? also what do you mean by he left us 'individual believers' ?
Sorry bro, I have already explained all this in some of my articles here on Substack and I don't feel the need to justify them to someone who doesn't have the nous to see the nuance in my choice of words.
Pretty good answer, but I would have also added that he gave us a mother. Make of that what you will.
If you choose to not accept "Behold your mother" as Jesus speaking directly to you and all of humanity, then by default you reject accessibility towards any available maternal solicitude provided by God. Your argument is with Catholic interpretation of that verse; nothing more, nothing less.
And the last recorded words of Mary in Scripture? "Do whatever He tells you." John 2:5. Mary knew her place as mother but primarily as a disciple; I think that says it all.
Yes, she did say that. But why is the grammatical sentence structure a command? Because she has been given the authority to work in conjunction with the Son to instruct the human race.
By the way, since Jesus is King, she is Queen Mother, and that role confers an authority of her own, granted to her by God. Read Brant Pitre's "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Virgin Mary.
The bogus Divine Mercy was invented by the Devil in order to distract from the Devotion to the Immaculate Heart that Our Lady came to promote at Fatima. The Divine Mercy was promoted by the Evil Illuminati Pope JP2, who created "Divine Mercy Sunday" in order to bury Our Lady of Fatima and her epochal message. An immense spiritual blindness is descending upon the world, because of its hardness of heart and lack of faith. The world is rapidly preparing to welcome the Man of Sin, the Antichrist. Over a half century of the Abomination of Desolation in the former sanctuaries of the Catholic Churches have made of the world a barren desert, where billions of dead souls walk the earth bereft of sanctifying grace. "Various Nations will be annihilated". With Supertrump's stupid and baseless war, the material chastisement has begun. It will culminate by June 13th, 2029.
In the Holy and Sorrowful Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
I do try and not get embroiled in the whole Sedevacantist Debate. For the record, I consider Pope Frantic to have been an anitpope, but all the rest as having been valid occupants of the Chair of Peter.
I will say this. Many Sedevacantists, like the Papolators in the Bogus Ordo, tend to take popes way to seriously. For example, I recently had a conversation with one of Bishop Sanborn's Priests- who happens to be rector of the seminary in Reading- concerning Our Lady of Fatima. In the course of the discussion, he said that the Consecration of Russia had been done because Pius XII said so, and he was a valid pope, don't you know so he cannot err. Needless to say, I found that conclusion ridiculous, and told him so.
Papal power and infallibility must be seen within the context of Tradition and the Church as a whole, as well as demonstrable history. According to Sedevacantist criteria, I think that only about ten popes in the history of the church would pass muster. Sedevacantist thinking is based largely on the popular impressions we were given especially of Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, who ACTED very holy and put out many commendable writings. But once you look under the proverbial hood, that perception rapidly falls apart. Pius XI, for example, allowed an ecumenical orthodox service where the Filioque was not pronounced in the Credo.
Quite frankly at this point I think it is going to take the Second Coming and Sts Peter and Paul with flaming swords to sort out this whole mess. Either that, or all these Cardinals sitting on dunghills in sackcloth with a dumptruck load of ashes poured atop them while they confess all their crimes and cover-ups.
I have heard all the theories on both sides of the aisle ad nauseum and certainly
ST Cardinal Robert Bellarmine has been reduced to a blubbering idiot, along with St Alphonsus Ligouri if these are indeed popes. But if they are antipopes then there goes Pius X and Leo XIII. The Narrative is just not going to win on this one.
In the Holy and Sorrowful Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
As you say, maybe "Sts Peter and Paul with flaming swords [will need] to sort out this whole mess.
Blessed Anna Maria Taigi prophesied that Sts Peter & Paul will appear in Rome to the astonishment of all & appoint a pope after a long period with the Chair of Peter held by false popes. Only time will tell.
Brother Dimond's video makes some very good points, and I agree with him to a degree that Rome is PART of the Whore of Babylon depicted by St John in the Apocalypse. (If you want to make Rome the Whore, the phrase "Who sitteth upon many waters" becomes highly problematic. Now, those waters might refer to the fountains of grace in the sacraments, as per Ezechiel when he saw the vision recounted in the Vidi Aquam that replaces the Asperges during Eastertide. But then again, they might be the physical waters of trade, which seems more likely given the description of the horrors which follow commerce following the destruction of Babylon, which I think most exactly fits the Oil Empire in my eschatology. Actually, I think Babylon describes the whole colony of Satanic Pederasts, whose major bases are the Vatican, the District of Columbia, The Blackfriars City of London, the East India Company of Brussels, and the Duchy of Moscovy- there are ten, and of the other five I am uncertain.)
Brother Dimond takes a deep dive on the eschatological comparison between the Throne of David and the Chair of Peter, and the relation of the two, and many of his points are worth pondering. But Brother Dimond seems to be forgetting the connexion of the Chair of Peter to the Chair of Moses, and its connexion to the Blood of the New Covenant and the Chair of Moses was connected to the Blood of the Old Covenant.
He tries to distill the whole into a synthesis validating the theory that the election of Good Pope John (I use the term facetiously) was invalid, which I think is quite a stretch. If Cardinal Siri indeed had been elected pope, then shame on him, Ottoviani, Bacci, and the rest of the gang for not exposing the fraud, and shutting down Vatican II.
What I think is much, much more likely is that all the popes since at least Pius VI (Yes, I said Pius VI) were in on a grand conspiracy to overthrow the Chair of Peter and the Most Holy Mass, a conspiracy of which "Canon Roca" proudly boasted back in 1870. The transition from Pius XII to John XXIII was not as stark as either the Sedevacantists or the Society of St Pius X suggests. Subsequent events have proven that it was Mary Ball Martinez, not Michael Davies nor Archbishop Lefebvre, the Bearded One, who were much closer to the dark truths of the 3rd Secret of Fatima.
I don't pay much attention to Blessed Anna Maria Taigi, Anne Catherine Emmerich, and etc. Trying to construct a blow-by-blow account of the Chastisement is, I believe, an exercise in futility, especially given all the contradictions in their accounts. I stick with the outline given by Fr Bernard Kramer and what Our Lady told us at Fatima- not just in words, but in the many signs in the apparitions themselves- Six Apparitions- Six days of Creation- Six Ages of Salvation History, High Noon, Six hours after the resurrection.. and etc.
In the Holy and Sorrowful Hearts of Jesus and Mary
I think it's a deception of the devil to believe that all the popes since at least Pius VI (d. 1799) were in on a grand conspiracy to overthrow the Chair of Peter and the Most Holy Mass. I believe a valid pope would be prevented by the Holy Spirit from doing that or else drop dead or become incapacitated before doing so.
St. Faustina reportedly received the command to propagate the Divine Mercy message and image on February 22, 1931. This of course as you imply is chronologically post-Fatima.
That said, it should also be noted that no one knows what's going to happen on June 13th, 2029.
I agree, although I tend to believe there may be a great chastisement in 2029 on account of it being 100 years from the unfulfilled request for the consecration of Russia, just as the French Revolution began 100 years after the unfulfilled request for the consecration of France to the Sacred Heart. I think it will be the destruction caused not by nuclear war but by the passing of Planet X/Nibiru. John Moore, "The Liberty Man," former Naval Intelligence, talks about it from a scientific perspective, although giving no specific year.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 3 days of darkness occurs in 2031, which is the 500th anniversary of Our Lady of Guadalupe's appearance in Mexico (leading to the greatest mass conversion in the history of the Catholic Church, and which may also be the exact 2000 year Jubilee of the Resurrection. Also a prophecy of Father Padre Pio points to around that time.
One of Padre Pio's friends (who is still alive today), relates the following in a book recently published in Italy:
In 1963 or 1964 Padre Pio was speaking to his spiritual sons. Padre Pio said their own children there, who were then approximately 10 years old, would live to see the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
Those children would be 77 to 78 years old in 2031.
I noticed a while back the UN Agenda 2030 (the worldwide date for implementation of the New World Order) coincides with the 2000th anniversary of the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus Christ. I don't think that's a coincidence on their part.
That this date also nearly coincides with dates regarding the warning given to Sr. Lucia in 1929 plus the one you mention, the 500th anniversary of Our Lady of Guadalupe, kind of points to some kind of climax coming around 2030. Given that 2033 would be the 2000th anniversary of the Resurrection, one has to wonder what "they" have planned for that date. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it wasn't the seating of the anti-Christ on some kind of throne in Jerusalem.
Whether God will allow that, we'll have to wait and see.
The manifestation of the Antichrist is imminent. I am basing this on the following:
One: between Dec 10th, 2025 and June 13th, 2029 is 42 Months, the appointed time of the Antichrist. I have long predicted that things would really begin to fall apart following the 100th Anniversary of the Apparition at Pontavedra, and culminate with the 100th Anniversary of the Apparition of Tuy.
The Antichrist will be a peace broker, and that is exactly what the World is looking for at this time.
SuperTrump's spat with Pope Leo is perhaps much bigger than it might initially appear. Time will tell.
The diary and image(s) are so cringeworthy, this should be obvious to everyone. Catholicism is beautiful. The DM is anything but. And the one-day-only “get out of purgatory free” flash sale is an absurdity.
"And the one-day-only “get out of purgatory free” flash sale is an absurdity." 😀😀😀 I definitely laughed at how you said that... But you're not wrong. 👍
I don’t understand the hatred for the Divine Mercy devotion. I’d you read the Diary it is filled with countless warnings to amend your life, repent of sins, offer sacrifices for the remission of sins, and common themes like numerous other devotions. Never is Mercy assumed as something received without repentance or turning away from sin. Confession is mentioned frequently as a way to ensure your heart/soul can receive the Mercy Jesus died on the cross to give. Justice is not eliminated, but, through Confession, sacrifices, and amendment/reparation it is tempered by Mercy. None of us deserve Heaven or forgiveness, but in His Mercy, Jesus died on the cross as reparation for our sins, so we could be forgiven and accept His Grace. One key point I believe the Divine Mercy devotion makes clear is that God’s Mercy is always there if we will just accept it by turning away from sin and trusting that Jesus’s sacrifice fulfills the justice necessary for our sins.
There is a strong connection and unity between the Divine Mercy devotion and several older devotions. These older devotions aren’t replaced by one another, but slightly different aspects of the same Justice fulfilled by Christ’s offering of Himself in atonement for our sins. St Gertrude emphasized Christ being offered to the Father for reparation of sins for souls in Purgatory. In the Sacred Heart devotion the emphasis is on how Jesus loved us so much that His Sacred Heart was wounded & pierced for our sins so we do not have to face the ultimate Divine Justice. In the Precious Blood devotion the emphasis is on Jesus’s Blood paying the price of our sins thereby granting us Mercy and fulfilling what Justice requires for our sins. At Fatima there is an urgency for conversion so we do not have to face the hell. If we repent and convert, we will be given Mercy, not Hell. Even St Thérèse unites Christ’s sacrifice and ours by in our ‘little ways’ and trusting in God’s Mercy and not facing hell. Then the Divine Mercy combines all the above and focuses on God’s constant Mercy if we simply accept it and turn away from sin. Many of the prayers for these devotions are even quite similar because they share a common theme, just expressed differently for a different audience. Each of these devotions have us approaching the Father through Christ’s Sacrifice not our own merits and Christ’s Sacrifice was about His Mercy and Love for us so we didn’t have to face eternal punishment.
It’s kind of like the 4 Gospels—they generally tell the same stories and chronicle Christ’s Life, Death, and Resurrection, but each was written to appeal/apply to a particular audience. Matthew emphasized Jesus’s adherence to Judaism to give Jewish Christians fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament. Mark was written for Gentiles that were likely facing persecution to give them courage to imitate Christ even through persecution. Luke was written more broadly for all Gentiles by emphasizing Christ came to save all of mankind, not just the few. John was written even more broadly for more established Christians and emphasizes the deep spiritual meaning of events and that belief in Christ is necessary for Eternal Life. Even with the differing language and audiences for the Gospels, they are unified by the theme of Christ coming to save mankind from sin as a perfect offering to God the Father. All these devotions have the same acknowledgement that Christ came and suffered as an offering to God the Father for our sins. In order to receive His Mercy we must trust in Him, repent of our sins, and offer ourselves in union with Christ to God the Father. Unless St Gertrude’s devotion was supplanted by the Sacred Heart Devotions which was itself supplanted by the Precious Blood devotions that was then supplanted by Fatima, why would the Divine Mercy devotion supplant any of these other devotions?
Our Catholic tradition is filled with countless devotions, some clearly thematically related, but not as replacements for one another. Instead each devotion touches on a slightly different aspect of the same theme: Jesus offering Himself to God the Father in reparation for our sins. Just as the Confiteor isn’t supplanted by the Kyrie which isn’t replaced by the Agnus Dei and that isn’t replaced by the Domine, non sum dignis. While they all say it differently, each addresses that we are sinners in need of God’s Mercy, but they do so from a different angle. So too, do all these devotions. Together they help a wider variety of people acknowledge their need for God’s mercy that is freely given because of Christ’s sacrifice if we simply repent of our sins convert and accept that Jesus’s offering of Himself met the requirements of God’s justice for the world. At His Word we are given an abundance of Graces when we convert from our sinful ways and trust His Mercy.
For what it is worth, I’m not entirely devoted to the Divine Mercy. I just don’t think it’s diabolical as some people claim. I prefer the Rosary and say all the Mysteries every day if possible. However, when I read ‘Consoling the Heart of Jesus’ I understood more about how all these devotions along with the Mass all lead to the same thing: offering yourself in union with Christ to the Father through the repentance of sins for the salvation of souls. It was after reading this book that I began my devotion to the Rosary as a daily part of my life. I also read Secrets of the Rosary and Little Flowers of St Francis because of this book. Again, all these books echo what all these devotions address, just in different ways.
You seriously think that someone guided by Christ would be playing footsie - or in this case - handsie with the Blessed Sacrament? In out, in out? Whereby encouraging Communion in the hand? Or that Christ would tell ANYONE that He was uniting himself with that person more than with anyone else? More than with His own Mother??? Or St Joseph and St John the Baptist? If that were true, shouldn't we therefore ditch devotion to Our Lady - if Faustina is more important? See how it mangles true teaching?
Best to just ditch everything not verified by the pre-VII Church - especially anything prohibited by it. There is absolutely nothing good/correct in her diary which wasn't already present in Catholic dogma and doctrine etc.. The mere fact that it now takes precedence over devotion to the Sacred Heart is a red flag - no wounds, no heart, and to top it off, a very effeminate Christ.
Not just an effeminate Christ, but according to the version which is somewhat more popular than the one supposed to be the original, a 'Christ' with a sleazy look on his face. And BTW, the existence of two competing versions of the image, which have a background of controversy, is problematic in itself, since the image is supposed to be a faithful depiction of what Jesus asked. A related problem is that most images now have red and blue rays instead of the 'original' red and white which are supposed to have a very definite symbolism. Another concern is that the artist of the 'original' painting was a Freemason, once did a painting of himself as Judas, and in the end took his own life. And don't get me started on how nowadays many of the images have added a heart and pretend that it's really devotion to the Sacred Heart 😡
Well, we can both agree that private revelation is unnecessary for our salvation. So no one is forcing anyone to delve into the Divine Mercy against their will as a condition for Eternal Life. You’re also correct that the Divine Mercy devotion doesn’t bring anything new to the table. In my comment above, I outlined the flow from St Gertrude to the Sacred Heart to the Precious Blood to Therese and to Divine Mercy. All these devotions are based on the same themes, but come from slightly different angles to appeal to different people in different aspects of their life. In being a re-statement of old devotions, the Divine Mercy devotion is verified.
Now, you may not like the symbolic and mystical language used in the Diary, and again, that’s fine and, honestly, that isn’t my style either. The imagery of the Eucharist flying into Faustina’s hands is somewhat disarming. However, that’s doesn’t mean that Faustina’s Diary was somehow responsible for Eucharist in the hand. In that part of the Diary, I believe the point was that Jesus flies to us, we just have to accept Him with love and reverence. Other Saints had extraordinary experiences with the Eucharist too: Catherine of Sienna, Therese, and Mary of Egypt to name a few.
Similarly, when a mystical Saint states their union with Jesus is more close to anyone else, they’re not being literal or comparing/elevating themselves over Mary or other Saints. Instead, they’re speaking mystically and symbolically about that specific moment in time and how Jesus is communing with them to impart Himself to them. Again, this also is not my favorite part of the Diary or devotion. However, numerous Saints (pre-VII) have used similar language: Catherine of Sienna, Therese, Bernard, John Vianny, and Margaret Mary Alacoque to name a few.
Nothing in the Diary or devotion tries to separate anyone from any of the other Saints or devotions they’re drawn to. Instead, the devotion builds on the foundations set by prior Saints and devotions and gives the masses another option in addition to previously established ones, just as the Sacred Heart gave another option, as well as the Precious Blood devotion, St Therese, and the countless devotions we have in the Church with full approval. There is no one forcing any of these devotions on you. If you prefer your current devotions, that’s great. That’s why the Church has so many approved devotions—so each and every person can connect with one and draw closer to God in so doing.
Overall, my main point is that it’s perfectly acceptable to not like or use the Divine Mercy devotion. However, your personal dislike or misunderstanding of it does not make it diabolical. It just isn’t for you and the Church doesn’t require belief in private revelations, so there’s no reason to be so vehemently opposed. Again, I am not a devotee to the Divine Mercy, but reading the Diary, Consoling the Heart of Jesus, and similar writings has helped me become devoted to the Rosary.
I gave up this devotion. I gave away Faustinas diary, and the images since i first attended the Latin Mass. I just continue my devotion with the Rosary, Holy Face of Jesus, and the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary according to Our Lady of Fatima. Any devotion promoted, fast track canonisation of individuals after Vatican 2 i just completely ignore. Im a simple Catholic and i don’t need much. I cast no judgment on post Vatican 2 catholicism, i just prefer the Tradition pre Vatican 2. Arcangel Michael defend us from Heresy.
That makes sense. Like I mentioned, I’m not some devotee or anything, but I think there’s lots more controversy and hate than needed. I’m a Rosary girl myself, so 🤷🏻♀️.
I view the Divine Mercy as an invitation, so to speak, to obtain the grace that the good thief did in his last desperate moments at the side of Christ. Think of all the people in those days getting crucified, day after day, week after week; if you were one of those unfortunate people, imagine having the great good fortune to find yourself crucified right alongside Christ. DM is our invitation to be in that position too.
Just like the Sacred Heart devotion is our invitation to rest our heads upon the Sacred Heart of Jesus, like the Beloved Disciple did. Just like Marian consecration and true devotion to Mary is our invitation to take our Mother Mary into our hearts and home, like John did.
All we have to do is believe in God’s mercy and we are shoeins to heaven.
Believe me I’m exceptionally grateful for God’s mercy! Indeed I am! However, it’s too easy to go down that road of His mercy alone. And even though you have read other things in the diary, we poor sinners remember the easy parts! And that’s what Divine Mercy Sunday focuses on…easy mercy.
It does steal away the import of what our dear Lord did just over a week ago.
Well, maybe it sounds like Protestantism to you, but it speaks to many hearts that fear their unworthiness will bar them from Eternal Life. I find Faustina’s ‘Jesus I trust in You’ to be very comforting when my anxiety is spiraling out of control. Just as I find Therese’s ‘little things’ comforting because I do not fit the description of someone that can act for Jesus in a big way. When I’m feeling anxious and downcast about my inabilities to do grand things to draw people nearer to God, these two thoughts from Faustina & Therese keep me grounded in Christ.
I don’t see how reflecting on how Jesus’s Sacrifice on the cross and Resurrection bestows His Mercy on us if we simply trust in Him could be ‘stealing away the import’ of Easter. It is very much tied to Easter because without Good Friday and Easter, that Mercy wouldn’t be there for us to accept. How can trusting in His Mercy bestowed upon us on Good Friday and Easter detract from the fact of Jesus’s salvific actions? To me, that is contradictory and doesn’t follow logic.
That is another great ejaculatory prayer. There are a number of ejaculatory prayers in the Raccolta. Having multiple options does not negate any of the options.
For the love that is all good and holy don’t read the catechism of Trent. It says such Protestant things as, “In His Passion and death the Son of God, our savior, intended to atone for and blot out the sins of all ages, to offer for them to His Father a full and abundant satisfaction.”
Hatred? You’re using a word that I didn’t notice anyone else use. If you wish to be perceived as credible you cannot put words in people’s mouths. Argue from what is written, not your perception of what is written.
What would you call labeling this devotion as ‘diabolical’, ‘evil’, ‘from the devil’ if not hatred? I *did* argue with the facts about the devotion in contrast with the accusations made against it. I compared it to several other devotions as well as, in answer to another comment, I outlined how St Gertrude’s devotion led to the Sacred Heart devotion, that led to the Precious Blood devotion, that led to St Therese’s devotion, that finally led to the Divine Mercy devotion. Perhaps you missed my comment(s) in this vein.
Something I have noticed is that the words of Christ in St. Faustina's diary are contradictory, very often, and require a very high interpretation skill... for example,
1722: "If you did not tie My hands, I would send down many punishments
upon the earth. My daughter, your look disarms My anger. Although your lips are
silent, you call out to Me so mightily that all heaven is moved. I cannot escape from
your requests, because you pursue Me, not from afar but within your own heart."
And yet...
1739: "Write, My daughter, that I am mercy itself for the contrite soul. A soul‟s greatest
wretchedness does not enkindle Me with wrath; but rather, My Heart is moved towards
it with great mercy."
Why would he send down many punishments if he was not enkindled with wrath by a soul's wretchedness? Also, does the Bible not say that he chastises those he loves? just before these two passages he says:
1703 "Do not cry. There are still a great number of souls who love Me very much, but My
Heart desires to be loved by all and, because My love is great, that is why I warn and
I don’t see these quotes as needing special interpretation. He knows she is seeking Him in her heart wholeheartedly and it moves Him to Mercy even as He chastises and warns people to repent and believe in Him. I believe there are several Saints (pre-VII) that have used similar language as well as examples from Scripture. Even Marian apparitions have used similar language and imagery. There’s also the great fact that none of our salvation is dependent on believing private revelation, apparitions, or anything like that. There are a great number of devotions I do not follow because they don’t speak to me or I don’t understand their language. And that is perfectly acceptable.
Considering the fact that the Holy Office placed Faustina's writing on the Index of Forbidden Books and that office was not filled with apostates/heretics/schismatics as it was during the reign of the false pope, JPII, I tend to consider it a fake.
Also considering the fact that even the false pope, John XXIII, condemned her writings twice, that is further evidence to reject them.
"Not once, but twice under (false) Pope John XXIII, this particular devotion was condemned through the Holy Office. 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 means that the members of the Holy Office examined the content and decided that there was nothing there to indicate the apparitions were supernatural. In an authentic apparition - Our Lady of Lourdes or Our Lady of Fatima, for example - you can look at the content and affirm it can not be definitively said they are of divine origin, but there is enough evidence to say that it is possibly so. On the other hand, in the Divine Mercy apparitions, they said definitively that there is no evidence whatsoever that they are supernatural. This translates, “We do not think that these apparitions come from God.”
2. No feast of Divine Mercy should be instituted. Why? Because if it is based on apparitions that are not clearly coming from God, then it would be rash and temerarious to institute a feast in the Church based on something that is a false apparition.
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. So, it was forbidden to even publish the image of Our Lord as Divine Mercy." https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm
"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.” (Divine Mercy in My Soul, The Diary of Sr. Faustina, Stockbridge, MA: Marian Press, 1987, p. 288)
How can we believe that Our Lord has united Himself more intimately with Sr. Faustina than with the Blessed Virgin Mary? At first, we might read this and think, “Oh, that's beautiful.“ But later it may hit you, “Wait a minute, Our Lord united Himself more intimately with Sr. Faustina than with any other creature? Our Lady was the Immaculate Conception, but she was also His creature, she was created by Him as the rest of us were, albeit with the greatest exalted position free from original sin from the very beginning.”
And now are we expected to believe that Our Lord told Sr. Faustina that He is more united to her than anybody else, even the Blessed Virgin Mary, and certainly more than all the other Saints? This affirmation smacks of pride in itself, let alone the assertion that it came from Heaven.
This type of presumption is present in many other cases.
Our Lord supposedly addressed Sr. Faustina on May 23, 1937, with these words: “Beloved pearl of My Heart.” What bothers me about this is that it is pure saccharin. Look how Our Lady speaks to Sr. Lucia or to St. Bernadette. It is not as “beloved pearl of My Heart.” It is impossible to imagine Our Lord stooping to saccharin language. Our Lord is Christ the King, Creator of the universe, and ruler of all that is. He does not say things like “beloved pearl of My Heart.”
Let me continue. Then, He said: “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.” (ibid., p. 400) First of all, except for the Blessed Virgin Mary, we are not free from original sin and, therefore, we are not capable of a love purer than the angels.
As for blessing the world, that might be fine. If we had one real saint in the world, then the Lord will give us blessings for that one real saint. This is not my objection.
My objection is that this revelation was in 1937; the world was on the verge of World War II, which Sr. Lucy had already been forewarned of by Our Lady at Fatima: if Russia is not consecrated, and man does not convert, then this big disaster will befall mankind for their evil ways and their sins.
At that moment, we were about to see that disaster descend from Heaven, yet Our Lord tells Sr. Faustina, “For your sake, I am going to bless the world.” Was World War II a blessing on the world? Since her native Poland did not go unscathed by the German invasion, it does not seem likely that He actually blessed the world.
Another example: Sr. Faustina claimed that Our Lord told her that she was exempt from judgment, every judgment - particular judgment and the general judgment. On February 4, 1935, she already claimed to hear this voice in her soul, “From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.” (ibid., p. 168)
Now, nobody but the Blessed Virgin, as far as I know, is free from the general and particular judgment. St. Thomas Aquinas, according to the pious story, had to genuflect in Purgatory before going to Heaven. I don’t know if this is fact, but it is a lesson for us that nobody is exempt from any kind of judgment.
And add to these examples the preposterous affirmation that the Host jumped out of the Tabernacle three times and placed itself in her hands, so that she had to open up the Tabernacle and place it back herself: “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.” (ibid., p. 23) It makes it sound like a hamster that has gotten out of its cage. “Oh, no, here it is again. I have to go put this back now.”
How many times has the Church declared that the hands of a priest are consecrated to handle the Sacred Species, and what kind of lesson would you be giving to the world by this example of the Host leaping into her hands so that she had to place it back in the Tabernacle herself?
Our Lord does not contradict His Church by word or by gesture. And this would be a little bit by both. She related what happened, but the gesture itself would be Our Lord contradicting the Real Presence and everything it represents.
A lack of Catholic spirit
In short, the whole Divine Mercy devotion does not represent a Catholic spirit. The Catholic spirit is one of making constant reparation in penance for our sins, of praying for the graces of God, for the mercy of God in this life."
It was not on the Index of Forbidden books nor was it condemned twice. It *was* prohibited from being spread in 1959, but there were no reasons given. Some say it was prohibited twice, but that is a misunderstanding that in 1958 that it was first reported to Rome and the investigation began then to be concluded with the disciplinary caution in 1959, not official placement on the Index of Forbidden Books. When the reversal was issued in 1978, it was based on internal notes from the prohibition and answered those issues. Since Wojtyła was a Polish native he was more equipped to examine the original Diaries and not someone else’s translation. Faustina was not highly educated and used colloquial and expressive/emotional language that doesn’t translate cleanly to a non-native speaker. This is common for mystics and often creates misunderstandings when translated by a non-native speaker (Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, & Catherine of Sienna are examples). By that time too, the restrictions in Poland (difficulty getting things like this across the borders) were lessened and more documents were available for examination. Wojtyła was actually encouraged to re-address the Diary & devotion by the then-bishop of Krakow.
It’s also important to note that 2 separate local bishops approved the devotion (Faustina’s convent’s bishop) and image (bishop of the town/area where it was painted) for use by the people. Faustina’s convent’s bishop spoke with Faustina’s confessor before allowing the devotion to be used/promoted. This is almost always the first step in approval and often considered the unofficial rise in status to an allowed/approved devotion, apparition, or vision. Devotions (or other issues) that are rejected by their local ordinaries are generally considered false, while those allowed or approved by the local ordinaries are considered likely true, but more investigation is needed.
When Rome issued the prohibition, it was not labeled as heretical, having doctrinal issues, or theological issues. It was prohibited because it was spreading so quickly throughout Poland (and I believe during WWII soldiers) that Rome had been unable to directly access and assess it. The documents that Rome had in hand were translations from the Polish with insertions by the translator that were indistinguishable from the original statements. It is common for visions written by a second party to not get Vatican full approval because of this kind of issue. It was a precautionary measure that never reached the Index of Forbidden Books. Once the actual original documents and witnesses were available for review, Wojtyłan investigated them and got the devotion approved. Was he guilty of having a bit of national pride in this devotion—quite possibly, but that doesn’t negate the documentation, witnesses, and other evidence he had access to that the 1958-9 Vatican did not.
In this way, as well as the theme, the Divine Mercy, echoed St Margaret Mary Alacoque’s Sacred Heart devotion. In the late 1600s many clergy resisted the Sacred Heart devotions, including many bishops that refused to allow it. Their reasoning also somewhat echoes the accusations against the Divine Mercy. They found the Sacred Heart devotion too emotional, thought that it lacked theological grounding, and that it placed too much emphasis on private revelation. It was, obviously, later approved in 1765, but only established as a universal feast in 1856.
Several other common traditional devotions faced initial prohibition, refusals, and criticisms: St Francis de Sales Introduction to the Devout Life, St Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises, and the Imitation of Christ to name a few. Some writings of Saints (and Blesseds) have never been approved officially, but are commonly used as devotions and even shape our Catholic tradition, such as bisions from Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. She’s not even canonized, but her visions (written down by Clemens Brentano) gave rise to Mary’s House at Ephesus as well as how we view Jesus’s early life and Passion. The Church uses utmost caution before allowing and promoting any new devotion, vision, apparition, or Saint. That caution doesn’t mean the proposed is diabolical, in doctrinal or theological error, or heretical. It generally means that the Church doesn’t have enough information to justify approval. Once the Church (the Vatican) has access to original sources and witnesses, the investigation can result in an official approval (or denial). In the Divine Mercy devotions case, this more in-depth investigation led to approval.
Then you better stay away from the other mystics’ writings as well. Most mystics use language that in everyday usage would be significantly over-the-top, overly emotional, self-aggrandizing, too sweet (saccharine) even. Even the language used in the original writings/visions of the Sacred Heart were considered too emotional. St Gertrude the Great’s writings also describe her as ‘especially close’ and other intimate language singling her out amongst all others. Catherine of Sienna had a ‘mystical marriage’ with Christ. I’d say that’s pretty exclusive and elevates her above all others. Thérèse Lisieux writes that she is uniquely loved by Christ. Even Scripture, particularly John Gospel contains such language calling John ‘the disciple Jesus loved’, ‘the beloved disciple’, and such…
Excellent summary - or rather detailed explanation! I think I'll keep it as I tend to forget the details over time. Then every time it comes up I just think - here we go again, because so many people just don't want to take on board the fact that the pre-VII Church banned it.
Interesting: "Also considering the fact that even the false pope, John XXIII, condemned her writings twice, that is further evidence to reject them." I wasn't aware - or maybe it just didn't register a long time ago when I first read all about it - that John XXIII also had condemned it. Makes a much stronger case against its use, or at least should do.
Sorry, but you weren’t aware of the multiple placements of the Divine Mercy on the Index or prohibited because they didn’t happen. There was only 1 prohibition posted, and it was under John XXIII. Internal notes indicated that the decision was based on a single translated version and no witnesses or corroborating evidence. That’s why when the case was re-examined, in its original language and with full access, it was approved.
?? I've no idea what you're saying here - I never mentioned multiple placings on anything. If you're referring to 'condemned her writing twice', then your reply should have gone to Elaine.
I apologize if I mis-directed my comment, but the comment directly above mine, from you literally quote the comment from Elaine and label it interesting. You also said that the fact that her writings were condemned twice made a “much stronger case against its use, or should do.” While you may not have originated the twice condemned narrative, you accepted it after saying that you tend to forget the details over time. I was simply reassuring you that you didn’t forget anything. The writings were never twice condemned. You can’t forget about something that’s never happened.
Perhaps I confused you because I mentioned being placed on the the Index instead of saying condemned. Whatever the case, the assertions made by Elaine, that you found “interesting” and making “a much stronger case against it” never actually happened.
I think we’ve all got the message that you don’t like the fact that Faustina and her book were condemned and are trying every way possible to prove they’re OK. They’re not, but if that’s what you’re happy with, go with it.
JPII pushed this devotion for the sole reason that, like himself, Faustina was Polish. If not for that it would have deservedly remained forbidden and forgotten.
I grew up in a Polish household where JP2 was held up as a hero and quasi-divine. Learning about Assisi, the Koran-kissing, his treatment of Archbishop Lefebvre has been awful...and here's another sad episode to add to the disillusion.
I think that was just a secondary reason, the first being that it is very ecumenical & it will divert many from the crucially important Message of Fatima, hijacked by the enemy colonizers of the Vatican, Sr Lucia "disappeared," & the Third Secret, which foretold the Judeo-Masonic overthrow of the papacy, a false Council & a false Mass, suppressed.
Also, the more chaplets, the fewer rosaries, & the devil & his human agents want that.
As a cradle Catholic still somewhat new to Tradition (it's been about five years), I am shocked by what I continue to learn about the devastation of the Faith in the post-Conciliar period. This business about Faustina's cult reminds me of how the Feast of Christ the King has been emptied in the Novus Ordo of its true ballast and replaced instead with a watered-down version of the same. Much thanks for this article and all the others.
I'm sorry to have to say this... However much you have learned about the devastation of the Faith so far, it gets worse. You'll see as you continue learning.
So, yes you are right. I had heard it before but couldn't believe my ears that the new Code of Canon Law (1983) upends the old 1917 prohibition on non-Catholics receiving Communion. But here's the rabbit hole I went down today:
The old law:
(1917) CIC 0731. § 1. As all the Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Christ Our Lord, are the principal means of sanctification and salvation, the greatest diligence and reverence is to be observed in opportunely and correctly administering them and receiving them. § 2. It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless before-hand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.
But here is the new:
(1983) CIC 844 §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
Exactly. A prime example. The books by Michael Davies (+RIP) lay out a lot of the changes in the Church, Iota Unum by Romano Amerio, The Devastated Vineyard by Dietrich von Hildebrand, and many others. Back issues of Catholic Family News, especially when John Vennari was editor, is a great resource. And there are many others...
I thank God for giving you the grace to come to accept the truth. But when people say they are new to Tradition I would humbly correct them and ask that they say I have come to believe in the true Catholic faith rather than belief in a false one.
One of my best friends, a former Protestant minister, once defended the Osteen and similar "churches" as "seeker-friendly," though without doctrine. I'd like to be charitable to the Novus Ordo goers by granting that there is enough Light there, although heavily and sometimes totally obscured, to lead them along...hopefully unto Tradition. My son's best friend just converted to Catholicism and we all attended his reception at a Novus Ordo service. So many of the new converts were kneeling to receive, wearing veils, and weeping over the experience. I cannot deem it entirely false, however deficient the liturgy seemed to me.
We know that many have converted from false religions to Catholicism so I have prayed that those in the Novus Ordo church will convert one day soon to the true Catholic faith. This church is entirely false Marcel and survives on its appeal to emotions rather than reason or revealed truths.
Why is it that these new devotions are all women-driven or seem to be? My elderly lady friends love Divine Mercy. They are starting to go for the Luisa Piccaretta Divine Will thing although men do too and once at the TLM parish I attended, we had a talk on the "Flame of Love" devotion. That was so awful (I forget the details) that I fled halfway through, and I got into my car and literally talked to Jesus out loud. I said, "Lord, that was outrageous." It just seems like older women are starving for magic and they are thrilled to find it anywhere. Plus they have no taste in art. Sorry to be rude.
"My daughter was sick, and I thought of going to the doctor. The Lord said, “Do not go anywhere. It will be better if your daughter is not cured.” I grew depressed because she has a husband and a child. Jesus told me why: “Your daughter always has temptations. By a long sickness, I will fill her with abundant graces and her soul will be purified.”"
from the Diary of the visionary associated with this devotion... weird... so, not allowed to go to the doctor anymore? But at the same time, this visionary was taught this epic ecumenical prayer:
May our feet journey together.
May our hands gather in unity.
May our hearts beat in unison.
May our souls be in harmony.
May our thoughts be as one.
May our ears listen to the silence together.
May our glances profoundly penetrate each other.
May our lips pray together to gain mercy from the Eternal Father.
so... lets journey together and have unity... but no going to the doctor...
I'm afraid this is shortsighted and underestimates the lengths to which God the Father will go to recover his straying children before the Day of Justice in the last days. We must be humble enough to receive this last offer of mercy, because we human beings sorely need it!
The image does NOT replace the Sacred Heart but rather shows what issues forth from the eternally Pierced Heart of the Risen Christ in glory, the two indispensable sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist. Going to sacramental Confession is an essential requirement of the devotion. The chaplet reinforces continually the connection between our sin and the only path of redemption through the Passion of Our Lord and the sacraments of the Church. It is the cry of the publican in the parable: "God, have mercy on me, a sinner!"
Namaan at first rejected the cure of his leprosy because it seemed too simple (2 Kings 5:1-15). We are little children and should not let our pride lead us to reject this offer of mercy for our many sins made by Our Father in Heaven.
Exactly. Even the Marians have stated many times how they obeyed the ban by still teaching about Divine Mercy from Church teaching, Scripture, etc. and leaving Faustina out of it.
Absolutely, Francisca! But we need to be reminded and called to trust and seek Him in these dark times. God sent His prophets continually to Israel to prepare them, culminating in sending His Son, Our Lord. In our time, when love and trust in Our Lord have grown cold, and faith has dimmed, He sends His Mother, Blessed Mary Ever Virgin; His saints; and His faithful priests and disciples to bring as many to faith as possible before His Second Coming.
So many people operate from the questionable premise that we are in the last days, using this assumption to justify the DM’s radical departure from Catholic traditions of repentance and reparation. The day and hour are not given us to know. Certain events in scripture have yet to occur, such as the conversion of the Jewish people. We are in dark times, but whether these are the end times is NOT a thing we can know. It is illogical to suspend prudence based on this irrational assumption.
On You Tube can be found a series of short videos by "Ascent of Mount Carmel" concerning this devotion, Faustina herself, and a connection to the Polish schismatic group, the Mariavites.
Are you sure it's her? I asked AI and it said that the group (set up 1906) was inspired by the mystical revelations of Feliksa Kozłowska ("Mateczka"). No idea myself!!
The first time I saw this picture - in a Cathedral - my immediate instinct was one of recoil, thinking “I don’t know whom they’re worshiping here, but it isn’t Christ. One of my biggest wake-up pointers to the truth about Vatican II. Then I found Faustina’s diary which, along with the pre-VII ban, confirmed the deception - and yes, it is indeed a 'cult'.
It’s a picture of Jesus on the night of Easter. So much suffering behind its creation. Go to Vilnius some time and see it. God bless you and forgive you.
The controversy surrounding the production of the picture, of which there are essentially two different versions, is a problem in itself, and has some disturbing elements.
Dom Gueranger said of this day, Low Sunday, that it is never to be superseded or replaced. A wealth of teaching on this day in his writings. Have a listen and enjoy!
Thank you Chris for this commentary. I’m going to offer another perspective. Christ can write straight with crooked lines. In 2019, I had a major breakdown. A cradle Catholic and did not know how to pray a rosary. I knew God not. Being raised in the height of the destruction of the church 1970’s, the Catechism consisted of knowing the sign of the cross, Our Father and Hail Mary. That’s it. It was All I had to navigate the drug infested cesspool of NYC and the new modern Nuns and Priests.
I was in dire straits. I threw myself into the church and began to crawl back to God. Novus Ordo was the only thing available. What was the next best thing?? YOU TUBE. I found the Rosary at Lourdes and immediately after was the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. I found a rosary and it was especially, through the divine mercy Chaplet that the Good Lord let me see myself as he sees me. Up until then, I thought I was a really good person and sinless. Honestly did! It was the worst thing in the world when God pulls away and your soul is empty. Truly tragic and indescribable. Thru the hurting bended knees and the tears of agony, I was lead to confession after 30 straight days of pure hell and crawling thru that fire. My only confession was at age 12. I was then 55 and the confession was so bad that the priest gave me a “How to do a proper confession card”. It was in the confessional that God truly returned to my heart and soul. Instantly.
Many, many people have come to Christ thru that Chaplet. I can’t account for the visions and testimonies of St. Faustina, But, I know that Jesus Christ put me through penance in that Chaplet. Christ can do all things. Even save souls thru evil. 🙏
Yes, God can make use of anything in order to kick-start/further an individual's spiritual path to Him, because He can bring a greater good out of any evil, but that doesn't mean that the devotion etc He makes use of is willed by Him. If it doesn't correspond to traditional Catholic teaching, He can still use it as a stepping-stone as He seems to have done for you, but he's now brought you to the truth about it so perhaps He's shepherding you in a different direction. God is the boss and knows what He's doing; we have to follow Church guidance.
Indeed. He has. The Diary of St. Faustina was just the stepping stone. I took what I needed and left the rest. He lead me to traditional Catholicism. The TLM. Then he allowed it to be taken away here in Charlotte. The Lord giveth and taketh. Blessed is the name of the Lord.
Talk of mercy is meaningless to those with no sense of sin. Mercy makes sense only to those who feel their guilt, who sense the danger in which their soul is currently standing, who understand that an eternity in hell is a reality and a real possibility for them. But this runs contrary to everything which has been happening in the Church for the past 60+ years. We've been downplaying sin, minimizing its consequences and pouring scorn on the "prophets of doom". We're currently in the process of reversing long-standing Catholic teaching that certain actions are actually sinful. Now, suddenly, we want to talk about mercy? Why? Why do I need mercy? For what? I've done nothing wrong!
If the Church wants to preach mercy, it must first preach sin. Sending mixed and confusing signals is a specialty of the modern Church in its efforts to welcome "todos....todos.....todos" as that fiend Bergoglio used to say.
Thank you sooo much Chris. I knew something was wrong with the Divine Mercy as I would ask, "What about justice?" as our Lord is justice also. I started recognizing that the Norus Ordo basically preaches love and mercy without sin and justice. I guess that is why they now condemn capital punishment. All is mercy so there are no consequences for sin...just go to mass and give them money and you are a "Catholic in good standing" like Biden and Pelosi. It goes along with their Vatican ll theme of positivity while never standing against evil....which makes them evil.
I'm posting this comment at the top rather than within a thread below as a PSA for HiE readers attempting to engage C.M. Callaghan in rational debate, an effort which I liken to looking for a ham sandwich up a pig's a$$, i.e., a waste of time and effort.
Here's why:
If you analyze C.M.'s MO throughout this and other threads, what you discover is a gadfly* who gets his jollies by taunting and contradicting other commenters, hoping they'll make some factual or rhetorical mistake so he can display his internet smarts and make his interlocutors look foolish and ignorant. ("That's because they ARE foolish and ignorant!" Yeah, whatever.)
Here's C.M.'s MO in a nutshell:
* Start a thread with a snarky response to someone's comment.
* Contradict and ridicule the responses.
* Claim those responses prove his point as well as the ignorance of other commenters.
* Make liberal use of *tu quoque* argumentation.
* Play the victim.
* Lather, rinse, repeat.
In responding to C.M. (which I discourage) it is important to realize that he/she/it isn't interested in dialogue or discussion; he's interested in making fun of people and stating that any rejoinder to his ceaseless caviling is proof that he is right.
Lest someone other than C.M. feel this description is unduly harsh or unjustified, here are a few of C.M.'s rhetorical gems taken from this post alone:
"Sorry bro, I have already explained all this in some of my articles here on Substack and I don't feel the need to justify them to someone who doesn't have the nous to see the nuance in my choice of words." [Sarcastic ridicule. The commenter is clearly too stupid to understand C.M.'s obviously correct opinion.]
"Get back to me when you actually post something original on Substack and not just snipe on other people's comments." [Projection. C.M. does this all the time.]
"Thank you for this. Your arrogance has reminded me I am indeed on the right path. God bless. “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you." John 15: 18-19 [Playing the victim. Takes opposition to his POV as proof of its correctness. Uses scripture to imply that anyone who disagrees with him is an enemy of Christ. Talk about narcissism.]
"10 mins between recommending a book and telling me that because I didn't read said book, you win. You sir/madam, are a total tool." [Name-calling as a substitute for argument. Clearly a class act.]
"Show me where, anywhere in scripture or traditional, that Mary is elevated to the role she has now. Can you explain how it was only in less than 200 years that 2 Marian Dogmas were forced on Catholics on pain of excommunication? I think YOU need to revise your understanding of the true faith and The Way of Christ through Scripture and the very earliest Patristic Fathers. I will pray for you." [Supercilious contradiction as a substitute for argument. Implication that the commenter is SO wrong that he needs C.M.'s prayers to convert him to the correct opinion.]
"Just checked your profile. I get it now. Another one with no original posts, just sniping and liking on other people's comments that validate their narrow little views. Bless." [Projection. C.M. does this all the time.]
In short, C.M. Callaghan's commenting style reveals much about him, and his comments have "hoist him by his own petard" (see also Dan 5:27). His entire substack oeuvre is a disappointingly ordinary exemplar of psychological projection, self-righteous posturing, narcissism, and playing the victim. He likes being contradicted because he is desperate for attention and because contradiction gives him a venue in which to display his (clearly superior) intellect.
Free and open discussion in a substack is one thing. Strong (but respectful) opinions are welcome, of course. That said, ceaseless and pointless caviling and name-calling are unworthy of rational discussion and should be discouraged in whatever manner befits a substack community earnestly seeking truth in a troubled time.
[Insert snappy, insulting cope from C.M. here.]
* Gadfly (n): A persistent irritating critic; a nuisance. One that acts as a provocative stimulus; a goad. [If ever there was an apt description of C.M., it is this.]
Thanks for this. I began to wonder if C.M. is a bot... :-)
I get a kick out of those memes that show a wall of smartphones, on and hooked up, and the caption says, "This is who you are arguing with on the internet."
The DM "revelations" are from the devil, just like Medjugorje & Garabandal.
"Saint" John Paul II illicitly rehabilitated the false revelations & devotion. "Saint" Paul VI, the Chief Destroyer of Catholic Tradition just got rid of the Index of Forbidden Books altogether, which included these "revelations." Besides the dubious image (no heart, often no wounds, etc.), some of the revelations raise a red flag. Sr Faustina states that the “Lord Jesus” appeared to her and said, “...I am uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.” (Divine Mercy in My Soul, The Diary of Sr. Faustina, Stockbridge, MA: Marian Press, 1987, p. 288)
She claimed to hear this voice in her soul, “From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.” (ibid., p. 168)
It even encourages irreverence toward the Eucharist:
“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.” (ibid., p. 23)
Jesus promises to forgive all sins and the punishment due to them for those who go to Confession and receive Holy Communion on Divine Mercy Sunday. This forgiveness is equivalent to a second baptism. No reparation needed.
It is the Rosary and devotion and reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary that God wants of us today, as the REAL Sr Lucia (sisterlucytruth.org) said in her last public words on Dec. 26, 1957 to Fr Augustin Fuentes.
radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2019/03/is-this-interview-that-caused-her.html
More on DM:
novusordowatch.org/2013/10/divine-mercy-condemned;
cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/the-divine-mercy-devotion-why-did-the-holy-office-ban-it/
John Paul II, who resurrected it, fast tracked his own false "canonization" & that of many others, including John XXIII, Paul VI & Sr Faustina by eliminating the important "Devil's Advocate" from the process.
“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.” (ibid., p. 23)
This passage alone should discredit Faustina’s diary and the divine mercy for all faithful Catholics. The pushing of this diabolical replacement for the Sacred Heart in so-called conservative novus ordo churches is one of the reasons why I am now a full-time Traditional Catholic.
True. Seems like promotion of Communion in the hand to me.
Mmm... I'm not sure about Faustina wanting to be a pristess, but you may be onto something...
"The DM "revelations" are from the devil, just like Medjugorje & Garabandal."
100% with you on this one. Much like the diabolical replacement of Sister Lucy with an imposter who reversed pretty well everything Sister Lucy had said.
Totally agree with you there.
Attending a TLM Mass today at an FSSP Apostolate it was 1. Correct for the FSSP to include a Divine Mercy Chaplet at the end Mass, 2. Correct that the Mass celebration was the 1st Sunday after Easter with the gospel story of Thomas.
The priest gave a wonderful sermon on justice and mercy, and how “for the sake of His Sorrowful Passion is the key..”
You believe #1 was correct, which doesn't make it correct. Have you looked at the evidence against it in my comment above?
How about this one?
traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm
If … you’re claiming the Universal Church, the FSSP, JP2 and Mother Angelica Foundress of EWTN were ALL deceived but you “rosary knight” were not… that’s quite the accomplishment.
I'm claiming not the Universal Church but the counterfeit V2 church, the FSSP, JP2 and Mother Angelica Foundress of EWTN were ALL deceived but pre-V2ers, the only true Catholics, objectively at least, understand the DM deception (only God knows who are the elect who are inculpably deceived), which is one of many peripheral parts of the V2 church deception.
Do some homework at novusordowatch.org, e.g., & see if you think differently than you do now.
I have never quite figured out what "for the sake of His Sorrowful Passion" really means.
You say these private revelations are from the devil, and I agree. Yet you conclude by saying "it is the Rosary and devotion and reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary that God wants of us today..." Words and commands from another private revelation, but one you choose to accept because it suits your narrative. Faith in Jesus, His words, His commandments: those alone are what He left the world. Not a set of beads and devotion to a human woman, regardless of how amazing she was. Jesus is the mediator, noone else. You are part of the very problem that is destroying the true faith you purport to uphold.
Can anyone identify the Protestant here?
Lol. I'm Catholic, but thank you for the acknowledgement that I was protesting against something antithetical to the original catholic and true faith of Christ.
Catholic? "Not a set of beads and devotion to a human woman, regardless of how amazing she was." I think you need to revise the role of Mary in Church doctrine and dogma, especially that on the Rosary.
Show me where, anywhere in scripture or traditional, that Mary is elevated to the role she has now. Can you explain how it was only in less than 200 years that 2 Marian Dogmas were forced on Catholics on pain of excommunication? I think YOU need to revise your understanding of the true faith and The Way of Christ through Scripture and the very earliest Patristic Fathers. I will pray for you.
Too bad you speak out of your ignorance. Know what you are talking about before you opine like an expert.
Popes that spoke of Our Lady, Mary as Co-Redemptrix:
PopeYearDocument or AddressKey Quote or Context
St. Pius X 1904 Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum (encyclical on the Immaculate Conception)"It was she [Mary] who gave her own Son to redeem the human race... hence we rightly call her Co-Redemptrix of the human race."
Benedict XV 1918 Compertum Sane (apostolic letter on St. Boniface)Refers to Mary as "Co-Redemptrix" in the context of her sorrowful participation in Christ's Passion.
Pius XI 1933 Explorata Res (encyclical to the bishops of Peru)Describes Mary as "the Co-Redemptrix who, united with her Son, redeemed the human race." (Also used in Miserentissimus Redemptor, 1928.)
Pius XII 1950 Radio message on the Jubilee YearCalls Mary "Co-Redemptrix" while proclaiming the dogma of the Assumption. (Also in Haurietis Aquas, 1956.)
St. John Paul II 1997 Address to the Pontifical International Marian Academy"Mary, Co-Redemptrix, who cooperates fully in the redemptive work of her Son." (Also referenced in Redemptoris Mater, 1987, and a 1982 address.)
These references are drawn from the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (official Vatican records) and papal writings, confirming the term's magisterial endorsement without implying equality with Christ.
Saints:
St. John Eudes 1601–1680 Le Cœur Admirable (on the Hearts of Jesus and Mary)Credited as the first to systematically use "Co-Redemptrix," calling her "the Co-Redemptrix of the world" for her meritorious suffering with Christ.
St. Alphonsus Liguori 1696–1787 The Glories of MaryDescribes Mary as "Co-Redemptrix" who "paid the ransom for our sins" through her compassion at Calvary.
St. Leonard of Port Maurice 1676–1751 Sermons on the PassionRefers to her as "Co-Redemptrix" in preaching on her role in offering Christ to the Father.
St. Gemma Galgani 1878–1903 Autobiography and letters In visions, calls Mary her "Co-Redemptrix," uniting her sufferings to Mary's for souls' redemption.
St. Maximilian Kolbe 1894–1941Writings on Mariology (e.g., Knight of the Immaculata) Frequently uses "Co-Redemptrix," teaching that Mary "redeems with Christ" as Mediatrix of all graces.
St. Padre Pio (Pio of Pietrelcina) 1887–1968 Letters and spiritual counselsPromoted the title, writing to supporters of the dogma that Mary is "our Co-Redemptrix."
In addition, Brant Pitre, Biblical Scholar, wrote a book in 2019, "Jesus And The Jewish Roots Of The Virgin Mary" You might be enlightened by his evidence.
You disparage her to your own peril.
Yup. Protestant.
Begone with your heresies Prottie! Ave Maria Purisima! Ora pro nobis!
Brother, you’re no Catholic. Sounds to me like you’re a Novus Ordo adherent.
Our Blessed Mother is the most revered human who ever lived.
If you reject the papal dogma of the Immaculate Conception, you reject the faith.
Please look into it.
Ill pray for you, you reject major catholic teaching that make you a schismatic. You reject serious teachings that are pat of the catholic faith.
The Church honors many saints who lived well after the time of Christ and of the Apostles and of Scripture and Tradition. There's nothing wrong with this. There's nothing wrong with honoring Mary most of all of all the saints.
You say you are a Catholic. But no-one would recognise you as such by the Protestant shibboleths that you parrot. Please do some more study about "the original catholic and true faith in Christ" using authentic Catholic sources, and not deceitful anti-Catholic narratives that are designed to undermine the Catholic religion, and attempt to lead faithful Catholics astray.
Mmm... "Not a set of beads and devotion to a human woman, regardless of how amazing she was. Jesus is the mediator, noone else." Maybe I've been dealing with too many anti-Catholic Protestants on FB lately... Sounds exactly like something they would say... I'm guessing you can understand why I thought you were Protestant?
You are entitled to think what you like. But to actually come out and say it without any knowledge of me apart from a comment based on the very earliest teachings and traditions of Jesus, the Apostles and the Patristic Fathers is premature to say the least.
Your a troll, not a catholic and a heretic too!
😀😀😀
I absolutely agree that you do not have to believe in Fatima OR Sr Faustina’s visions. I have a wariness for the whole idea of “Sr. Faustina’s visions”. I, frankly, get a little tired of the Fatima pushers, too.
If you sum up the common denominator of all pre-VII approved private revelation Marian apparitions, it would be -increase prayer, repentance, and penance-. Obviously we place Our Lady as the holiest and, truly, greatest of saints whose life is most worthy of veneration and emulation. Her purity is without equal of all purely human creatures.
At the same time, it’s kind of bizarre to watch Catholics squabble over “is this real or fake Lucia?”, “was this the secret or was this?” (Honestly the devils are big on secrets, secret societies, etc.), or “is the world consecrated or isn’t it?”. Then, they go on slamming or picking apart this individual or another. It reminds me of the Pharisees and the Old Mosaic Law. Did I stand in my tiptoes and touch my nose while saying a prayer in May? So strange! Why?
Do I actually think Fatima apparitions happened? Sure.
The private revelation silliness gets tiresome. I love Our Lady as all Catholics should. I certainly have a special devotion to her. I try to live my life going to the sacraments, praying, God-willing, repenting, and, God help me, doing penance.
You are tarring with too broad a brush, your crowning argument being the imputation of connections to the Evil One. And you are being uncharitable towards your fellow Catholics in doing so. Striving to find out the truth about the apparition of Fatima which has played such a central role in the life of the Church and the faithful, especially now when the depths of deceit in today's world have become so obvious, is a work of zeal and charity. Not to do so would be to succumb to lukewarmness, sloth and indifference. You shouldn't deny others the right to act even if you aren't interested.
When mocking the behaviour of your fellow Catholics you say: "So strange!" and ask: "Why?" The answer is, perhaps for the same reason you found it necessary to write such a lengthy comment about the peccadilloes of others.
What sort of red herring is this? It has always been the position of the Church to not require belief in private revelation. You have shown your lack of charity towards someone who is perfectly within their right. I can state my case for why I do not harp on Fatima. If you are scandalized by it, that’s on you.
Fatima is not at the center of the Church. The Blessed Trinity is. Fatima is private revelation. It is not at all required for the salvation of souls. I certainly don’t plan on fretting over an apparition that happened over a century ago. I care about now and getting to heaven. The vague Fatima stuff goes in the “whatever” pile.
That's fine if you don't care. But don't criticize those who do care by referencing the Evil One. They have just as much right to care as you have not to care.
Did you even read it? I was talking about people who squabble about what secret is the right secret. It’s pathetic. It’s true that the devil works in secrets. Whether it was your lack of comprehension or not paying attention, I know not. You switched it into what you wanted it to say and then got insulted by your own incorrect interpretation. So, again, whatever.
I believe in Lourdes and Fatima. Mary had beads in apparition. Why cant God give us new helps. Just sayin.
Cartholics believe it is God's will that His Mother is Mediatrix of all grace and co-redemprix and advocate. She will crush the devil's head,scripture. You present your self as an expert but scripture and the infallible church teaching prove you wrong!
Yes Jesus is the mediator but how do you get to Him? What are the tools He gave us, to find Him?
With the greatest of respect, I find your answer disingenuous at best, and completely theolologically uneducated at worst. Jesus left us: the Holy Spirit, the Bible, prayer, the Sacraments, the church/Church, individual believers, suffering, obedience and love and the very name of Jesus Himself. And for a map, he left us the Beatitudes.
Woah woah woah... did Jesus leave us the Bible? when did Jesus hand one of the disciples a book and say "take this and preach it" ? When was the fisrt Bible made? and what in the world do you mean by 'church/Church' ? also what do you mean by he left us 'individual believers' ?
Sorry bro, I have already explained all this in some of my articles here on Substack and I don't feel the need to justify them to someone who doesn't have the nous to see the nuance in my choice of words.
God bless.
Pretty good answer, but I would have also added that he gave us a mother. Make of that what you will.
If you choose to not accept "Behold your mother" as Jesus speaking directly to you and all of humanity, then by default you reject accessibility towards any available maternal solicitude provided by God. Your argument is with Catholic interpretation of that verse; nothing more, nothing less.
And the last recorded words of Mary in Scripture? "Do whatever He tells you." John 2:5. Mary knew her place as mother but primarily as a disciple; I think that says it all.
"Do whatever he tells you", exactly. And what did he tell us? He told us we have a mother.
Yes, she did say that. But why is the grammatical sentence structure a command? Because she has been given the authority to work in conjunction with the Son to instruct the human race.
By the way, since Jesus is King, she is Queen Mother, and that role confers an authority of her own, granted to her by God. Read Brant Pitre's "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Virgin Mary.
Our Lady, Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces, pray for us.
The bogus Divine Mercy was invented by the Devil in order to distract from the Devotion to the Immaculate Heart that Our Lady came to promote at Fatima. The Divine Mercy was promoted by the Evil Illuminati Pope JP2, who created "Divine Mercy Sunday" in order to bury Our Lady of Fatima and her epochal message. An immense spiritual blindness is descending upon the world, because of its hardness of heart and lack of faith. The world is rapidly preparing to welcome the Man of Sin, the Antichrist. Over a half century of the Abomination of Desolation in the former sanctuaries of the Catholic Churches have made of the world a barren desert, where billions of dead souls walk the earth bereft of sanctifying grace. "Various Nations will be annihilated". With Supertrump's stupid and baseless war, the material chastisement has begun. It will culminate by June 13th, 2029.
In the Holy and Sorrowful Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
Agreed, except not "the Evil Illuminati Pope JP2" but "the Evil Illuminati Antipope (or false pope) JPII." Don't you agree?
I do try and not get embroiled in the whole Sedevacantist Debate. For the record, I consider Pope Frantic to have been an anitpope, but all the rest as having been valid occupants of the Chair of Peter.
I will say this. Many Sedevacantists, like the Papolators in the Bogus Ordo, tend to take popes way to seriously. For example, I recently had a conversation with one of Bishop Sanborn's Priests- who happens to be rector of the seminary in Reading- concerning Our Lady of Fatima. In the course of the discussion, he said that the Consecration of Russia had been done because Pius XII said so, and he was a valid pope, don't you know so he cannot err. Needless to say, I found that conclusion ridiculous, and told him so.
Papal power and infallibility must be seen within the context of Tradition and the Church as a whole, as well as demonstrable history. According to Sedevacantist criteria, I think that only about ten popes in the history of the church would pass muster. Sedevacantist thinking is based largely on the popular impressions we were given especially of Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, who ACTED very holy and put out many commendable writings. But once you look under the proverbial hood, that perception rapidly falls apart. Pius XI, for example, allowed an ecumenical orthodox service where the Filioque was not pronounced in the Credo.
Quite frankly at this point I think it is going to take the Second Coming and Sts Peter and Paul with flaming swords to sort out this whole mess. Either that, or all these Cardinals sitting on dunghills in sackcloth with a dumptruck load of ashes poured atop them while they confess all their crimes and cover-ups.
I have heard all the theories on both sides of the aisle ad nauseum and certainly
ST Cardinal Robert Bellarmine has been reduced to a blubbering idiot, along with St Alphonsus Ligouri if these are indeed popes. But if they are antipopes then there goes Pius X and Leo XIII. The Narrative is just not going to win on this one.
In the Holy and Sorrowful Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
As you say, maybe "Sts Peter and Paul with flaming swords [will need] to sort out this whole mess.
Blessed Anna Maria Taigi prophesied that Sts Peter & Paul will appear in Rome to the astonishment of all & appoint a pope after a long period with the Chair of Peter held by false popes. Only time will tell.
This is from Feeneyite MHFM but I think it contains material worth watching: "Did The Bible Predict 70 Years Without A Pope?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2xYLg0M2LY&t=774s
Brother Dimond's video makes some very good points, and I agree with him to a degree that Rome is PART of the Whore of Babylon depicted by St John in the Apocalypse. (If you want to make Rome the Whore, the phrase "Who sitteth upon many waters" becomes highly problematic. Now, those waters might refer to the fountains of grace in the sacraments, as per Ezechiel when he saw the vision recounted in the Vidi Aquam that replaces the Asperges during Eastertide. But then again, they might be the physical waters of trade, which seems more likely given the description of the horrors which follow commerce following the destruction of Babylon, which I think most exactly fits the Oil Empire in my eschatology. Actually, I think Babylon describes the whole colony of Satanic Pederasts, whose major bases are the Vatican, the District of Columbia, The Blackfriars City of London, the East India Company of Brussels, and the Duchy of Moscovy- there are ten, and of the other five I am uncertain.)
Brother Dimond takes a deep dive on the eschatological comparison between the Throne of David and the Chair of Peter, and the relation of the two, and many of his points are worth pondering. But Brother Dimond seems to be forgetting the connexion of the Chair of Peter to the Chair of Moses, and its connexion to the Blood of the New Covenant and the Chair of Moses was connected to the Blood of the Old Covenant.
He tries to distill the whole into a synthesis validating the theory that the election of Good Pope John (I use the term facetiously) was invalid, which I think is quite a stretch. If Cardinal Siri indeed had been elected pope, then shame on him, Ottoviani, Bacci, and the rest of the gang for not exposing the fraud, and shutting down Vatican II.
What I think is much, much more likely is that all the popes since at least Pius VI (Yes, I said Pius VI) were in on a grand conspiracy to overthrow the Chair of Peter and the Most Holy Mass, a conspiracy of which "Canon Roca" proudly boasted back in 1870. The transition from Pius XII to John XXIII was not as stark as either the Sedevacantists or the Society of St Pius X suggests. Subsequent events have proven that it was Mary Ball Martinez, not Michael Davies nor Archbishop Lefebvre, the Bearded One, who were much closer to the dark truths of the 3rd Secret of Fatima.
I don't pay much attention to Blessed Anna Maria Taigi, Anne Catherine Emmerich, and etc. Trying to construct a blow-by-blow account of the Chastisement is, I believe, an exercise in futility, especially given all the contradictions in their accounts. I stick with the outline given by Fr Bernard Kramer and what Our Lady told us at Fatima- not just in words, but in the many signs in the apparitions themselves- Six Apparitions- Six days of Creation- Six Ages of Salvation History, High Noon, Six hours after the resurrection.. and etc.
In the Holy and Sorrowful Hearts of Jesus and Mary
I think it's a deception of the devil to believe that all the popes since at least Pius VI (d. 1799) were in on a grand conspiracy to overthrow the Chair of Peter and the Most Holy Mass. I believe a valid pope would be prevented by the Holy Spirit from doing that or else drop dead or become incapacitated before doing so.
St. Faustina reportedly received the command to propagate the Divine Mercy message and image on February 22, 1931. This of course as you imply is chronologically post-Fatima.
That said, it should also be noted that no one knows what's going to happen on June 13th, 2029.
I agree, although I tend to believe there may be a great chastisement in 2029 on account of it being 100 years from the unfulfilled request for the consecration of Russia, just as the French Revolution began 100 years after the unfulfilled request for the consecration of France to the Sacred Heart. I think it will be the destruction caused not by nuclear war but by the passing of Planet X/Nibiru. John Moore, "The Liberty Man," former Naval Intelligence, talks about it from a scientific perspective, although giving no specific year.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 3 days of darkness occurs in 2031, which is the 500th anniversary of Our Lady of Guadalupe's appearance in Mexico (leading to the greatest mass conversion in the history of the Catholic Church, and which may also be the exact 2000 year Jubilee of the Resurrection. Also a prophecy of Father Padre Pio points to around that time.
Do you have the Padre Pio quote & source?
One of Padre Pio's friends (who is still alive today), relates the following in a book recently published in Italy:
In 1963 or 1964 Padre Pio was speaking to his spiritual sons. Padre Pio said their own children there, who were then approximately 10 years old, would live to see the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
Those children would be 77 to 78 years old in 2031.
I expect the book is this one, but I do not know:
https://www.amazon.com/-/zh_TW/Maria-Giobbe/dp/B0CYGLY5KN
"Il trionfo del Cuore Immacolato: profezie mariane sulla fine dei tempi", (Italian Edition) Paperback – March 18, 2024
Italian Edition by Maria Giobbe (Author)
Maybe also inquire at this site:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CFWCt-V4mE
I noticed a while back the UN Agenda 2030 (the worldwide date for implementation of the New World Order) coincides with the 2000th anniversary of the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus Christ. I don't think that's a coincidence on their part.
That this date also nearly coincides with dates regarding the warning given to Sr. Lucia in 1929 plus the one you mention, the 500th anniversary of Our Lady of Guadalupe, kind of points to some kind of climax coming around 2030. Given that 2033 would be the 2000th anniversary of the Resurrection, one has to wonder what "they" have planned for that date. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it wasn't the seating of the anti-Christ on some kind of throne in Jerusalem.
Whether God will allow that, we'll have to wait and see.
The manifestation of the Antichrist is imminent. I am basing this on the following:
One: between Dec 10th, 2025 and June 13th, 2029 is 42 Months, the appointed time of the Antichrist. I have long predicted that things would really begin to fall apart following the 100th Anniversary of the Apparition at Pontavedra, and culminate with the 100th Anniversary of the Apparition of Tuy.
The Antichrist will be a peace broker, and that is exactly what the World is looking for at this time.
SuperTrump's spat with Pope Leo is perhaps much bigger than it might initially appear. Time will tell.
The diary and image(s) are so cringeworthy, this should be obvious to everyone. Catholicism is beautiful. The DM is anything but. And the one-day-only “get out of purgatory free” flash sale is an absurdity.
"And the one-day-only “get out of purgatory free” flash sale is an absurdity." 😀😀😀 I definitely laughed at how you said that... But you're not wrong. 👍
I don’t understand the hatred for the Divine Mercy devotion. I’d you read the Diary it is filled with countless warnings to amend your life, repent of sins, offer sacrifices for the remission of sins, and common themes like numerous other devotions. Never is Mercy assumed as something received without repentance or turning away from sin. Confession is mentioned frequently as a way to ensure your heart/soul can receive the Mercy Jesus died on the cross to give. Justice is not eliminated, but, through Confession, sacrifices, and amendment/reparation it is tempered by Mercy. None of us deserve Heaven or forgiveness, but in His Mercy, Jesus died on the cross as reparation for our sins, so we could be forgiven and accept His Grace. One key point I believe the Divine Mercy devotion makes clear is that God’s Mercy is always there if we will just accept it by turning away from sin and trusting that Jesus’s sacrifice fulfills the justice necessary for our sins.
There is a strong connection and unity between the Divine Mercy devotion and several older devotions. These older devotions aren’t replaced by one another, but slightly different aspects of the same Justice fulfilled by Christ’s offering of Himself in atonement for our sins. St Gertrude emphasized Christ being offered to the Father for reparation of sins for souls in Purgatory. In the Sacred Heart devotion the emphasis is on how Jesus loved us so much that His Sacred Heart was wounded & pierced for our sins so we do not have to face the ultimate Divine Justice. In the Precious Blood devotion the emphasis is on Jesus’s Blood paying the price of our sins thereby granting us Mercy and fulfilling what Justice requires for our sins. At Fatima there is an urgency for conversion so we do not have to face the hell. If we repent and convert, we will be given Mercy, not Hell. Even St Thérèse unites Christ’s sacrifice and ours by in our ‘little ways’ and trusting in God’s Mercy and not facing hell. Then the Divine Mercy combines all the above and focuses on God’s constant Mercy if we simply accept it and turn away from sin. Many of the prayers for these devotions are even quite similar because they share a common theme, just expressed differently for a different audience. Each of these devotions have us approaching the Father through Christ’s Sacrifice not our own merits and Christ’s Sacrifice was about His Mercy and Love for us so we didn’t have to face eternal punishment.
It’s kind of like the 4 Gospels—they generally tell the same stories and chronicle Christ’s Life, Death, and Resurrection, but each was written to appeal/apply to a particular audience. Matthew emphasized Jesus’s adherence to Judaism to give Jewish Christians fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament. Mark was written for Gentiles that were likely facing persecution to give them courage to imitate Christ even through persecution. Luke was written more broadly for all Gentiles by emphasizing Christ came to save all of mankind, not just the few. John was written even more broadly for more established Christians and emphasizes the deep spiritual meaning of events and that belief in Christ is necessary for Eternal Life. Even with the differing language and audiences for the Gospels, they are unified by the theme of Christ coming to save mankind from sin as a perfect offering to God the Father. All these devotions have the same acknowledgement that Christ came and suffered as an offering to God the Father for our sins. In order to receive His Mercy we must trust in Him, repent of our sins, and offer ourselves in union with Christ to God the Father. Unless St Gertrude’s devotion was supplanted by the Sacred Heart Devotions which was itself supplanted by the Precious Blood devotions that was then supplanted by Fatima, why would the Divine Mercy devotion supplant any of these other devotions?
Our Catholic tradition is filled with countless devotions, some clearly thematically related, but not as replacements for one another. Instead each devotion touches on a slightly different aspect of the same theme: Jesus offering Himself to God the Father in reparation for our sins. Just as the Confiteor isn’t supplanted by the Kyrie which isn’t replaced by the Agnus Dei and that isn’t replaced by the Domine, non sum dignis. While they all say it differently, each addresses that we are sinners in need of God’s Mercy, but they do so from a different angle. So too, do all these devotions. Together they help a wider variety of people acknowledge their need for God’s mercy that is freely given because of Christ’s sacrifice if we simply repent of our sins convert and accept that Jesus’s offering of Himself met the requirements of God’s justice for the world. At His Word we are given an abundance of Graces when we convert from our sinful ways and trust His Mercy.
For what it is worth, I’m not entirely devoted to the Divine Mercy. I just don’t think it’s diabolical as some people claim. I prefer the Rosary and say all the Mysteries every day if possible. However, when I read ‘Consoling the Heart of Jesus’ I understood more about how all these devotions along with the Mass all lead to the same thing: offering yourself in union with Christ to the Father through the repentance of sins for the salvation of souls. It was after reading this book that I began my devotion to the Rosary as a daily part of my life. I also read Secrets of the Rosary and Little Flowers of St Francis because of this book. Again, all these books echo what all these devotions address, just in different ways.
You seriously think that someone guided by Christ would be playing footsie - or in this case - handsie with the Blessed Sacrament? In out, in out? Whereby encouraging Communion in the hand? Or that Christ would tell ANYONE that He was uniting himself with that person more than with anyone else? More than with His own Mother??? Or St Joseph and St John the Baptist? If that were true, shouldn't we therefore ditch devotion to Our Lady - if Faustina is more important? See how it mangles true teaching?
Best to just ditch everything not verified by the pre-VII Church - especially anything prohibited by it. There is absolutely nothing good/correct in her diary which wasn't already present in Catholic dogma and doctrine etc.. The mere fact that it now takes precedence over devotion to the Sacred Heart is a red flag - no wounds, no heart, and to top it off, a very effeminate Christ.
Not just an effeminate Christ, but according to the version which is somewhat more popular than the one supposed to be the original, a 'Christ' with a sleazy look on his face. And BTW, the existence of two competing versions of the image, which have a background of controversy, is problematic in itself, since the image is supposed to be a faithful depiction of what Jesus asked. A related problem is that most images now have red and blue rays instead of the 'original' red and white which are supposed to have a very definite symbolism. Another concern is that the artist of the 'original' painting was a Freemason, once did a painting of himself as Judas, and in the end took his own life. And don't get me started on how nowadays many of the images have added a heart and pretend that it's really devotion to the Sacred Heart 😡
Yes, I've noticed that about the Sacred Heart also. All red flags to me.
Well, we can both agree that private revelation is unnecessary for our salvation. So no one is forcing anyone to delve into the Divine Mercy against their will as a condition for Eternal Life. You’re also correct that the Divine Mercy devotion doesn’t bring anything new to the table. In my comment above, I outlined the flow from St Gertrude to the Sacred Heart to the Precious Blood to Therese and to Divine Mercy. All these devotions are based on the same themes, but come from slightly different angles to appeal to different people in different aspects of their life. In being a re-statement of old devotions, the Divine Mercy devotion is verified.
Now, you may not like the symbolic and mystical language used in the Diary, and again, that’s fine and, honestly, that isn’t my style either. The imagery of the Eucharist flying into Faustina’s hands is somewhat disarming. However, that’s doesn’t mean that Faustina’s Diary was somehow responsible for Eucharist in the hand. In that part of the Diary, I believe the point was that Jesus flies to us, we just have to accept Him with love and reverence. Other Saints had extraordinary experiences with the Eucharist too: Catherine of Sienna, Therese, and Mary of Egypt to name a few.
Similarly, when a mystical Saint states their union with Jesus is more close to anyone else, they’re not being literal or comparing/elevating themselves over Mary or other Saints. Instead, they’re speaking mystically and symbolically about that specific moment in time and how Jesus is communing with them to impart Himself to them. Again, this also is not my favorite part of the Diary or devotion. However, numerous Saints (pre-VII) have used similar language: Catherine of Sienna, Therese, Bernard, John Vianny, and Margaret Mary Alacoque to name a few.
Nothing in the Diary or devotion tries to separate anyone from any of the other Saints or devotions they’re drawn to. Instead, the devotion builds on the foundations set by prior Saints and devotions and gives the masses another option in addition to previously established ones, just as the Sacred Heart gave another option, as well as the Precious Blood devotion, St Therese, and the countless devotions we have in the Church with full approval. There is no one forcing any of these devotions on you. If you prefer your current devotions, that’s great. That’s why the Church has so many approved devotions—so each and every person can connect with one and draw closer to God in so doing.
Overall, my main point is that it’s perfectly acceptable to not like or use the Divine Mercy devotion. However, your personal dislike or misunderstanding of it does not make it diabolical. It just isn’t for you and the Church doesn’t require belief in private revelations, so there’s no reason to be so vehemently opposed. Again, I am not a devotee to the Divine Mercy, but reading the Diary, Consoling the Heart of Jesus, and similar writings has helped me become devoted to the Rosary.
I gave up this devotion. I gave away Faustinas diary, and the images since i first attended the Latin Mass. I just continue my devotion with the Rosary, Holy Face of Jesus, and the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary according to Our Lady of Fatima. Any devotion promoted, fast track canonisation of individuals after Vatican 2 i just completely ignore. Im a simple Catholic and i don’t need much. I cast no judgment on post Vatican 2 catholicism, i just prefer the Tradition pre Vatican 2. Arcangel Michael defend us from Heresy.
That makes sense. Like I mentioned, I’m not some devotee or anything, but I think there’s lots more controversy and hate than needed. I’m a Rosary girl myself, so 🤷🏻♀️.
That's a very good explanation.
I view the Divine Mercy as an invitation, so to speak, to obtain the grace that the good thief did in his last desperate moments at the side of Christ. Think of all the people in those days getting crucified, day after day, week after week; if you were one of those unfortunate people, imagine having the great good fortune to find yourself crucified right alongside Christ. DM is our invitation to be in that position too.
Just like the Sacred Heart devotion is our invitation to rest our heads upon the Sacred Heart of Jesus, like the Beloved Disciple did. Just like Marian consecration and true devotion to Mary is our invitation to take our Mother Mary into our hearts and home, like John did.
Please don’t take offense Erika but when you wrote
trusting that Jesus’s sacrifice fulfills the justice necessary for our sins.”
It sounds a lot like protestanism to me.
All we have to do is believe in God’s mercy and we are shoeins to heaven.
Believe me I’m exceptionally grateful for God’s mercy! Indeed I am! However, it’s too easy to go down that road of His mercy alone. And even though you have read other things in the diary, we poor sinners remember the easy parts! And that’s what Divine Mercy Sunday focuses on…easy mercy.
It does steal away the import of what our dear Lord did just over a week ago.
Anyway…
God bless you and Mary love you always!!!
Well, maybe it sounds like Protestantism to you, but it speaks to many hearts that fear their unworthiness will bar them from Eternal Life. I find Faustina’s ‘Jesus I trust in You’ to be very comforting when my anxiety is spiraling out of control. Just as I find Therese’s ‘little things’ comforting because I do not fit the description of someone that can act for Jesus in a big way. When I’m feeling anxious and downcast about my inabilities to do grand things to draw people nearer to God, these two thoughts from Faustina & Therese keep me grounded in Christ.
I don’t see how reflecting on how Jesus’s Sacrifice on the cross and Resurrection bestows His Mercy on us if we simply trust in Him could be ‘stealing away the import’ of Easter. It is very much tied to Easter because without Good Friday and Easter, that Mercy wouldn’t be there for us to accept. How can trusting in His Mercy bestowed upon us on Good Friday and Easter detract from the fact of Jesus’s salvific actions? To me, that is contradictory and doesn’t follow logic.
I have always found the words 'O Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place my trust in Thee!' very comforting in difficult life situations.
That is another great ejaculatory prayer. There are a number of ejaculatory prayers in the Raccolta. Having multiple options does not negate any of the options.
For the love that is all good and holy don’t read the catechism of Trent. It says such Protestant things as, “In His Passion and death the Son of God, our savior, intended to atone for and blot out the sins of all ages, to offer for them to His Father a full and abundant satisfaction.”
Hatred? You’re using a word that I didn’t notice anyone else use. If you wish to be perceived as credible you cannot put words in people’s mouths. Argue from what is written, not your perception of what is written.
What would you call labeling this devotion as ‘diabolical’, ‘evil’, ‘from the devil’ if not hatred? I *did* argue with the facts about the devotion in contrast with the accusations made against it. I compared it to several other devotions as well as, in answer to another comment, I outlined how St Gertrude’s devotion led to the Sacred Heart devotion, that led to the Precious Blood devotion, that led to St Therese’s devotion, that finally led to the Divine Mercy devotion. Perhaps you missed my comment(s) in this vein.
It seems more like skepticism than hatred to me.
Numerous people saying it’s from the devil, evil, or diabolical isn’t just skepticism. 🤷🏻♀️
Something I have noticed is that the words of Christ in St. Faustina's diary are contradictory, very often, and require a very high interpretation skill... for example,
1722: "If you did not tie My hands, I would send down many punishments
upon the earth. My daughter, your look disarms My anger. Although your lips are
silent, you call out to Me so mightily that all heaven is moved. I cannot escape from
your requests, because you pursue Me, not from afar but within your own heart."
And yet...
1739: "Write, My daughter, that I am mercy itself for the contrite soul. A soul‟s greatest
wretchedness does not enkindle Me with wrath; but rather, My Heart is moved towards
it with great mercy."
Why would he send down many punishments if he was not enkindled with wrath by a soul's wretchedness? Also, does the Bible not say that he chastises those he loves? just before these two passages he says:
1703 "Do not cry. There are still a great number of souls who love Me very much, but My
Heart desires to be loved by all and, because My love is great, that is why I warn and
chastise them."
I don’t see these quotes as needing special interpretation. He knows she is seeking Him in her heart wholeheartedly and it moves Him to Mercy even as He chastises and warns people to repent and believe in Him. I believe there are several Saints (pre-VII) that have used similar language as well as examples from Scripture. Even Marian apparitions have used similar language and imagery. There’s also the great fact that none of our salvation is dependent on believing private revelation, apparitions, or anything like that. There are a great number of devotions I do not follow because they don’t speak to me or I don’t understand their language. And that is perfectly acceptable.
You might want to watch this for an explanation of why Catholics should not practice the Divine Mercy Devotion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYVeW2WZtjA
Considering the fact that the Holy Office placed Faustina's writing on the Index of Forbidden Books and that office was not filled with apostates/heretics/schismatics as it was during the reign of the false pope, JPII, I tend to consider it a fake.
Also considering the fact that even the false pope, John XXIII, condemned her writings twice, that is further evidence to reject them.
"Not once, but twice under (false) Pope John XXIII, this particular devotion was condemned through the Holy Office. 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 means that the members of the Holy Office examined the content and decided that there was nothing there to indicate the apparitions were supernatural. In an authentic apparition - Our Lady of Lourdes or Our Lady of Fatima, for example - you can look at the content and affirm it can not be definitively said they are of divine origin, but there is enough evidence to say that it is possibly so. On the other hand, in the Divine Mercy apparitions, they said definitively that there is no evidence whatsoever that they are supernatural. This translates, “We do not think that these apparitions come from God.”
2. No feast of Divine Mercy should be instituted. Why? Because if it is based on apparitions that are not clearly coming from God, then it would be rash and temerarious to institute a feast in the Church based on something that is a false apparition.
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. So, it was forbidden to even publish the image of Our Lord as Divine Mercy." https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm
"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.” (Divine Mercy in My Soul, The Diary of Sr. Faustina, Stockbridge, MA: Marian Press, 1987, p. 288)
How can we believe that Our Lord has united Himself more intimately with Sr. Faustina than with the Blessed Virgin Mary? At first, we might read this and think, “Oh, that's beautiful.“ But later it may hit you, “Wait a minute, Our Lord united Himself more intimately with Sr. Faustina than with any other creature? Our Lady was the Immaculate Conception, but she was also His creature, she was created by Him as the rest of us were, albeit with the greatest exalted position free from original sin from the very beginning.”
And now are we expected to believe that Our Lord told Sr. Faustina that He is more united to her than anybody else, even the Blessed Virgin Mary, and certainly more than all the other Saints? This affirmation smacks of pride in itself, let alone the assertion that it came from Heaven.
This type of presumption is present in many other cases.
Our Lord supposedly addressed Sr. Faustina on May 23, 1937, with these words: “Beloved pearl of My Heart.” What bothers me about this is that it is pure saccharin. Look how Our Lady speaks to Sr. Lucia or to St. Bernadette. It is not as “beloved pearl of My Heart.” It is impossible to imagine Our Lord stooping to saccharin language. Our Lord is Christ the King, Creator of the universe, and ruler of all that is. He does not say things like “beloved pearl of My Heart.”
Let me continue. Then, He said: “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.” (ibid., p. 400) First of all, except for the Blessed Virgin Mary, we are not free from original sin and, therefore, we are not capable of a love purer than the angels.
As for blessing the world, that might be fine. If we had one real saint in the world, then the Lord will give us blessings for that one real saint. This is not my objection.
My objection is that this revelation was in 1937; the world was on the verge of World War II, which Sr. Lucy had already been forewarned of by Our Lady at Fatima: if Russia is not consecrated, and man does not convert, then this big disaster will befall mankind for their evil ways and their sins.
At that moment, we were about to see that disaster descend from Heaven, yet Our Lord tells Sr. Faustina, “For your sake, I am going to bless the world.” Was World War II a blessing on the world? Since her native Poland did not go unscathed by the German invasion, it does not seem likely that He actually blessed the world.
Another example: Sr. Faustina claimed that Our Lord told her that she was exempt from judgment, every judgment - particular judgment and the general judgment. On February 4, 1935, she already claimed to hear this voice in her soul, “From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.” (ibid., p. 168)
Now, nobody but the Blessed Virgin, as far as I know, is free from the general and particular judgment. St. Thomas Aquinas, according to the pious story, had to genuflect in Purgatory before going to Heaven. I don’t know if this is fact, but it is a lesson for us that nobody is exempt from any kind of judgment.
And add to these examples the preposterous affirmation that the Host jumped out of the Tabernacle three times and placed itself in her hands, so that she had to open up the Tabernacle and place it back herself: “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.” (ibid., p. 23) It makes it sound like a hamster that has gotten out of its cage. “Oh, no, here it is again. I have to go put this back now.”
How many times has the Church declared that the hands of a priest are consecrated to handle the Sacred Species, and what kind of lesson would you be giving to the world by this example of the Host leaping into her hands so that she had to place it back in the Tabernacle herself?
Our Lord does not contradict His Church by word or by gesture. And this would be a little bit by both. She related what happened, but the gesture itself would be Our Lord contradicting the Real Presence and everything it represents.
A lack of Catholic spirit
In short, the whole Divine Mercy devotion does not represent a Catholic spirit. The Catholic spirit is one of making constant reparation in penance for our sins, of praying for the graces of God, for the mercy of God in this life."
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm
It was not on the Index of Forbidden books nor was it condemned twice. It *was* prohibited from being spread in 1959, but there were no reasons given. Some say it was prohibited twice, but that is a misunderstanding that in 1958 that it was first reported to Rome and the investigation began then to be concluded with the disciplinary caution in 1959, not official placement on the Index of Forbidden Books. When the reversal was issued in 1978, it was based on internal notes from the prohibition and answered those issues. Since Wojtyła was a Polish native he was more equipped to examine the original Diaries and not someone else’s translation. Faustina was not highly educated and used colloquial and expressive/emotional language that doesn’t translate cleanly to a non-native speaker. This is common for mystics and often creates misunderstandings when translated by a non-native speaker (Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, & Catherine of Sienna are examples). By that time too, the restrictions in Poland (difficulty getting things like this across the borders) were lessened and more documents were available for examination. Wojtyła was actually encouraged to re-address the Diary & devotion by the then-bishop of Krakow.
It’s also important to note that 2 separate local bishops approved the devotion (Faustina’s convent’s bishop) and image (bishop of the town/area where it was painted) for use by the people. Faustina’s convent’s bishop spoke with Faustina’s confessor before allowing the devotion to be used/promoted. This is almost always the first step in approval and often considered the unofficial rise in status to an allowed/approved devotion, apparition, or vision. Devotions (or other issues) that are rejected by their local ordinaries are generally considered false, while those allowed or approved by the local ordinaries are considered likely true, but more investigation is needed.
When Rome issued the prohibition, it was not labeled as heretical, having doctrinal issues, or theological issues. It was prohibited because it was spreading so quickly throughout Poland (and I believe during WWII soldiers) that Rome had been unable to directly access and assess it. The documents that Rome had in hand were translations from the Polish with insertions by the translator that were indistinguishable from the original statements. It is common for visions written by a second party to not get Vatican full approval because of this kind of issue. It was a precautionary measure that never reached the Index of Forbidden Books. Once the actual original documents and witnesses were available for review, Wojtyłan investigated them and got the devotion approved. Was he guilty of having a bit of national pride in this devotion—quite possibly, but that doesn’t negate the documentation, witnesses, and other evidence he had access to that the 1958-9 Vatican did not.
In this way, as well as the theme, the Divine Mercy, echoed St Margaret Mary Alacoque’s Sacred Heart devotion. In the late 1600s many clergy resisted the Sacred Heart devotions, including many bishops that refused to allow it. Their reasoning also somewhat echoes the accusations against the Divine Mercy. They found the Sacred Heart devotion too emotional, thought that it lacked theological grounding, and that it placed too much emphasis on private revelation. It was, obviously, later approved in 1765, but only established as a universal feast in 1856.
Several other common traditional devotions faced initial prohibition, refusals, and criticisms: St Francis de Sales Introduction to the Devout Life, St Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises, and the Imitation of Christ to name a few. Some writings of Saints (and Blesseds) have never been approved officially, but are commonly used as devotions and even shape our Catholic tradition, such as bisions from Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. She’s not even canonized, but her visions (written down by Clemens Brentano) gave rise to Mary’s House at Ephesus as well as how we view Jesus’s early life and Passion. The Church uses utmost caution before allowing and promoting any new devotion, vision, apparition, or Saint. That caution doesn’t mean the proposed is diabolical, in doctrinal or theological error, or heretical. It generally means that the Church doesn’t have enough information to justify approval. Once the Church (the Vatican) has access to original sources and witnesses, the investigation can result in an official approval (or denial). In the Divine Mercy devotions case, this more in-depth investigation led to approval.
The promoters want us to believe. I don't believe our Lord would ever say what she claimed to tell her.
Then you better stay away from the other mystics’ writings as well. Most mystics use language that in everyday usage would be significantly over-the-top, overly emotional, self-aggrandizing, too sweet (saccharine) even. Even the language used in the original writings/visions of the Sacred Heart were considered too emotional. St Gertrude the Great’s writings also describe her as ‘especially close’ and other intimate language singling her out amongst all others. Catherine of Sienna had a ‘mystical marriage’ with Christ. I’d say that’s pretty exclusive and elevates her above all others. Thérèse Lisieux writes that she is uniquely loved by Christ. Even Scripture, particularly John Gospel contains such language calling John ‘the disciple Jesus loved’, ‘the beloved disciple’, and such…
Excellent summary - or rather detailed explanation! I think I'll keep it as I tend to forget the details over time. Then every time it comes up I just think - here we go again, because so many people just don't want to take on board the fact that the pre-VII Church banned it.
Interesting: "Also considering the fact that even the false pope, John XXIII, condemned her writings twice, that is further evidence to reject them." I wasn't aware - or maybe it just didn't register a long time ago when I first read all about it - that John XXIII also had condemned it. Makes a much stronger case against its use, or at least should do.
Sorry, but you weren’t aware of the multiple placements of the Divine Mercy on the Index or prohibited because they didn’t happen. There was only 1 prohibition posted, and it was under John XXIII. Internal notes indicated that the decision was based on a single translated version and no witnesses or corroborating evidence. That’s why when the case was re-examined, in its original language and with full access, it was approved.
?? I've no idea what you're saying here - I never mentioned multiple placings on anything. If you're referring to 'condemned her writing twice', then your reply should have gone to Elaine.
I apologize if I mis-directed my comment, but the comment directly above mine, from you literally quote the comment from Elaine and label it interesting. You also said that the fact that her writings were condemned twice made a “much stronger case against its use, or should do.” While you may not have originated the twice condemned narrative, you accepted it after saying that you tend to forget the details over time. I was simply reassuring you that you didn’t forget anything. The writings were never twice condemned. You can’t forget about something that’s never happened.
Perhaps I confused you because I mentioned being placed on the the Index instead of saying condemned. Whatever the case, the assertions made by Elaine, that you found “interesting” and making “a much stronger case against it” never actually happened.
I think we’ve all got the message that you don’t like the fact that Faustina and her book were condemned and are trying every way possible to prove they’re OK. They’re not, but if that’s what you’re happy with, go with it.
To me, it is both a waste of time and an insult to Jesus Christ.
JPII pushed this devotion for the sole reason that, like himself, Faustina was Polish. If not for that it would have deservedly remained forbidden and forgotten.
I grew up in a Polish household where JP2 was held up as a hero and quasi-divine. Learning about Assisi, the Koran-kissing, his treatment of Archbishop Lefebvre has been awful...and here's another sad episode to add to the disillusion.
I think that was just a secondary reason, the first being that it is very ecumenical & it will divert many from the crucially important Message of Fatima, hijacked by the enemy colonizers of the Vatican, Sr Lucia "disappeared," & the Third Secret, which foretold the Judeo-Masonic overthrow of the papacy, a false Council & a false Mass, suppressed.
Also, the more chaplets, the fewer rosaries, & the devil & his human agents want that.
"...the more chaplets, the fewer Rosaries..." Sad but very true.
Valid point. Had JP1 lived would the prohibition on the Divine Mercy Cult been reversed? Impossible to know but I highly doubt it.
As a cradle Catholic still somewhat new to Tradition (it's been about five years), I am shocked by what I continue to learn about the devastation of the Faith in the post-Conciliar period. This business about Faustina's cult reminds me of how the Feast of Christ the King has been emptied in the Novus Ordo of its true ballast and replaced instead with a watered-down version of the same. Much thanks for this article and all the others.
I'm sorry to have to say this... However much you have learned about the devastation of the Faith so far, it gets worse. You'll see as you continue learning.
So, yes you are right. I had heard it before but couldn't believe my ears that the new Code of Canon Law (1983) upends the old 1917 prohibition on non-Catholics receiving Communion. But here's the rabbit hole I went down today:
The old law:
(1917) CIC 0731. § 1. As all the Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Christ Our Lord, are the principal means of sanctification and salvation, the greatest diligence and reverence is to be observed in opportunely and correctly administering them and receiving them. § 2. It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless before-hand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.
But here is the new:
(1983) CIC 844 §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
Exactly. A prime example. The books by Michael Davies (+RIP) lay out a lot of the changes in the Church, Iota Unum by Romano Amerio, The Devastated Vineyard by Dietrich von Hildebrand, and many others. Back issues of Catholic Family News, especially when John Vennari was editor, is a great resource. And there are many others...
I thank God for giving you the grace to come to accept the truth. But when people say they are new to Tradition I would humbly correct them and ask that they say I have come to believe in the true Catholic faith rather than belief in a false one.
One of my best friends, a former Protestant minister, once defended the Osteen and similar "churches" as "seeker-friendly," though without doctrine. I'd like to be charitable to the Novus Ordo goers by granting that there is enough Light there, although heavily and sometimes totally obscured, to lead them along...hopefully unto Tradition. My son's best friend just converted to Catholicism and we all attended his reception at a Novus Ordo service. So many of the new converts were kneeling to receive, wearing veils, and weeping over the experience. I cannot deem it entirely false, however deficient the liturgy seemed to me.
We know that many have converted from false religions to Catholicism so I have prayed that those in the Novus Ordo church will convert one day soon to the true Catholic faith. This church is entirely false Marcel and survives on its appeal to emotions rather than reason or revealed truths.
Why is it that these new devotions are all women-driven or seem to be? My elderly lady friends love Divine Mercy. They are starting to go for the Luisa Piccaretta Divine Will thing although men do too and once at the TLM parish I attended, we had a talk on the "Flame of Love" devotion. That was so awful (I forget the details) that I fled halfway through, and I got into my car and literally talked to Jesus out loud. I said, "Lord, that was outrageous." It just seems like older women are starving for magic and they are thrilled to find it anywhere. Plus they have no taste in art. Sorry to be rude.
Just hearing about this for the first time...
"My daughter was sick, and I thought of going to the doctor. The Lord said, “Do not go anywhere. It will be better if your daughter is not cured.” I grew depressed because she has a husband and a child. Jesus told me why: “Your daughter always has temptations. By a long sickness, I will fill her with abundant graces and her soul will be purified.”"
from the Diary of the visionary associated with this devotion... weird... so, not allowed to go to the doctor anymore? But at the same time, this visionary was taught this epic ecumenical prayer:
May our feet journey together.
May our hands gather in unity.
May our hearts beat in unison.
May our souls be in harmony.
May our thoughts be as one.
May our ears listen to the silence together.
May our glances profoundly penetrate each other.
May our lips pray together to gain mercy from the Eternal Father.
so... lets journey together and have unity... but no going to the doctor...
Not sure whether I should laugh or cry!!!
I'm afraid this is shortsighted and underestimates the lengths to which God the Father will go to recover his straying children before the Day of Justice in the last days. We must be humble enough to receive this last offer of mercy, because we human beings sorely need it!
The image does NOT replace the Sacred Heart but rather shows what issues forth from the eternally Pierced Heart of the Risen Christ in glory, the two indispensable sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist. Going to sacramental Confession is an essential requirement of the devotion. The chaplet reinforces continually the connection between our sin and the only path of redemption through the Passion of Our Lord and the sacraments of the Church. It is the cry of the publican in the parable: "God, have mercy on me, a sinner!"
Namaan at first rejected the cure of his leprosy because it seemed too simple (2 Kings 5:1-15). We are little children and should not let our pride lead us to reject this offer of mercy for our many sins made by Our Father in Heaven.
God's mercy was fully accessible pre-Faustina.
Exactly. Even the Marians have stated many times how they obeyed the ban by still teaching about Divine Mercy from Church teaching, Scripture, etc. and leaving Faustina out of it.
Absolutely, Francisca! But we need to be reminded and called to trust and seek Him in these dark times. God sent His prophets continually to Israel to prepare them, culminating in sending His Son, Our Lord. In our time, when love and trust in Our Lord have grown cold, and faith has dimmed, He sends His Mother, Blessed Mary Ever Virgin; His saints; and His faithful priests and disciples to bring as many to faith as possible before His Second Coming.
So many people operate from the questionable premise that we are in the last days, using this assumption to justify the DM’s radical departure from Catholic traditions of repentance and reparation. The day and hour are not given us to know. Certain events in scripture have yet to occur, such as the conversion of the Jewish people. We are in dark times, but whether these are the end times is NOT a thing we can know. It is illogical to suspend prudence based on this irrational assumption.
And we still have not yet seen the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
On You Tube can be found a series of short videos by "Ascent of Mount Carmel" concerning this devotion, Faustina herself, and a connection to the Polish schismatic group, the Mariavites.
Yes!! Produced by Realdivinemercy.org
Are you sure it's her? I asked AI and it said that the group (set up 1906) was inspired by the mystical revelations of Feliksa Kozłowska ("Mateczka"). No idea myself!!
The first time I saw this picture - in a Cathedral - my immediate instinct was one of recoil, thinking “I don’t know whom they’re worshiping here, but it isn’t Christ. One of my biggest wake-up pointers to the truth about Vatican II. Then I found Faustina’s diary which, along with the pre-VII ban, confirmed the deception - and yes, it is indeed a 'cult'.
My problem with DM is that the permission for it was post-VII, in the face of the ban that was pre-VII.
Precisely!
I too first saw the picture in a Cathedral and thought 'Could this sleazy looking man really be Christ?'
Agreed - it was an extremely surreal moment!
It’s a picture of Jesus on the night of Easter. So much suffering behind its creation. Go to Vilnius some time and see it. God bless you and forgive you.
I need forgiveness for following pre-VII pronouncements on this??? Are you serious?
It’s a blessed Catholic sense that you have Francisca! Thanks be to God!!!
Aw....flattery !!! I think most people on this thread are in agreement, fortunately.
The controversy surrounding the production of the picture, of which there are essentially two different versions, is a problem in itself, and has some disturbing elements.
Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia.
Dom Gueranger said of this day, Low Sunday, that it is never to be superseded or replaced. A wealth of teaching on this day in his writings. Have a listen and enjoy!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AihOVKsAj1I
Thank you Chris for this commentary. I’m going to offer another perspective. Christ can write straight with crooked lines. In 2019, I had a major breakdown. A cradle Catholic and did not know how to pray a rosary. I knew God not. Being raised in the height of the destruction of the church 1970’s, the Catechism consisted of knowing the sign of the cross, Our Father and Hail Mary. That’s it. It was All I had to navigate the drug infested cesspool of NYC and the new modern Nuns and Priests.
I was in dire straits. I threw myself into the church and began to crawl back to God. Novus Ordo was the only thing available. What was the next best thing?? YOU TUBE. I found the Rosary at Lourdes and immediately after was the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. I found a rosary and it was especially, through the divine mercy Chaplet that the Good Lord let me see myself as he sees me. Up until then, I thought I was a really good person and sinless. Honestly did! It was the worst thing in the world when God pulls away and your soul is empty. Truly tragic and indescribable. Thru the hurting bended knees and the tears of agony, I was lead to confession after 30 straight days of pure hell and crawling thru that fire. My only confession was at age 12. I was then 55 and the confession was so bad that the priest gave me a “How to do a proper confession card”. It was in the confessional that God truly returned to my heart and soul. Instantly.
Many, many people have come to Christ thru that Chaplet. I can’t account for the visions and testimonies of St. Faustina, But, I know that Jesus Christ put me through penance in that Chaplet. Christ can do all things. Even save souls thru evil. 🙏
Through allowing evil, not through evil itself.
Yes, God can make use of anything in order to kick-start/further an individual's spiritual path to Him, because He can bring a greater good out of any evil, but that doesn't mean that the devotion etc He makes use of is willed by Him. If it doesn't correspond to traditional Catholic teaching, He can still use it as a stepping-stone as He seems to have done for you, but he's now brought you to the truth about it so perhaps He's shepherding you in a different direction. God is the boss and knows what He's doing; we have to follow Church guidance.
God must so pity us being tossed about in a sea of V2 fallacies that he plucks out the contrite hearts and leads them back to Truth- I AM.
Indeed. He has. The Diary of St. Faustina was just the stepping stone. I took what I needed and left the rest. He lead me to traditional Catholicism. The TLM. Then he allowed it to be taken away here in Charlotte. The Lord giveth and taketh. Blessed is the name of the Lord.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Amen.
Talk of mercy is meaningless to those with no sense of sin. Mercy makes sense only to those who feel their guilt, who sense the danger in which their soul is currently standing, who understand that an eternity in hell is a reality and a real possibility for them. But this runs contrary to everything which has been happening in the Church for the past 60+ years. We've been downplaying sin, minimizing its consequences and pouring scorn on the "prophets of doom". We're currently in the process of reversing long-standing Catholic teaching that certain actions are actually sinful. Now, suddenly, we want to talk about mercy? Why? Why do I need mercy? For what? I've done nothing wrong!
If the Church wants to preach mercy, it must first preach sin. Sending mixed and confusing signals is a specialty of the modern Church in its efforts to welcome "todos....todos.....todos" as that fiend Bergoglio used to say.
Thank you sooo much Chris. I knew something was wrong with the Divine Mercy as I would ask, "What about justice?" as our Lord is justice also. I started recognizing that the Norus Ordo basically preaches love and mercy without sin and justice. I guess that is why they now condemn capital punishment. All is mercy so there are no consequences for sin...just go to mass and give them money and you are a "Catholic in good standing" like Biden and Pelosi. It goes along with their Vatican ll theme of positivity while never standing against evil....which makes them evil.
More than one thing can be true at the same time.
Does the devotion wrongly overshadow the low Sunday and even Easter? Yes it does.
Is the devotion True? I believe it is because we’re in the end times and time is very short.
I'm posting this comment at the top rather than within a thread below as a PSA for HiE readers attempting to engage C.M. Callaghan in rational debate, an effort which I liken to looking for a ham sandwich up a pig's a$$, i.e., a waste of time and effort.
Here's why:
If you analyze C.M.'s MO throughout this and other threads, what you discover is a gadfly* who gets his jollies by taunting and contradicting other commenters, hoping they'll make some factual or rhetorical mistake so he can display his internet smarts and make his interlocutors look foolish and ignorant. ("That's because they ARE foolish and ignorant!" Yeah, whatever.)
Here's C.M.'s MO in a nutshell:
* Start a thread with a snarky response to someone's comment.
* Contradict and ridicule the responses.
* Claim those responses prove his point as well as the ignorance of other commenters.
* Make liberal use of *tu quoque* argumentation.
* Play the victim.
* Lather, rinse, repeat.
In responding to C.M. (which I discourage) it is important to realize that he/she/it isn't interested in dialogue or discussion; he's interested in making fun of people and stating that any rejoinder to his ceaseless caviling is proof that he is right.
Lest someone other than C.M. feel this description is unduly harsh or unjustified, here are a few of C.M.'s rhetorical gems taken from this post alone:
"Sorry bro, I have already explained all this in some of my articles here on Substack and I don't feel the need to justify them to someone who doesn't have the nous to see the nuance in my choice of words." [Sarcastic ridicule. The commenter is clearly too stupid to understand C.M.'s obviously correct opinion.]
"Get back to me when you actually post something original on Substack and not just snipe on other people's comments." [Projection. C.M. does this all the time.]
"Thank you for this. Your arrogance has reminded me I am indeed on the right path. God bless. “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you." John 15: 18-19 [Playing the victim. Takes opposition to his POV as proof of its correctness. Uses scripture to imply that anyone who disagrees with him is an enemy of Christ. Talk about narcissism.]
"10 mins between recommending a book and telling me that because I didn't read said book, you win. You sir/madam, are a total tool." [Name-calling as a substitute for argument. Clearly a class act.]
"Show me where, anywhere in scripture or traditional, that Mary is elevated to the role she has now. Can you explain how it was only in less than 200 years that 2 Marian Dogmas were forced on Catholics on pain of excommunication? I think YOU need to revise your understanding of the true faith and The Way of Christ through Scripture and the very earliest Patristic Fathers. I will pray for you." [Supercilious contradiction as a substitute for argument. Implication that the commenter is SO wrong that he needs C.M.'s prayers to convert him to the correct opinion.]
"Just checked your profile. I get it now. Another one with no original posts, just sniping and liking on other people's comments that validate their narrow little views. Bless." [Projection. C.M. does this all the time.]
In short, C.M. Callaghan's commenting style reveals much about him, and his comments have "hoist him by his own petard" (see also Dan 5:27). His entire substack oeuvre is a disappointingly ordinary exemplar of psychological projection, self-righteous posturing, narcissism, and playing the victim. He likes being contradicted because he is desperate for attention and because contradiction gives him a venue in which to display his (clearly superior) intellect.
Free and open discussion in a substack is one thing. Strong (but respectful) opinions are welcome, of course. That said, ceaseless and pointless caviling and name-calling are unworthy of rational discussion and should be discouraged in whatever manner befits a substack community earnestly seeking truth in a troubled time.
[Insert snappy, insulting cope from C.M. here.]
* Gadfly (n): A persistent irritating critic; a nuisance. One that acts as a provocative stimulus; a goad. [If ever there was an apt description of C.M., it is this.]
Right on, well said. 👍
Thanks for this. I began to wonder if C.M. is a bot... :-)
I get a kick out of those memes that show a wall of smartphones, on and hooked up, and the caption says, "This is who you are arguing with on the internet."