FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Divine Mercy Question
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Our Lord is said to have told Sr. Faustina:  "Write that when they say this chaplet in the presence of the dying, I will stand between My Father and the dying person, not as the just Judge but as the merciful Savior (Diary, 1541)."

I guess I'm not understanding why, if Our Lord is the Judge, He makes mention of "standing between His Father and the dying person", as if he is advocating to His Father on the person's behalf.  The Judge doesn't advocate.  He is the one to make the ruling.  Am I misunderstanding this?
(12-15-2017, 01:11 PM)Christus_Vincit Wrote: [ -> ]Our Lord is said to have told Sr. Faustina:  "Write that when they say this chaplet in the presence of the dying, I will stand between My Father and the dying person, not as the just Judge but as the merciful Savior (Diary, 1541)."

I guess I'm not understanding why, if Our Lord is the Judge, He makes mention of "standing between His Father and the dying person", as if he is advocating to His Father on the person's behalf.  The Judge doesn't advocate.  He is the one to make the ruling.  Am I misunderstanding this?

I can only offer speculation, but here's my guess.

Since the person is dying and not yet dead (ie, not yet at their judgment), Our Lord isn't acting in His capacity as the just Judge at that time for that person. If the chaplet is prayed and special graces are granted to the soul, they will be greeted by the merciful Savior who will save their soul from damnation, rather than potentially receiving the just judgment of damnation upon an unprepared soul. The chaplet may touch the heart of the dying person in such a way that they will request a priest to hear their Confession and give the Last Rites.
In God, both justice and mercy are one. There is no distinction.

Christ is both our judge and our advocate. He will judge us according to our interior disposition. If we ask for mercy we shall have it but if our exterior actions and interior dispositions do not match our pleas then there is only so much that mercy can do, His mercy requires our cooperation. If we do not cooperate then He can only be just. Perhaps He means that the chaplet will grant the person the necessary graces to accept and interiorly cooperate with Christ's mercy even if normally the person would be too hard of heart. 

That's just my guess, I hope it helps. I've never read St. Faustina's works but from what I've heard she seems somewhat prone to exaggeration, though not necessarily in a bad way.
As long as there is life there is hope for the mercy of God.
I think the words of the chaplet are self-explanatory:

Eternal Father, I offer the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,
in atonement for my sins and those of the whole world.

For the sake of His sorrowful passion,
Have mercy on us and on the whole world.

It's like the morning offering where you offer your prayers with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

You are uniting your prayers to Jesus sacrifice offered to the Father(judge in need of sacrifice) as atonement for your sins.
(12-15-2017, 01:11 PM)Christus_Vincit Wrote: [ -> ]Our Lord is said to have told Sr. Faustina:  "Write that when they say this chaplet in the presence of the dying, I will stand between My Father and the dying person, not as the just Judge but as the merciful Savior (Diary, 1541)."

I guess I'm not understanding why, if Our Lord is the Judge, He makes mention of "standing between His Father and the dying person", as if he is advocating to His Father on the person's behalf.  The Judge doesn't advocate.  He is the one to make the ruling.  Am I misunderstanding this?

Peace.....I understand it to mean he is there taking everything upon himself because he is the merciful savior....?  God bless, angeltime
(12-15-2017, 07:00 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]In God, both justice and mercy are one. There is no distinction.

According to Thomists, there is a virtual minor distinction between God's attributes.

That especially applies to attributes which are specifically different and exist in different orders, such as justice and mercy.


In a sense it can be though of this way : In God, because He is pure act, there is no real or formal distinction between any of His attributes (His Justice is His Mercy), but in the creature the effect of each can be distinguished. Thus based on this distinction in the effects in creature, we can logically (or virtually) distinguish the attributes in God.

When He punishes we see His Justice (even though in His Mercy He never punishes as much as is deserved). When He forgives we see His Mercy (though He does so in a certain way in Justice given that this grace flows from the merits of Christ).
Thank you everyone for your responses, they were helpful!
(12-17-2017, 05:12 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-15-2017, 07:00 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]In God, both justice and mercy are one. There is no distinction.

According to Thomists, there is a virtual minor distinction between God's attributes.

That especially applies to attributes which are specifically different and exist in different orders, such as justice and mercy.


In a sense it can be though of this way : In God, because He is pure act, there is no real or formal distinction between any of His attributes (His Justice is His Mercy), but in the creature the effect of each can be distinguished. Thus based on this distinction in the effects in creature, we can logically (or virtually) distinguish the attributes in God.

When He punishes we see His Justice (even though in His Mercy He never punishes as much as is deserved). When He forgives we see His Mercy (though He does so in a certain way in Justice given that this grace flows from the merits of Christ).

Thank you, MM. Informative as always. I always have trouble understanding the difference between "virtual" and "formal" and such.

But in any case I know that St. Thomas does say that Justice and Mercy are not opposed to each other but rather mercy is the perfection of justice, going over and above what mere justice demands without necessarily contradicting it.
(12-18-2017, 06:09 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you, MM. Informative as always. I always have trouble understanding the difference between "virtual" and "formal" and such.

But in any case I know that St. Thomas does say that Justice and Mercy are not opposed to each other but rather mercy is the perfection of justice, going over and above what mere justice demands without necessarily contradicting it.

No worries.

In the Thomistic system somethings which are "formally" distinct are also called "really distinct". There exists in reality a difference between the two things. For example
the UK and Canada are not the same country. They are two really distinct things. There is a real distinction only where there is an absence of identity.

A "virtual" distinction is also called a "logical distinction," because there is no distinction in reality, but a distinction can be made in the mind, or logically. Elizabeth II is Queen of the UK and Queen of Canada. These two ideas identify the same person. In Elizabeth there is only distinction as Queen of the UK and of Canada in the mind.

This distinction is also called a virtual major distinction. This distinction is founded on another real distinction in something else. In the case of Elizabeth, Canada and the UK are not the same, but being Queen of each does not impose the same absence of identity. One attribute does not include the other, but neither does it exclude it.

A virtual minor distinction is when there is still a distinction made between two things, but in reality these are identical, so there is no foundation on a real distinction. Such would be the distinction between Elizabeth as Head of State and as Commander-in-Chief. In reality both of these things exist in her Queenship and are identical as such, but we can mentally think of her giving an order to the military and has representing the UK as its head of state at a ceremony.

Hope that helps.