Divine Mercy opinions
#4
Here are some points against it:

1ST POINT: KOWALSKA'S DIARY WAS (AND IS) FORBIDDEN

The first condemnation was in late 1956 by Pope Pius XII. He simply ordered the Diary to be placed in the Index of Prohibited Books after its examination.

The second condemnation was in 1958:

"1. The supernatural nature of the revelations made to Sr. Faustina is not evident.

"2. No feast of Divine Mercy is to be instituted.

"3. It is forbidden to divulge images and writings that propagate this devotion under the form received by Sr. Faustina." (November 19, 1958: Plenary Meeting of the Divine Office)

The third condemnation was in 1959:

"The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, having examined the alleged visions and revelations of Sister Faustina Kowalska of the Institute of Our Lady of Mercy, who died in 1938 near Cracow, has decreed as follows: The distribution of pictures and writings which present the devotion to the Divine Mercy in the forms proposed by Sister Faustina, should be forbidden . . ." (March 6, 1959: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Vol. 51, p. 271)

Placing a book in the Index is the same as condemning it because, in the first place, only condemned books are placed in it, and such were forbidden by reason of its contents dangerous to faith or morals. Note well that it was condemned -- not once, but thrice. The fact alone that it was banned is an enough warning signal that something is wrong with it, although it can be rebutted by proof to the contrary. Therefore, we must refer to the reasons why it was censored. But before we proceed to the errors in the diary, let us first consider some objections:

Objection 1: Pius XII blessed a Divine mercy image in Rome on June 24, 1956. He would have approved it instead of condemned it.

Answer: Notice that the said blessing happened before, not after, the condemnations (compare the dates: 1956, 1958, 1959). Pius XII blessed the image at the time he was not yet aware of its errors. Note also that it was not a universal blessing, as though it were promoted to all the faithful, as in the acknowledgement of an approbated private revelation worthy of belief (e.g. Sacred Heart, Our Lady of Fatima).

Objection 2: The Index prohibits certain books. But the Index was abolished by Paul VI on June 14, 1966. Therefore, those books are not anymore prohibited.

Answer: Books are prohibited according to the nature of their content, such as heresy, schism, apostasy, atheism, freemasonry, lust or immodesty, immorality, false revelations or apparitions, and the like. Abolishing the Index does not destroy the pernicious character of those books, since the Index merely specifies in particular prohibited books, either as an example or benchmark for determining which books are generally prohibited, or as a serious warning on account of its content or author. Therefore, with or without the Index, books are considered forbidden those which injure faith and morals, i.e. once forbidden, always forbidden. Since Paul VI was not a true Pope, he also had no authority to abolish the index.

Objection 3: But the Diary was pulled out and re-launched in 1978 by John Paul II (who was yet Cardinal at the time). And he later propagated the devotion to the Divine mercy. Therefore, nothing seems wrong with the accounts of Kowalska.

Answer: Besides John Paul II not being a true Pope and consequently not possessing the authority he claimed to have had, it is a clear grave violation of the rules. As stated above in the first response, the nature of a book condemned in the Index is of a pernicious character, and the moral force of the Index is still binding. Therefore, it is a scandalous crime to spread a book known to be censored by the Holy Office through the Index, even after the Index was abolished (since, again, it "remains morally binding"). Hence, Pope Leo XIII solemnly decreed in his General Decrees on the Prohibition and Censorship of Books (Officiorum ac Munerum, §§ 31, 45, 49; January 25, 1897): "No one shall venture to republish books condemned by the Apostolic See. If, for a grave and reasonable cause, any particular exception appears desirable in this respect, this can only be allowed on obtaining beforehand a License from the Sacred Congregation of the Index and observing the conditions prescribed by it."; "Books condemned by the Apostolic See are to be considered as prohibited all over the world, and into whatever Language they may be translated."; "We Decree that these presents and whatsoever they contain shall at no time be questioned or impugned for any fault of subreption, or obreption, or of Our intention, or for any other defect whatsoever; but are and shall be ever valid and efficacious, and to be inviolably observed, both Judicially and extra-Judicially, by all of whatsoever rank and pre-eminence. And We declare to be invalid and of no avail, whatsoever may be attempted knowingly or unknowingly contrary to these, by any one, under any Authority or pretext whatsoever; all to the contrary notwithstanding. . . . No man, therefore, may infringe or temerariously venture to contravene this Document of Our Constitution, Ordination, Limitation, Derogation, and Will. If any one shall so presume, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

Objection 4: The Diary of Kowalska was previously banned because of translation errors. This caused the Sacred Congregation to condemn such book. But later when the translation was revised and the theologians saw nothing contrary to faith, the decision was reversed.

Answer: The errors of such diary were actually made more manifest in the amended translation. Hence we proceed to the examination of some serious notable errors and absurdities.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Divine Mercy opinions - by AnaCarolina1 - 09-14-2021, 03:48 PM
RE: Divine Mercy opinions - by Grandma - 09-14-2021, 04:02 PM
RE: Divine Mercy opinions - by Clare Brigid - 09-14-2021, 05:09 PM
RE: Divine Mercy opinions - by Bataar - 09-14-2021, 05:24 PM
RE: Divine Mercy opinions - by Bataar - 09-14-2021, 05:25 PM
RE: Divine Mercy opinions - by Bataar - 09-14-2021, 05:26 PM
RE: Divine Mercy opinions - by Bataar - 09-14-2021, 05:32 PM
RE: Divine Mercy opinions - by J Michael - 09-14-2021, 05:34 PM
RE: Divine Mercy opinions - by jovan66102 - 09-14-2021, 05:38 PM
RE: Divine Mercy opinions - by rq146 - 09-14-2021, 05:56 PM
RE: Divine Mercy opinions - by jovan66102 - 09-14-2021, 05:59 PM
RE: Divine Mercy opinions - by rq146 - 09-14-2021, 06:07 PM
RE: Divine Mercy opinions - by dayafter - 09-14-2021, 06:16 PM
RE: Divine Mercy opinions - by dontmindatall - 09-14-2021, 07:09 PM
RE: Divine Mercy opinions - by AnaCarolina1 - 09-14-2021, 08:31 PM
RE: Divine Mercy opinions - by choosetowitness - 09-14-2021, 09:45 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)