Divine Mercy opinions
I have a Sacred heart plaque from my grandmother.
I believe in First Friday mass honoring Him & enthronement.

Now what's up with Divine Mercy ?

I have St. Faustina's diary. Did not get a chance to read it. Is it redundant to Sacred Heart devotion?
(09-14-2021, 03:48 PM)AnaCarolina1 Wrote: I have a Sacred heart plaque from my grandmother.
I believe in First Friday mass honoring Him & enthronement.

Now what's up with Divine Mercy ?

I have St. Faustina's diary. Did not get a chance to read it. Is it redundant to Sacred Heart devotion?
All of those sacramentals give me inspiration.  It is like a continuing story that takes us deeper into the Mercy of the Lord.

I have the Divine Mercy book by St. Faustina which I read a very long time ago.....and I read it too quickly.  I am inspired to read it again slowly.
I have questions about both private revelations.  Jesus says in Matthew 24:26:

Quote:If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not.
"[I]t is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal."  Pope St. Pius X.

"If anyone deludes himself by thinking he is serving God, when he has not learned to control his tongue, the service he gives is vain.  If he is to offer service pure and unblemished in the sight of God, who is our Father, he must take care of orphans and widows in their need, and keep himself unstained by the world."  James 1:26-27.
Here are some points against it:


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.

As a sample, let us select some notable errors from the Diary (according to the updated translation), such as, but not limited to, the following (with emphasis added):

Error 1:

"The First Friday of the month. After Holy Communion, I suddenly saw the Lord Jesus, and spoke to me these words: 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." (Diary of Sr. Faustina, no. 707, apparition of October 2, 1936)

Comment: Seriously? Is there any other creature more intimately united with Christ than His Mother Mary? Does this imply that Kowalska was also immaculate?

Error 2:

"BELOVED PEARL OF MY HEART, 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., no. 1061, apparition of May 23, 1937).

Comment: Is any sinner capable of loving the Lord better than any angel or at par with Mary Immaculate? Two years after 1937 came World War II (1939-1945) -- you call this a blessing of the world? During those two years, countries were in conflict and the armies were preparing for battle. Notice also the imitation of St. Margaret's title given by Our Lord, as she was called the "Beloved Disciple (Apostle) of the Sacred Heart"; Margaret comes from Greek "margaron" which means "pearl."

Error 3:

"One day Jesus said to me, 'I am going to leave this house [church] . . . Because there are things here which displease me.' 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. , no. 44).

Comment: A religious nun is expected aware that the Church has taught that only the consecrated hands of a priest can touch the Sacred Species. Otherwise, this would imply that either (1) Christ contradicts Himself or the Church contradicts herself, or (2) Faustina is hallucinating or making a sacrilege. But Christ, Who is the Truth, cannot contradict Himself by unreasonably allowing His Sacred Body in the Eucharist be touched by her who is not a priest. And the Church, infallibly guided by the Spirit of Truth, can never contradict herself in terms of doctrine and constant tradition.

From the said errors it is reasonable and sufficient to reject the apparition and to conclude that Kowalska is influenced either by fits of hallucination or, worse, by diabolical spirit. The apparition seemed to disregard her unworthiness, exalt her by flattery, and incite her to vanity.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bataar's post:
  • AnaCarolina1

The "Divine mercy" painting shows an image of the apparition (alleged to be our Lord Jesus Christ) wherein he is dressed in white robe, his right hand in a gesture of blessing, and his left hand folding an opening of his chest from which blue and red rays come forth (portrayed as the Precious Blood and water from the Sacred Side of Christ which gushed forth when pierced by the soldier's lance during His Death). However, note the following points:

1. The apparition appeared in her room, not in the tabernacle or altar. Compared to a similar apparition, that of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, our Lord appeared to her from the tabernacle to show that His Merciful Heart is ever present in the Most Blessed Sacrament, waiting to be consoled and adored. On the contrary, Kowalska's apparition, allegedly manifesting the Divine mercy, just came to her privately in her room for no reason.

2. The Holy Wounds in the hands and feet were missing, and the exit of the rays was the central chest, not the Sacred Side. One day when St. Martin of Tours was praying, a devil appeared to him in disguise as our Lord -- surrounded by purple light, crowned with gold and precious stones, clothed in royal robe -- that he may deceive Martin by the brightness and tranquility of his countenance. The apparition repeatedly persuaded Martin with words that he was Christ. But the Saint, filled with the Spirit of truth, staunchly replied: "The Lord Jesus did not predict that He would come clothed in purple, and with a glittering crown upon His head. I will not believe that Christ has come, unless he appears with that appearance and form in which He suffered, and openly displaying the marks of His wounds upon the cross." On hearing these words, the devil vanished like smoke, and filled the cell with such a disgusting smell, that he left unmistakable evidences of his real character (Sulpitius Severus. The Life of St. Martin of Tours, Chapter 24). If the devil can by his own power disguise as our Lord, why then did he not imitate the Sacred Wounds? Certainly he is not able to imitate signs which portray a proper signification of divine truths, since his aim is to deceive. Obviously, those Wounds are so sacred that the devil would hate them because they would torment him, so that the devil cannot perfectly imitate the appearance of our Lord. This could be similar to the case of Kowalska's apparition.

3. The Precious Blood and Water were substituted by rays of light, red and blue. For what reason? Nothing. In all approved apparitions of Our Lord showing His Passion, He manifested Himself in a pitiful state: crucified (as for example, to St. Francis of Assisi), bleeding (as in the Holy Face, to Sr. Marie of St. Peter), His Sacred Heart wounded and crowned with thorns (as in the apparition to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque). Even in numerous passages in the Sacred Scriptures, the emphasis is on the Precious Blood, in liquid form, not rays of light. Further, the only other material symbolism of the Precious Blood is the wine, Christ being truly present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Or it could be held that Our Lord would appear with rays of light, but never to the exclusion of His Sacred Heart, Precious Blood, or Holy Wound.

4. The true symbol of the Divine mercy are the Sacred Heart and the Precious Blood. As stated in one of the twelve promises of the devotion to the Sacred Heart: "Sinners shall find in My Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy" (6th promise). As for the Precious Blood, St. Catherine of Siena states in her prayer, "Precious Blood, ocean of divine mercy, flow upon us!" Further, the Sacred Scriptures in numerous passages always emphasize Christ's Precious Blood by which we were redeemed and shown mercy. If the Sacred Heart and the Precious Blood were the source of such "Divine Mercy" in the image of Kowalska, then both must have been shown. To introduce another symbol is questionable.

5. In all images of Christ, other than as the Crucified and as the sleeping Infant, wherein He raises His right hand in a gesture of blessing, His little finger and ring finger are folded downwards, and the three other fingers exposed, as a sacred symbol of the Trinity and the Incarnate. Christ and the Popes are distinguished from other holy persons by this special gesture. On the contrary, in the painting of the "Divine mercy" of Kowalska, all fingers are raised upward and slightly curved, which is unusual.

If we will thus interpret the strange image of the Divine mercy according to Kowalska, we can reasonably say that it portrays Christ as a merciful God who grants remission of guilt and punishment of sin without the condition of contrition and penance, which is contrary to the Catholic sense of mercy and penance. Whereas, the image of Christ with His Sacred Heart aflame and crowned with thorns, His Holy Wounds, and His red cloak (which signifies His Precious Blood), properly and effectively impresses upon the mind of the faithful the Church's teaching on Christ's merciful love and the call to repentance.


Pope Leo XIII: "Pictures, in any style of printing, of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Angels and Saints, or other Servants of God, which are not conformable to the sense and Decrees of the Church, are entirely forbidden. New pictures, whether produced with or without Prayers annexed, may not be published without permission of Ecclesiastical Authority." (Officiorum ac Munerum, § 15; January 25, 1897)

St. Thomas Aquinas: "As Augustine states (Cont. Mendac. xiv), "a most pernicious lie is that which is uttered in matters pertaining to Christian religion." Now it is a lie if one signify outwardly that which is contrary to truth. But just as a thing is signified by word, so it is by deed: and it is in this signification by deed that the outward worship of religion consists, as shown above (Summa Theologica II-II. lxxxi. 7). Consequently, if anything false is signified by outward worship, this worship will be pernicious." (Summa Theologica II-II. xciii. 1)
I just want to offer an apology real quick. I copied and pasted this from another form and didn't originally notice the statement about John Paul II not being a real pope. I know this isn't the sedevacantist forum so if I had noticed that, I would not have pasted that as the rest of the statement doesn't need that jab.
(09-14-2021, 05:32 PM)Bataar Wrote: I just want to offer an apology real quick. I copied and pasted this from another form and didn't originally notice the statement about John Paul II not being a real pope. I know this isn't the sedevacantist forum so if I had noticed that, I would not have pasted that as the rest of the statement doesn't need that jab.
It's always helpful, too, to provide a citation of your source(s), usually in the form of a link.
"I'm an old man now and have had a great many problems.  Most of them never happened."~ Mark Twain

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug."~Mark Knopfler (?)
[-] The following 1 user Likes J Michael's post:
  • AnaCarolina1
(09-14-2021, 05:32 PM)Bataar Wrote: I just want to offer an apology real quick. I copied and pasted this from another form and didn't originally notice the statement about John Paul II not being a real pope. I know this isn't the sedevacantist forum so if I had noticed that, I would not have pasted that as the rest of the statement doesn't need that jab.

I accept JPII as a valid Pope, but I think his Polish patriotism clouded his judgement on Faustina. I won't touch the entire 'Divine Mercy' complex because of the condemnations and because it seems to be just a ripoff of many of the older Sacred Heart devotions.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • AnaCarolina1
Oh, this apparition is contested? Great... we've got a giant painting of it in our church.
Is it still not approved? A cursory search turned up an article from 2019 saying it's not approved yet. Is there one place where someone can reliably check the approval status of apparitions?

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)