Heresy in Sr. Faustina's Diary
#41
I myself also have many doubts regarding her life and vision. And I do not recite chaplet of divine mercy now.

From her diary, I can't see how holy she is, and many of her accounts seem wierd.

Unlike "dialogue" written by my patron saint St. Catherine of Siena, her accounts are just mediocre.
Reply
#42
Nobody has to believe even a church-approved devotion or private revelation. There are some that I don't personally follow at all. However, I must say that it is mighty brass to publically cast aspersions on that which the Church has approved and celebrates in its public liturgy. Divine Mercy Sunday is now celebrated the Sunday after Easter on the universal calendar whether you, or I, or the pastor of your church decides to observe or ignore it. It's just important to remember that. This is a matter of respect for church authority. If they give a red light, we stop. If they give a green light, we can choose to go or not go. But why cast doubts onto people who find this devotion comforting? A devotion that the Church has approved.
Reply
#43
(07-03-2014, 08:57 AM)GodFirst Wrote:
(07-03-2014, 03:09 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(07-02-2014, 08:52 PM)GodFirst Wrote: This is not about believing whether it is a true revelation or not but rather about proclaiming it is heresy when we do not have that authority from Holy Church.
Any Catholic can judge something to be heretical (cf. Galatians 1:8-9, where St. Paul instructs them to pass judgment as to what may be a false gospel), but not all Catholics have the authority to impose censures.
No, Geremia, no lay Catholic has the authority to formally declare anything heresy that is the Church's job and more specifically the job of the high priest. We are not make private judgments like that as Bl. Peter indicated in his Epistle. To even think such a thing in the past would have gotten you labelled a heretic or at least schismatic. You have no authority in the Church to bind your fellow Catholics.
So, you're saying that if someone were to say, for example, "God is made up of 4 Persons", I cannot judge him a heretic, just because I am a layman?
Reply
#44
There's an Eastern Rite priest I know that has had some miraculous conversions take place on deathbeds as well as demons fleeing when the Chaplet is recited. This is a priest who I have no reason to doubt. That being said I do not personally recite the Chaplet and do not find it or the Devotion a good fit for my spiritual life. In some ways there's a connection between the Sacred Heart and the Divine Mercy...it's interesting..at any rate, no Catholic needs to practice every devotion. There's enough Church approved devotions for folks of every temperament. Personally I steer clear of all visionaries,stigmatics and victim souls and devotions associated with those things but the Church has approved many of them. One could also be devoted to the mercy of God, or the Heart of the Redeemer, without having anything to do with any visions,visionaries or certain popular aspects of those devotions. Both the mercy of God and the love manifested for man as seen through a Heart at once human and Divine doesn't have to have anything to do with Faustina Kowalska or Margaret Mary Alacoque, as those approved saints and the devotions associated with them are just there to help reinforce aspects of our faith that have always existed. The devotions are just tools to help us get closer to God and to help us become channels of grace. Take them or leave them but try to find some devotion that helps YOU grow spiritually.
Reply
#45
(07-25-2014, 05:15 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(07-03-2014, 08:57 AM)GodFirst Wrote:
(07-03-2014, 03:09 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(07-02-2014, 08:52 PM)GodFirst Wrote: This is not about believing whether it is a true revelation or not but rather about proclaiming it is heresy when we do not have that authority from Holy Church.
Any Catholic can judge something to be heretical (cf. Galatians 1:8-9, where St. Paul instructs them to pass judgment as to what may be a false gospel), but not all Catholics have the authority to impose censures.
No, Geremia, no lay Catholic has the authority to formally declare anything heresy that is the Church's job and more specifically the job of the high priest. We are not make private judgments like that as Bl. Peter indicated in his Epistle. To even think such a thing in the past would have gotten you labelled a heretic or at least schismatic. You have no authority in the Church to bind your fellow Catholics.
So, you're saying that if someone were to say, for example, "God is made up of 4 Persons", I cannot judge him a heretic, just because I am a layman?

To be fair, though, that example can be judged heresy because it clearly contradicts the Creed and thus falls under the anathemas of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. I do think we are empowered, and indeed required, to call a spade a spade when it clearly contradicts the Catholic faith, as someone preaching a "quaternity" instead of the Trinity would be doing.
Reply
#46
A number of questions arise here with respect to the Diary. Those include: 1) Are the English translations circulating accurate? 2) Some are parsing through the text as if they were dealing with something that must have the clarity of Denzinger.  Private revelations and visions don't offer us such clarity and quite often contain mistakes. Read the Catholic Encyclopedia in its article on Contemplation. "The Church does not oblige us to believe in them, but it is prudent not to reject them lightly when they are affirmed by saints. Nevertheless it is certain that many saints were deceived and that their revelations contradict one another. What follows will explain the reason of this. Revelations and visions are subject to many illusions which shall be briefly set forth. First, like Jonas at Ninive, the seer may regard as absolute a prediction that was only conditional, or commit some other error in interpreting it. Second, when the vision represents a scene from the life or Passion of Christ, historic accuracy is often only approximate; otherwise God would lower Himself to the rank of a professor of history and archeology. He wishes to sanctify the soul, not to satisfy our curiosity. The seer, however, may believe that the reproduction is exact; hence the want of agreement between revelations concerning the life of Jesus Christ. Third, during the vision personal activity may be so mingled with the Divine action that answers in the sense desired seemed to be received. In fact, during prayer vivid imaginations may go so far as to produce revelations and visions out of whole cloth without any evil intent. Fourth, sometimes, in his desire to explain it, the seer afterwards unconsciously alters a genuine revelation. Fifth, amanuenses and editors take deplorable liberties in revising, so that the text is not always authentic."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04324b.htm

3. The CDF lifted the earlier restrictions of  the Holy Office. One would have to find out what those restrictions were based on. Exactly what did the Holy Office find objectionable in its original decrees? That is not clear.  The OP claims Pius XII placed it on the Index. This is not accurate at all. It was a decision signed by John XXIII in 1959. Prior to that some bishops  had granted imprimaturs for the  Diary.
4.  Authentic visionaries make mistakes but this does not mean their visions were bogus. Such errors are not unusual. This is quite common and can be shown to have happened in  the case of Saint  Catherine Laboure, the children of  Fatima and many others. Pope Benedict XIV : "(Heroic Virtue III. 14. p. 404) said: "The revelations of some holy women canonized by the Apostolic See whose saying and writings in rapture and derived from rapture are filled with errors."

C.
Reply
#47
(07-28-2014, 05:47 PM)Cetil Wrote: The OP claims Pius XII placed it on the Index. This is not accurate at all. It was a decision signed by John XXIII in 1959. Prior to that some bishops  had granted imprimaturs for the  Diary.
Yes, thank you for the correction. It was after Pius XII when the notification of the Holy Office was signed. That notification did prohibit her writings, but it's unclear if it prohibited all of them or only those that described the image. You may be right about the diary and the Index; I'll have to look more into verifying that with an independent source.
Reply
#48
(07-28-2014, 09:19 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(07-28-2014, 05:47 PM)Cetil Wrote: The OP claims Pius XII placed it on the Index. This is not accurate at all. It was a decision signed by John XXIII in 1959. Prior to that some bishops  had granted imprimaturs for the  Diary.
Yes, thank you for the correction. It was after Pius XII when the notification of the Holy Office was signed. That notification did prohibit her writings, but it's unclear if it prohibited all of them or only those that described the image. You may be right about the diary and the Index; I'll have to look more into verifying that with an independent source.
It appears the Diary was only censored by Poland for political reasons and that it did not appear on the Index (source).
Reply
#49
(08-03-2014, 10:03 PM)Geremia Wrote: It appears the Diary was only censored by Poland for political reasons and that it did not appear on the Index (source).
Actually, the database I was searching only includes entries in the Index up until 1948. Does anyone know if the post-1948 Index is online somewhere?
Reply
#50
I think the 1948 edition was the last edition to ever be promulgated. I don't think there were any more additions made to it.

That doesn't mean that particular books weren't addressed individually after that time by the Holy Office/CDF, as they still are today, but I don't think you'll find an edition of the Index later than 1948.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)