Heresy in Sr. Faustina's Diary
#51
(08-04-2014, 11:07 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: 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.
Yeah, post-1948 would all be recorded in AAS, no? If so, I couldn't find any mention of Sr. Faustina's Diary on the Index in AAS.
Reply
#52
It appears the Diary was only censored by Poland for political reasons and that it did not appear on the Index[/quote] I wonder how many people read your original post and spread your misinformation..
Reply
#53
(08-06-2014, 07:32 PM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: I wonder how many people read your original post and spread your misinformation.
This is what I wrote in the OP: "Her diary contains at least one heresy; that is enough for Pope Pius XII to place it on the Index."
Is the Diary one of her "writings which present the devotion to the Divine Mercy"? If so, Pope Pius XII condemned it. If it contains heresy, regardless if it's on the Index or not, it's already condemned.
Reply
#54
(08-06-2014, 08:14 PM)Geremia Wrote: "Her diary contains at least one heresy; that is enough for Pope Pius XII to place it on the Index."
Is the Diary one of her "writings which present the devotion to the Divine Mercy"? If so, Pope Pius XII condemned it. If it contains heresy, regardless if it's on the Index or not, it's already condemned.
Again, the ban was removed by the Church when the mistranslations of the DIary were corrected. Realize that in the past the Church also burned Bibles because of bad translations.
Reply
#55
(08-06-2014, 08:14 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(08-06-2014, 07:32 PM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: I wonder how many people read your original post and spread your misinformation.
This is what I wrote in the OP: "Her diary contains at least one heresy; that is enough for Pope Pius XII to place it on the Index."
Is the Diary one of her "writings which present the devotion to the Divine Mercy"? If so, Pope Pius XII condemned it. If it contains heresy, regardless if it's on the Index or not, it's already condemned.

Geremia,

You're still not making any sense.

From the easily available Acta Apostolica Sedis (AAS, LI [1959] p.271):

Quote:NOTIFICATION:

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:

1. The distribution of pictures and writings which present the devotion to the Divine Mercy in the forms proposed by this Sister Faustina, should be forbidden;

2. It is left to the prudent discretion of the Bishops to remove such pictures which may have been already exposed for worship.

Given at the Palace of the Holy Office, 6 March, 1959.

Ugo O'Flaherty, Notary

Note well that this notification:
  • Is from the Holy Office, not the Pope,
  • Comes during the reign of John XXIII,
  • Places nothing on the Index,
  • Says nothing of heresy,
  • Only recommends the removal and prohibition and does not absolutely forbid previously installed images.

Then we have the Holy Office under Paul VI issuing the following (AAS 70 [1978] p.350):

Quote:From various places, especially Poland, it has been authoritatively asked whether the prohibitions contained in "Notification "of Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, published in AAS, 1959, p. 271, regarding the devotion to the Divine Mercy in the form proposed by Sister Faustina Kowalska, should be considered still in force.

This Sacred Congregatio in view of the many original documents that were unknown in 1959, giving consideration to the profoundly changed circumstances, and taking into account the view of many Polish ordinaries, declares no longer binding the prohibitions contained in the cited 'notification'.

From the Office of the Sacred Congregation, April 15, 1978.

All of that said, at best we can say that there may be some questionable things in the diary, but again, they can be reconciled with the Faith, even if they do seem a bit outlandish. Certainly there is no heresy.
Reply
#56
(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?
That's like comparing apples to oranges. First, I wasn't talking about persons. But, if I was, what you mention is already infallibly defined heresy by Holy Mother Church. And even if something is heresy but not yet defined by Holy Church you do not have the authority to bind the faithful to your theological opinion. Speak all you want but holy Mother Church has definitively spoken on the subject since Sr Faustina is now an infallibly canonized Saint.
Reply
#57
(08-09-2014, 03:37 AM)GodFirst Wrote: That's like comparing apples to oranges. First, I wasn't talking about persons.
What makes you think I was? I'm talking about what people may profess, not people themselves.
(08-09-2014, 03:37 AM)GodFirst Wrote: But, if I was, what you mention is already infallibly defined heresy by Holy Mother Church. And even if something is heresy but not yet defined by Holy Church you do not have the authority to bind the faithful to your theological opinion.
How is the faith an opinion?
(08-09-2014, 03:37 AM)GodFirst Wrote: Speak all you want but holy Mother Church has definitively spoken on the subject since Sr Faustina is now an infallibly canonized Saint.
Canonizing a saint doesn't imply her writings are automatically free of error.
Reply
#58
(08-10-2014, 06:39 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(08-09-2014, 03:37 AM)GodFirst Wrote: Speak all you want but holy Mother Church has definitively spoken on the subject since Sr Faustina is now an infallibly canonized Saint.
Canonizing a saint doesn't imply her writings are automatically free of error.

There is good reason to question modern canonizations and the extent of infallibility they imply for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the modern notion of Sanctity is far different from the traditional notion. Thus one can easily "exactly what is infallible". Then there's the heavily reduced process, etc. Even if we admit that a modern canonization is infallible, a canonization is not "infallible" in the same way a dogma is.

So, yes, we could question Sr. Faustina's canonization. That said, given that before her death in 1938 she was well known for a reasonably holy life and the Divine Mercy devotions had orthodox followers well before the 1958 Holy Office notification, and that seems not due to heresy but questionable statements in questionable translations, it seems questioning her canonization doesn't add much to the mix.

But, traditionally, canonization of a Saint did mean that the writings were morally free from heresy or the suspicion of heresy, or that the person repented of any previous public error in a public manner. Of course even Saints did make prudential errors and some theological bumbles, but using the earlier method of canonization, any heresy or blatant error (not just a mere mistake) would have shut down the cause permanently.

Thus, traditionally, canonization was a quasi-guarantee that the person's writing were free of theological error.
Reply
#59
(08-11-2014, 08:10 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: the modern notion of Sanctity is far different from the traditional notion.

What's the difference? (and do you mean there's a difference just in popular opinion in general or do you mean there was an official definition of sanctity the congregation for saints is supposed to work with and that was revised?)
Reply
#60
(08-11-2014, 08:10 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: There is good reason to question modern canonizations and the extent of infallibility they imply
The only way you can question modern canonizations is if you question the validity of the popes doing the canonizations.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)