Divine Mercy Chaplet and Offering the Divinity
#20
(02-05-2020, 03:44 PM)XavierSem Wrote: According to Wikipedia, Millions of Catholics already practiced Divine Mercy Devotion by the 40s and 50s ... By 1941 the devotion had reached the United States and millions of copies of Divine Mercy prayer cards were printed and distributed worldwide.

Okay. So? That does not necessarily make the chaplet prayer or the diary orthodox. Millions of people have accepted the false apparitions of Medjugorje. That the devotion spread and even was encouraged by a bishop does not immediately make it good. That is why when the issue arose later the Holy See could forbid the circulation of the diary or image. That also does not make it necessarily bad, just to say that this is not an argument of numbers. It's a theological argument.

(02-05-2020, 03:44 PM)XavierSem Wrote: On 24 June 1956, Pope Pius XII blessed an Image of the Divine Mercy in Rome, the only one blessed by a Pope before the Second Vatican Council.

Again, red herring for the question of the orthodoxy of the prayer, and again, not necessarily a sign of orthodoxy. The Popes in the modern era often bless images that are presented to them by pilgrims, without intending any endorsement. One sees regularly Popes among crowds being presented religious objects to bless, and they do so without analyzing or questioning.

The Valtorta sycophants often claim a "Supreme Papal Imprimatur" for having had some books allegedly presented to Pius XII in a chance meeting blessed by him.


(02-05-2020, 03:44 PM)XavierSem Wrote: So, this is pre-Vatican II. In 1959, because of a temporary translation issue, it came under scrutiny; but it subsequently passed that. 

As I pointed out, there is a claimed translation issue. Allegedly there was a problem with the Italian version of the diary that provoked the Holy Office to forbit it and the promotion of the devotion and circulation of the image. John XXIII agreed (as he was the Prefect of the Holy Office ex officio still at that time).

It was John Paul II, as a bishop who proposed to solve the problems by the theological study, but that study was not honestly and critically done. It was a study by devotees about how the devotion was acceptable. There was no critical voices.

Again, it is an alleged translation issue, because we do not know the actual issue, nor do we know if it existed in other versions, so while those who promote the devotion say it is a translation issue, that is not well-established by comparing the original and Italian. In fact, if that were the issue, it would be unlikely that a full theological study would be necessary. Showing the mistranslation should have been enough, yet it took nearly 20 years and a fan of the devotion to become Pope for the issues to be worked out.

(02-05-2020, 03:44 PM)XavierSem Wrote: As to the objection - just as we say the Blood is always present with the Body by concomitance, Magister, (and thus the whole Christ is present under both kinds in Holy Communion), isn't it true theologically speaking that the Divinity and Soul of Christ are also always present with His Body and His Blood? So, for e.g. when the Holy Wounds are offered to the Father, as in that other Chaplet, is not the Blood of Jesus always offered together with them? That's what Our Lord Himself said, His Blood is of Infinite Price, thus we will obtain everything by offering His Wounds to the Father, to plead on our behalf. 

Another prayer from a Saintly Sponsa Christi, this time St. Bridget, many many centuries ago, very much like the Divine Mercy Prayer. 

"Eternal Father, accept as worthy, for the needs of the Holy Church and as atonement for the sins of all Mankind, the Precious Blood and Water which poured forth from the Wound of Jesus' Divine Heart. Be gracious and merciful toward us.

Blood of Christ, the last precious content of His Holy Heart, wash me of all my and others' guilt of sin!

Water from the Side of Christ, wash me clean of all punishments for sin and extinguish the flames of Purgatory for me and for all the Poor Souls. Amen" https://www.theworkofgod.org/Devotns/bri...2years.htm

Isn't this prayer very similar, Magister? There's a prayer in my Missal, which may be familar to others here also, that goes "Eternal Father, I unite myself with the intentions and affections of Our Lady of Sorrows on Calvary, and I offer to Thee the Sacrifice which Thy Beloved Son made of Himself on the Cross and which He now renews on this holy Altar. I offer it in the name of all mankind, with the Masses which are now being offered, and all those which will be offered throughout the world this day ... To appease Thy Justice, aroused against us by so many sins, and to make satisfaction for them. To implore Grace and Mercy for myself, for Thy Holy Church, for all afflicted and sorrowing, for poor sinners, for those whom I have promised prayers, for all the world, and for the Holy Souls in Purgatory. Amen"

God Bless.

The prayer is similar, yes, but you keep missing the issue.

The issue is not about the Eucharist containing both Body and Blood, nor about these being offered, but about the new and unique statement of offering the Divinity of Christ to the Father. This does not occur in these other prayers, and pointing out the similarities but without showing another prayer which offers the Divinity of Christ, only served to highlight that difference, making it seem even more unique, and to accord with the New Theology of the Mass.

Traditional Catholic theology from Trent teaches that the Mass is essentially the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross in an unbloody manner, that is Sacramentally, and so essentially a propitiatory Sacrifice. At this Sacrifice the Eucharist is confected, and as a fruit of this Sacrifice, but in no way necessary, one may receive Communion, which is a kind of Sacramental meal. So the Mass is essentially a Sacrifice, and only accidentally and analogically a meal in a very remote secondary sense.

The New Theology teaches that the Mass is essentially a representation of the Last Supper, not the Crucifixion and Death of Christ and so essentially a meal, and only secondarily and metaphorically a Sacrifice. This is why the original 1969 General Instruction of the Roman Missal, proposes an heretical definition of the Mass, denying by omission the Sacrificial nature of the Mass, prompting, at the outcry of some, the recall of these Missals and its revision. In this system, it is the Eucharist which is the real Sacrifice. Christ gave us His Body and Blood to eat and drink, and so offered this gift to us of Himself. The problem is that this is not a Sacrifice, because Sacrifice is offered only to God.

That is why I say there is a striking difference between offering to the Father "the Body, Blood, soul and Divinity" of Christ. This is, by definition to say, "I offer the Eucharist". The other prayers say I offer the Blood, or the Body, or the Wounds, or the Sufferings of Christ, all directly connected to the Passion, and so directly connected to the Sacrifice of Christ, and the essence of the Mass. The Eucharist is the effect and fruit of the Mass, and so theologically and philosophically this confuses cause and effect.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that everbecoming was onto something here, and there is a deeper problem that is not itself heretical, but certainly is tied to the confusion and ambiguity one sees in this New Theology and the Second Vatican Council.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Divine Mercy Chaplet and Offering the Divinity - by MagisterMusicae - 02-05-2020, 05:27 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)