Is there a Traditional opinion on the Divine Mercy prayers, etc. and the writings of Sr. Faustina?

I've heard mixed things on this. Thoughts?

Here is a resident Neo-Trad's opinion on Rorate..

St. Faustina was NOT illiterate -- rather, she has been called "nearly illiterate." In her diary, she wrote phonetically (i.e., she couldn't spell), ungrammatically, and didn't use punctuation correctly. She certainly did write her own diary -- contrary to what M.A. is suggesting, it is not a forgery written by somebody else in her name and palmed off on a gullible Church and wider world. There is no reason for "traditionalist" scruples over her diary, the Divine Mercy chaplet, the Catholic Church's Feast of the Divine Mercy, or the Divine Mercy plenary indulgence. What matters isn't that these things were approved by the Holy See after Vatican II, but that they are approved by the Holy See after due caution and examination

.

Aren't the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich rejected by some Catholics because her visions were transcribed by someone else?

My understanding (and research) is that St. Faustina was canonized, and the Divine Mercy devotion is widespread, due to the patronage and efforts of one man:

Pope John Paul II.

Matthew

What does this mean?

What is the consensus Trad opinion?

And what is the opinion of the Society?

Someone on Rorate said at least one Polish Society priest supports the devotion.

I seem to recall that there was the original text and then a novus ordo interpretation of the prayers, e.g. where the word 'heretic' was removed in places.  I'd have to see why some of her writings were placed on the Index and conversely, the reason for removing them.  This is not uncommon with the writings of the mystics, some of their language not being precise causes controversy.

Sr. Faustina's diary was on the Index of Forbidden Books because it contained theological errors that were attributed to God Himself.

Also, as a private revelation, it now takes presidence over Low Sunday, the Octave Day of Easter, which is unheard of.

"Such is the solemnity of this Sunday (Low Sunday) that not only is it of greater double rite, but no feast, however great, can ever be kept upon it." -The Liturgical Year Blessed Dom Prosper Gueranger

In the mid to late eighties, before I discovered the traditional Mass again, I tried to read her diary.  I couldn't.  I wound up giving it to an elderly nun.  In the early nineties, after I learned all the chicanery that had transpired in the sixties, I bought another copy of her diary.  This one I threw in the garbage at work.   In the later nineties, I bought another coppy still thinking that there must be something wrong with me that I was unable to read it without thinking that there was something wrong with Faustina.  I kept this copy for reference, but still have my own opinions about her.  The host flying into her hands always gets me.

I do not recall the SSPX ever making a big deal about Divine Mercy Sunday, and definitely not the CMRI.  It's a novus ordo biggie only.  Plus, according to Dom Gueranger's Liturgical Year, "Such is the solemnity of this Sunday [Low Sunday] that not only is it of Greater Double rite, but no feast, however great, can ever be kept upon it."

Apparently, JPII was a law unto himself.

I do not recall the SSPX ever making a big deal about Divine Mercy Sunday, and definitely not the CMRI.  It's a novus ordo biggie only.  Plus, according to Dom Gueranger's Liturgical Year, "Such is the solemnity of this Sunday [Low Sunday] that not only is it of Greater Double rite, but no feast, however great, can ever be kept upon it."

Apparently, JPII was a law unto himself.

You don't recall it because it didn't happen. The SSPX celebrates Low Sunday, not Divine Mercy Sunday. I've never met a single priest in the SSPX who pushes the Divine Mercy devotion.

I just wanted to point that out, as you seem to make a distinction between the behavior of SSPX and CMRI regarding the Divine Mercy devotion. As far as I know, they're in agreement on this issue.

Matthew

Who said anything about malicious intent? Re-read my post with a different voice, and you'll see I didn't make any accusations.

It's very easy to mis-read a post on the Internet, as you can't hear me say it.

I didn't say it with anger or stress in my voice; I was just clarifying something that might be misunderstood by other readers.

Your post did have issues: All you would say about the SSPX is a lawyerly, "I do not recall them ever making a big deal about it" Yet your recollection of the CMRI is a more confident and scientific, "Definitely not". I don't understand what the difference is -- why the different wording?

It seemed as though you were saying "CMRI is good to go, and for the most part SSPX is good to go." I just wanted to clarify it to, "For that issue, they're both good to go." as I've had a lot more exposure to the SSPX, and that experience might help others form a more accurate opinion on the "SSPX and Divine Mercy" issue.

I'm a stickler for truth and accuracy, that's all. It can be annoying sometimes. I know others on here that are like that, and they annoy me :)

Matthew

I do NOT say the Luminous mysteries, I do say the DM prayers-much more Eastern Rite oriented, elements of the Holy God and Jesus Prayer..