Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")  (Read 6459 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline parentsfortruth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3821
  • Reputation: +2664/-26
  • Gender: Female
Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")
« on: July 02, 2011, 04:47:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • May 1979 Print


    Dubious Devotions


    by Reverend Mr Douglas Laudenschlager

    THE DEVIL, as we know, works night and day to turn men away from God, and certainly has no scruples about the means which he employs to this end. The weaker and more ignorant he perverts by idolatry and heresy and foul sins of impurity and intemperance. But he knows that he cannot often conquer more upright Christian souls with such vile temptations. To ensnare them, he must transform himself into an "angel of light," as St. Paul warns us (2 Cor. 11:14)” that is, he must conceal his revolting features under a more appealing exterior. He must tempt those who would less readily succuмb to flagrant vice into devious snares which have all the appearances of something noble and good. As long as he succeeds in turning souls away from God, the method matters little to him.

    This explains why the devil seeks to insinuate himself even into the sacred realm of the devotion and worship which we render to Almighty God. If he can pervert our spiritual life, he knows that he can lessen our love for God, and perhaps ultimately lead us into doctrinal error, for an intimate bond links our faith and our prayer. Among the means which he has employed in the past and continues to employ, frequently with the connivance of well-meaning but misguided persons, we discover: spurious apparitions, revelations, and messages; works of art contrary to sacred artistic tradition; and bizarre and reprehensible prayers and devotions.

    But the Church, like her divine Founder, knows the devil and his wiles; and the Church, like Our Lord Himself, has done everything possible to warn the faithful away from his snare. The Code of Canon Law contains permanent legislation governing the publication of "messages," prayers, and works of art, by which the devil so easily seduces the gullible. Furthermore, particular decrees of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office have frequently alerted the faithful to particular things of this sort endangering their faith and devotion and deserving of condemnation. Since, however, the conciliar Church seems to have abandoned these solicitous efforts, the following summary of canonical legislation in these matters, illustrated by examples, may be of profit to many.

     

    Apparitions & Devotions

    General principles and legislation ”The devil has a special predilection for false "apparitions" and "revelations," for by them he occasionally succeeds in undermining the faith of immense crowds, leading them into disobedience to the Church's hierarchy, or even into schism, and distracting them from their duties of state. Archbishop Lefebvre has publicly denounced the widespread tendency of credulous Catholics of our day to run after this sort of phenomena of such doubtful supernatural origin. He has eloquently described this deviation, which draws down the ridicule of unbelievers upon the Church, as "traditionalist pentecostalism," for by it traditional Catholics, like their pentecostalist counterparts, push aside the visible Church which Our Blessed Lord instituted for the salvation of all, push aside the Mass and Sacraments which are the principal means of grace, push aside the genuine Christian life of daily duty and self-denial, only to run to the side of "visionaries" to "ooh" and "aah" along with them in a state of collective emotional excitement at supposedly divine colors and lights and voices.

    Examples-On Dec. 21, 1915 the Holy Office, while permitting prayer to "Our Lady of La Salette," forbad any and all public discussion, especially in print, of the text and interpretation of the so-called "Secret of La Salette," under penalty of suspension a divinis for priests and privation of the Sacraments for the faithful. Five years later, it published a decree (May 12, 1920) refusing approbation to the revelations of Loublonde, France (to Claire Ferehaud) and after several French publications had distorted the sense of the first decree, issued a second one (June 1920) confirming the first and giving an official French translation of it. The apparitions of "Our Lady" at Ezquioga were condemned as "completely lacking any supernatural character" on June 18, 1934, along with several books on the subject published in violation of Canon 1399. On May 11, 1960, the Holy Office enjoined the Archbishop of Avignon and the Bishops of Rodez and Montpellier to take public action against a certain Miss Jacqueline Bouche, who claimed a "supernatural mission," and to punish her followers.

    Padre Pio di Pietralcina  On May 31, 1923, the Holy Office declared that its inquiry had not led to conclusive proof in favor of the supernatural origin of certain phenomena regarding Padre Pio. A second decree, after further study, confirmed the first on July 24, 1924, and commanded the faithful to abstain completely from relations with Padre Pio by visit or letter. On May 22, 1931, a third decree confirmed all of the above, and condemned a book on the priest in question published without the necessary approbation. Finally, exasperated by the disobedience of so many, the Holy Office condemned a list of eight more books on Padre Pio on July 30, 1952. On August 6, L'Osservatore Romano explained that the lack of ecclesiastical approval of the books in question had principally motivated the decree of July, but added that "Padre Pio di Pietralcina himself has said more than once that people are writing and affirming things, even miraculous things, about him, which do not correspond to the truth". And the article concludes: "This decree should recall everyone to a greater reserve and prudence in such delicate matters."

    Such measures, of course, must not be interpreted as if they were directed "against" Padre Pio, a devout friar whose ministry as a confessor and director of souls bore great fruit. Pope Pius XII later removed them. Instead, they prove the extreme prudence of the Holy Office, and the distress with which this Sacred Congregation, like Padre Pio himself, viewed the inordinate curiosity and impatient disobedience of too many of the faithful in his regard.

    On other occasions, too, the raucous enthusiasm of a small number has delayed the Church's official recognition of certain genuine apparitions, due to the impossibility of a calm and objective inquiry such as Church law demands. All of these facts recall us once again "to a greater reserve and prudence in such delicate matters."

     

    Religious Art

    General principles and legislation On April 8, 1952, Pope Pius XII summarized in a brief but eloquent allocution the great services which sacred art has rendered to the faith of the Christian people. Masterpieces such as the stained glass windows of Chartres and mosaics of Rome have justly received the title of "the Bible of the people," for they translate into a simple and universal language the truths of the faith, and sometimes in a more impressive fashion than the most fervent sermons, the Pope explained. But if religious art can help, it can also harm the faith and piety of Catholics. Therefore, Canon 1385, 1, 3° requires previous ecclesiastical approbation for the printing of holy pictures by any process, with accompanying prayers or without; furthermore, Canon 1399, 12° prohibits any and all printed religious pictures "alien to the spirit and the decrees of the Church." Tradition is the best guide in this matter. The legislation of Trent, of Urban VIII, and of Benedict XIV already contained the following, and many other details on forbidden pictures.

    Examples: One may not represent the Holy Trinity in the bosom of Mary, nor as a three-headed man; nor the Holy Ghost in human form, either with or without the other two Divine Persons. Nor may one represent a Divine Person, Our Lady, or the saints in the habit of a particular religious order; nor by any other representation favor one order over another. Only canonized Saints may be depicted with a halo. On April 8,1916, the Holy Office also condemned pictures of Our Lady wearing priestly vestments.

    Further prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law restrict public veneration to the images of the Saints and Blessed only (C.1277); and order Bishops to forbid anything unusual in this domain, especially in churches (C.1279).

     

    Prayers & Devotions

    General principles and legislation Because of the important role of personal prayer in the supernatural life of the faithful, and of the danger of superstitious practices and even doctrinal error from the use of unacceptable devotions, the Church also regulates this matter very carefully. Thus Canon 1385, 1, 2° demands previous ecclesiastical approbation for books or any other publications containing prayers and devotions. Moreover, Canon 1399, 5° strictly forbids the printing, reading, possession, sale, translation, or distribution of any publications dealing with new devotions, even under the pretext that they are only for private use. Commentators of the Code explain that the Church normally accepts new modes of devotion to Saints and to mysteries which have always been honored. In this way, she has not hindered the introduction of the Scapular of the Passion, or the practice of the perpetual Rosary, which are new forms of traditional devotions, But the Church does habitually reject prayers and devotions which have new and unprecedented objects, such as the parts of Our Lord's body, as the examples below will illustrate.

    Examples : The Church forbids among other things, new and unusual titles to be attributed to Our Lord and the Saints. The Holy Office has explicitly forbidden: the title of "friend of the Sacred Heart" given to St. Joseph; of "Our Lady of the Sacred Heart," implying a superiority of Mary over her divine Son; and the title of "Penitent Heart of Jesus" and "Penitent Jesus," since Our Lord had no need to do penance. The Church also reproves a special and direct devotion rendered to "parts" of Our Messed Lord, and has explicitly condemned devotion to: the Holy Face; the shoulder wound of Our Lord (by decrees of 1678 and 1879—the Church has never recognized St. Bernard as the author of this peculiar devotion); His divine hands (Feb. 6, 1896); His soul (1901 and 1906); and His "Holy Head" (June 18, 1938).

    Among other things, the Holy Office has also: refused a feast in honor of the "Precious Blood of Mary"; condemned the practice "of 44 Masses," with the false promises attached, begun in a Polish monastery (March 17,1934); forbidden the publication of the promises allegedly attached to the "Fifteen Prayers of Saint Bridget," sometimes printed with titles like "The Secret of Happiness" or "Magnificent Promises," because of the extremely doubtful supernatural origin of these promises (Jan. 28, 1954); commanded the suppression of the devotion "to the Divine Mercy" as propagated after the visions of Sister Faustina Kowalska, who died in 1938 near Cracow (March 6, 1959); and condemned a prayer "for the reign of Jesus and Mary over all creatures," which suggests the subtle error that they do not already possess such a reign.

    On May 26, 1937, by express command of Pope Pius XI, the Holy Office issued a stem general decree against the multiplication and propagation "of new forms of devotion of this sort, sometimes ridiculous, and almost always vain imitations or deformations of other forms of devotion legitimately established." The docuмent points out the bad impression made upon non-Catholics bu such things and severely admonishes the Bishops to exercise a strict vigilance in this matter, as demanded by Canon Law.

     

    Indulgences

    General principles and legislation -- The spread of devotions accompanied by incredible non-existent indulgences has also done much at certain periods to draw down upon the Church the scorn of unbelievers, Canon 1388, §1 requires previous ecclesiastical approbation for any books, booklets, pamphlets, cards, etc. mentioning the concession of indulgences. Furthermore, Canon 1399, 11° strictly forbids the printing, reading, possession, sale, translation, or distribution of all such materials, if the indulgences in question are apocryphal (that is, never really granted by any Pope) or have been proscribed or revoked by the Holy See.

    Examples : To the eternal shame of those who have invented such ludicrous things, here are just a few examples from a series of apocryphal indulgences condemned by the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences on May 26, 1898:

    1) for a prayer composed of the words of Mary as she received the body of her Son, the deliverance of fifteen souls from Purgatory.

    2) for the recitation of a certain prayer after the Elevation of the Host, an indulgence of 5676 years in honor of the number of Our Lord's wounds;

    3) for three Our Father's and three Hail Mary's in honor of the three ribs that pierced Our Lord's side as He climbed Mount Calvary . . . an indulgence of one hundred thousand years!

    One can easily understand why the bull "Officiorum" of Pope Leo XIII, from which the code condenses the Canons on this subject, contains the further prescription that false indulgences of this sort already spread about "must be withdrawn from the hands of the faithful."

    Another important decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences (Aug 10, 1899) lists ten rules for discerning true from false indulgences. Here are a few excerpts: those indulgences are authentic which are contained in Hie latest edition of the "Raccolta" (Rule 1); those attached to publications or pictures printed without the necessary approval are to be considered inauthentic (4); all those of more than 100 years are revoked (5); those are false or suspect which grant plenary indulgences for short prayers (6); come from doubtful "revelations" (7), or promise the liberation of souls from Purgatory (8).

    Finally, the faithful should note that any change or interpolation made in the prayers to be recited causes the attached indulgences to cease (Canon 934, 2). Therefore, those, for example, who add lists of invocations between the decades of the Rosary, lose all the precious indulgences normally accompanying this great prayer.

    In this domain as in so many others, Holy Mother Church has amply demonstrated her solicitude for the eternal salvation of her children, warning them away from dangerous paths and patiently but sternly calling back the erring. If only all would listen to her voice, and remain faithful to sound traditions and traditional legislation in these delicate matters, how many deceptively appealing snares of the devil would be recognized for what they are and carefully avoided! Let us remember that Almighty God will judge us one day on our devotion, not on our devotions, and certainly none the more leniently if we have capriciously endangered our faith and our love of God, in disobedience to His Church, by a blameworthy enthusiasm for doubtful "apparitions" and rejected "devotions." Let us charitably remind our fellow Catholics of their duties in this regard as sons of the Church. And let us all strive by God's grace to become examples of genuine Christian devotion, faithful to the Mass and Confession and Communion, to our daily Rosary and prayers and our dairy duties, giving proof of our ardent supernatural love of God and of our neighbor.
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,


    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +2664/-26
    • Gender: Female
    Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")
    « Reply #1 on: July 02, 2011, 05:06:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Father Peter Scott-- Angelus 2010:Q & A pp. 40

    QUOTE
    What are we to think of the Divine Mercy devotion?  

    Many people have certainly received graces from the devotion to Divine Mercy propagated by St. Faustina, and her personal piety was certainly most exemplary. However, this does not necessarily mean that this devotion is from God.

    It is true that Pope John Paul II promoted this devotion, that it was through his efforts that the prohibition was lifted on April 15, 1978, and that he even introduced a feast of Divine Mercy into the Novus Ordo. However, the fact that good and pious people receive graces and that Sister Faustina was pious do not necessarily means that it is from heaven. In fact, it was not only not approved before Vatican II. It was condemned, and this despite the fact that the prayers themselves of the chaplet of Divine Mercy are orthodox.  Condemned by the Holy Office There were two decrees from Rome on this question, both of the time of Pope John XXIII. The Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, in a plenary meeting held on November 19, 1958, made the following decisions:  1. The supernatural nature of the revelations made to Sister 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 Sister Faustina.

    The second decree of the Holy Office was on March 6, 1959, in which the following was established:  1. The diffusion of images and writings promoting the devotion to Divine Mercy under the form proposed by the same Sister Faustina was forbidden.  2. The prudence of the bishops is to judge as to the removal of the aforesaid images that are already displayed for public honor.  

    What was it about this devotion that prevented the Holy Office from acknowledging its divine origin? The decrees do not say, but it seems that the reason lies in the fact that there is so much emphasis on God’s mercy as to exclude His justice. Our sins and the gravity of the offense that they inflict on God is pushed aside as being of little consequence. That is why the aspect of reparation for sin is omitted or obscured. The true image of God’s mercy is the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced with a lance, crowned with thorns, dripping precious blood. The Sacred Heart calls for a devotion of reparation, as the popes have always requested. However, this is not the case with the Divine Mercy devotion. The image has no heart. It is a Sacred Heart without a heart, without reparation, without the price of our sins being clearly evident. It is this that makes the devotion very incomplete and makes us suspicious of its supernatural origin, regardless of Sister Faustina’s own good intentions and personal holiness. This absence of the need for reparation for sins is manifest in the strange promise of freedom from all the temporal punishment due to sin for those who observe the 3:00 p.m. Low Sunday devotions.

    How could such a devotion be more powerful and better than a plenary indulgence, applying the extraordinary treasury of the merits of the saints? How could it not require as a condition that we perform a penitential work of our own? How could it not require the detachment from even venial sin that is necessary to obtain a plenary indulgence?  Presumption in the Writings of Sister Faustina The published Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska (Marian Press, Stockbridge, MA, 2007) also indicates several reasons to seriously question the supernatural origin of the more than 640 pages of voluminous and repeated apparitions and messages. The characteristic of any true mystic who has received supernatural graces is always a profound humility, sense of unworthiness, awareness and profession of the gravity of his sins. Yet this humility is strangely lacking in Sister Faustina’s diary.

    On October 2, 1936, for example, she states that the “Lord Jesus” spoke these words to her: “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.” (§707, p. 288).  This gives every appearance of being a claim of being more united to Jesus than anybody else, even the Blessed Virgin Mary, and certainly more than all the other saints. What pride, to believe such an affirmation, let alone to assert that it came from heaven! In April 1938, Sister Faustina read the canonization of St. Andrew Bobola and was filled with longing and tears that her congregation might have its own saint. Then she affirms the following: “And the Lord Jesus said to me, Don’t cry. You are that saint.”  :stare: (§1650, p. 583).

    These are words that most certainly no true saint would affirm, but rather his sinfulness and unworthiness of his congregation.  This presumption in her writings is not isolated. She praises herself on several occasions through the words supposedly uttered by Jesus. Listen to this interior locution, for example: “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.” (§1061, p. 400). On May 23, 1937 she describes a vision of the Holy Trinity, after which she heard a voice saying: “Tell the Superior General to count on you as the most faithful daughter in the Order” (§1130, p. 417).

    It is consequently hardly surprising that Sister Faustina claimed to be exempt from the Particular and General Judgments. On February 4, 1935, she already claimed to hear this voice in her soul: “From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged” (§374, p. 168).  :shocked: Add to this the preposterous affirmation that the host three times over jumped out of the tabernacle and placed itself in her hands (§44, p. 23), so that she had to open up the tabernacle herself and place it back in there, tells the story of a presumption on God’s grace which goes beyond all reason, let alone as the action of a person supposedly favored with innumerable and repeated mystical and supernatural graces.  :rolleyes:

    It is perhaps not accidental that Pope John Paul II promoted this devotion, for it is very much in line with his encyclical Dives in Misericordia. In fact, the Paschal Mystery theology that he taught pushed aside all consideration of the gravity of sin and the need for penance, for satisfaction to divine justice, and hence of the Mass as being an expiatory sacrifice, and likewise the need to gain indulgences and to do works of penance. Since God is infinitely merciful and does not count our sins, all this is considered of no consequence. This is not the Catholic spirit. We must make reparation for our sins and for the sins of the whole world, as the Sacred Heart repeatedly asked at Paray-Le-Monial. It is the renewal of our consecration to the Sacred Heart and frequent holy hours of reparation that is going to bring about the conversion of sinners. It is in this way that we can cooperate in bringing about His Kingdom of Merciful Love, because it is the perfect recognition of the infinite holiness of the Divine Majesty and complete submission to His rightful demands. Mercy only means something when we understand the price of our Redemption.
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,


    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +2664/-26
    • Gender: Female
    Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")
    « Reply #2 on: July 02, 2011, 05:32:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • As much as most of us can't stand the Dimond brothers (myself included), here are some quotes from Faustina that I found that they have compiled from her diary.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/20284901/Sister-Faustina%E2%80%99s-Divine-Mercy-Devotion-is-something-to-Avoid

    I can easily understand why Pius XII discarded it. There is such tremendous pride in the messages, and contradictory statements from ... whatever she supposedly saw.
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +2664/-26
    • Gender: Female
    Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")
    « Reply #3 on: July 02, 2011, 05:40:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • The more I read what she says, the more I am repulsed by it.

     :barf:
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline the smart sheep

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 307
    • Reputation: +111/-2
    • Gender: Female
    Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")
    « Reply #4 on: July 02, 2011, 05:46:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • This was an especially good read for me.  :reading:

    Thank you, parentsforthruth.

    the smart sheep


    Offline the smart sheep

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 307
    • Reputation: +111/-2
    • Gender: Female
    Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")
    « Reply #5 on: July 02, 2011, 06:00:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote from: parentsfortruth
    The more I read what she says, the more I am repulsed by it.

     :barf:


    In my search for the TRUTH I began reading her book and started saying the DMC with NO friends. However, I never felt like I was getting closer to God. And I put the book down about a month ago. I am trying to get unconfused and it didn't seem to help.

    Thank again for all the info.

    the smart sheep

    Offline Nonno

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 122
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")
    « Reply #6 on: July 02, 2011, 06:28:30 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Some interesting things about this. Pius XII was encouraged by higher clergy to censure this, but refused to. It was allowed from 1940's to the 1950's. Very significantly, after Pius XII died, one of the very FIRST things John XXIII did after announcing years ahead of time to have Vatican II start, he condemned this devotion. So, this is a devotion approved by the pope trying to prevent a Vatican II, and condemned by a "pope" announcing the most infamous council in all of Church history. Go figure?

    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +2664/-26
    • Gender: Female
    Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")
    « Reply #7 on: July 02, 2011, 06:51:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote from: Nonno
    Some interesting things about this. Pius XII was encouraged by higher clergy to censure this, but refused to. It was allowed from 1940's to the 1950's. Very significantly, after Pius XII died, one of the very FIRST things John XXIII did after announcing years ahead of time to have Vatican II start, he condemned this devotion. So, this is a devotion approved by the pope trying to prevent a Vatican II, and condemned by a "pope" announcing the most infamous council in all of Church history. Go figure?


    Doesn't make a difference. Who approved it completely after that? PAUL VI... so your point is invalid.
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,


    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8212
    • Reputation: +7173/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")
    « Reply #8 on: July 02, 2011, 08:57:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Thanks for making this thread, parentsfortruth. I can't help but notice Nonno has changed his posting style all of a sudden, and yet he's now even less liked than he was when he was suspected of being Father C just days ago.

     :scratchchin:
    Please ignore ALL of my posts. I was naive during my time posting on this forum and didn’t know any better. I retract and deeply regret any and all uncharitable or erroneous statements I ever made here.

    Offline Nonno

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 122
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")
    « Reply #9 on: July 03, 2011, 02:25:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: parentsfortruth
    Doesn't make a difference. Who approved it completely after that? PAUL VI... so your point is invalid.

    Modernists are not known for their consistency. They are known for both affirming and denying the very same things, within the very same writing. St. Pius X exposed how they are this way. Those who like the affirmation latch on to that and love it, and those preferring the denial latch onto it and go with that. Something for everyone.

    They handled the "third secret" of Fatima similarly. First John XXIII saying it was too sensational and would not be revealed (when Our Lady asked it to be at that specific time), then a later modernist allegedly publicizes it, and appears to have falsified it.

    In a sort of similar way, Pope Pius XII allowed the apparition of Our Lady of the Revelation at the Tre Fontane (1947?), with the seer having transmitted a lengthy message for the Pope, which is still yet to be revealed entirely. Yet, the modernists have allowed the same because they keep the people busy with apparitions as a diversion to their dirty work, often obscuring even the original apparition's purpose and/or message. There is such an absence of holiness in the Vatican II project, the people gladly gravitate towards the sensational to substitute for that absence. They know it.

    Pope Pius XII refused to disapprove of Sr. Faustina's writings in the face of pressure to do so. This has significance. Then when he dies, his finger comes out of the dyke of modernism, John XXIII announces immediately a scheduled general council and in almost the same breath denounces Sr. Faustina's writings, and does so twice within a year. I find this very significant. It doesn't surprise me at all that Paul VI & co. would later approve. Why should they have any consistency when they contradict Christ's doctrines and constantly have an agenda of confusion?

    I tell you, I don't trust the writings of Sr. Faustina now. Why? Because I believe they have falsified the translations. Can anyone get a hold of the original Polish? People keep quoting English, and I just don't trust these translations to be accurate.

    Things are so wrong regarding this that I have seen traditionalists say that Pope Pius XII condemned her writings, and that is one of the simplest things to get correct!

    Offline Lighthouse

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 872
    • Reputation: +580/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")
    « Reply #10 on: July 03, 2011, 10:44:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • What's with the crypto/ennegram, or should we call it a nonogram?


    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +2664/-26
    • Gender: Female
    Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")
    « Reply #11 on: August 07, 2011, 10:31:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Bump.
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")
    « Reply #12 on: August 09, 2011, 11:38:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Did anyone catch the SSPX schizophrenia from the article by Father Peter Scott?  

    Quote
    It is this that makes the devotion very incomplete and makes us suspicious of its supernatural origin, regardless of Sister Faustina’s own good intentions and personal holiness. This absence of the need for reparation for sins is manifest in the strange promise of freedom from all the temporal punishment due to sin for those who observe the 3:00 p.m. Low Sunday devotions.


    He's saying she has personal holiness because JPII made her a "saint," and as someone who believes JPII is a real Pope, he has to believe in that canonization.
    But then look at how he goes on to speak about this "saint" and her "personal holiness"!

    Quote
    Presumption in the Writings of Sister Faustina The published Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska (Marian Press, Stockbridge, MA, 2007) also indicates several reasons to seriously question the supernatural origin of the more than 640 pages of voluminous and repeated apparitions and messages. The characteristic of any true mystic who has received supernatural graces is always a profound humility, sense of unworthiness, awareness and profession of the gravity of his sins. Yet this humility is strangely lacking in Sister Faustina’s diary."


    Did you get that?  Humility is lacking in a woman of "personal holiness."  I'm not sure how that works out, perhaps one of you fellers in SSPX can teach me how to twist my mind into a Superpretzel?   :cheers:  ( beer goes well with pretzels )

    Quote
    On October 2, 1936, for example, she states that the “Lord Jesus” spoke these words to her: “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.” (§707, p. 288).  This gives every appearance of being a claim of being more united to Jesus than anybody else, even the Blessed Virgin Mary, and certainly more than all the other saints. What pride, to believe such an affirmation, let alone to assert that it came from heaven! In April 1938, Sister Faustina read the canonization of St. Andrew Bobola and was filled with longing and tears that her congregation might have its own saint. Then she affirms the following: “And the Lord Jesus said to me, Don’t cry. You are that saint.”   (§1650, p. 583).


    Look at how this priest dares to talk about a woman he believes is a saint! Only SSPX could lead people to such contradictions.  I like how he sarcastically puts "Lord Jesus" in quotes to show that he, quite rightly, does not believe Jesus was specially visiting Sister Faustina.  So he's calling her a false prophet and bottomlessly arrogant but, because she was "canonized" by JPII, says she had "personal holiness."  

    Come on, guys.  Just give it up.  It's getting a little silly now.  These eighteen billion people made saints by JPII are not really saints, this is not really the Church.  ( Yes, Padre Pio was surely a real saint, but his canonization is not yet real, it will have to be redone ).  
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.

    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")
    « Reply #13 on: August 09, 2011, 11:46:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    Did anyone catch the SSPX schizophrenia from the article by Father Peter Scott?  

    Quote
    It is this that makes the devotion very incomplete and makes us suspicious of its supernatural origin, regardless of Sister Faustina’s own good intentions and personal holiness. This absence of the need for reparation for sins is manifest in the strange promise of freedom from all the temporal punishment due to sin for those who observe the 3:00 p.m. Low Sunday devotions.


    He's saying she has personal holiness because JPII made her a "saint," and as someone who believes JPII is a real Pope, he has to believe in that canonization.
    But then look at how he goes on to speak about this "saint" and her "personal holiness"!

    Quote
    Presumption in the Writings of Sister Faustina The published Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska (Marian Press, Stockbridge, MA, 2007) also indicates several reasons to seriously question the supernatural origin of the more than 640 pages of voluminous and repeated apparitions and messages. The characteristic of any true mystic who has received supernatural graces is always a profound humility, sense of unworthiness, awareness and profession of the gravity of his sins. Yet this humility is strangely lacking in Sister Faustina’s diary."


    Did you get that?  Humility is lacking in a woman of "personal holiness."  I'm not sure how that works out, perhaps one of you fellers in SSPX can teach me how to twist my mind into a Superpretzel?   :cheers:  ( beer goes well with pretzels )

    Quote
    On October 2, 1936, for example, she states that the “Lord Jesus” spoke these words to her: “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.” (§707, p. 288).  This gives every appearance of being a claim of being more united to Jesus than anybody else, even the Blessed Virgin Mary, and certainly more than all the other saints. What pride, to believe such an affirmation, let alone to assert that it came from heaven! In April 1938, Sister Faustina read the canonization of St. Andrew Bobola and was filled with longing and tears that her congregation might have its own saint. Then she affirms the following: “And the Lord Jesus said to me, Don’t cry. You are that saint.”   (§1650, p. 583).


    Look at how this priest dares to talk about a woman he believes is a saint! Only SSPX could lead people to such contradictions.  I like how he sarcastically puts "Lord Jesus" in quotes to show that he, quite rightly, does not believe Jesus was specially visiting Sister Faustina.  So he's calling her a false prophet and bottomlessly arrogant but, because she was "canonized" by JPII, says she had "personal holiness."  

    Come on, guys.  Just give it up.  It's getting a little silly now.  These eighteen billion people made saints by JPII are not really saints, this is not really the Church.  ( Yes, Padre Pio was surely a real saint, but his canonization is not yet real, it will have to be redone ).  


    You sir are an idiot, we do not believe that the 'Saints' Canonized by the Concillar Church are Infallbly defined as Saints since the Canonization process which was designed to make such a thing infallble was changed.

    There is no Schitzophrenia, he does not believe she has personal holiness due to JPII declaring her a Saint.

    Maybe you should read the articles on that, or maybe you should actually read what we say with an objective mind instead of slanting it to your blatantly twisted beliefs about us.

    You sir, are guilty of calumny of a Priest.


    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Dubious Devotions (Mentions "Divine Mercy")
    « Reply #14 on: August 09, 2011, 11:56:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Is the upcoming October canonization of Msgr. Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer to be considered infallible or not?

    The huge number of the present pontiff’s canonizations [of Pope John Paul II] have certainly been a great concern to us, for the traditional rules contained in Canon Law, to prevent any possibility of error or of canonization of a person whose faith and life were not perfectly exemplary, have been done away with, and replaced with much less demanding rules. However, hitherto they have been all pre-Vatican II saints, and very holy Catholics. But the projected canonization of the founder of the Opus Dei is different. For he it was who anticipated and developed 30 years before Vatican II a revolutionary, new, secular theology of the laity, and accepted the principle of pluralism, accepting into the Opus Dei men of every faith and religion.1 This indifferentism cannot be considered, according to any traditional guidelines, as an example of sanctity.

    It is indeed accepted by the theologians as theologically certain that the Church is infallible in the solemn canonization of the saints, as distinct from the beatification of the blessed.2 The reason for this is that a canonization is not just a permission for the honor of a saint, as is a beatification. It is a definition, and a command, made by the Sovereign Pontiff with the use of his full authority, and consequently binding on Catholics. Consequently it is similar to a profession of faith, having as its object the glory of the saint in heaven.

    However, not all canonized saints are solemnly declared by the Church as such. In the first ten centuries of the Church’s history, the popes simply gave their approval to the veneration of saints and martyrs by the faithful. These are known today as saints. However, since there was no solemn canonization process, the full authority and infallibility of the Church are not engaged for such saints. Consequently, it is not the fact that a person is called a "saint" that makes it infallible, but the solemn declaration and definition by the Sovereign Pontiff, as binding on all Catholics. It is upon this that the answer to the question concerning the infallibility of the canonization of Escriva depends. If the decree defines formally and obliges the acceptation of his sanctity, then it will be infallible, regardless of the defects in the processes for the canonization of saints that exist since Vatican II. However, if the decree of canonization were not to be solemn, and not to contain such expressions as "we define" and "we command" the veneration of this saint, then it would not be infallible, just as the approval of canonized saints in the early centuries of the Church. The same applied to Vatican II, for by not wanting to define doctrines clearly, it refused to use the infallible authority of the Extraordinary Magisterium that it could have used to condemn heresy.

    The question then arises as to whether, if the canonization is duly performed with solemnity, we are bound to venerate this particular saint as a model and patron. St. Thomas states that the veneration that we display towards the saints is "that by which we believe that they share the glory of the saints."3 The object of the canonization is then the saints’ vision of God in heaven, and only indirectly the sanctity of their life and its value as a model for us. These are consequently not the object of the infallible definition, and although they would not normally be questioned in a canonized saint, in such a particular case it would seem possible to seriously doubt these, whilst still accepting that the canonized St. is in heaven. We could consequently accept that Msgr. Escriva is a saint in heaven, (hardly surprising for a priest, given his conservative mindset, genuine piety, frequent reception of the sacraments) without accepting in any way the pluralism and secularism that he taught.