LOW SUNDAY (NOT DIVINE MERCY SUNDAY)
Today is Low Sunday in the Catholic Church as has always been since time immemorial. Many mistakenly think it’s Divine Mercy Sunday because that is what the Modernist heretics of Vatican 2 tell them. That is false. Let us first review what Low Sunday is and examine the reasons why the Divine Mercy devotion is false. Hence, there shouldn’t even be a Divine Mercy Sunday.
Low Sunday is intended to indicate the contrast between it and the great Easter festival immediately preceding, and also, perhaps, to signify that, being the Octave Day of Easter, it was considered part of that feast, though in a lower degree. Its liturgical name is Dominica in albis depositis, derived from the fact that on it the neophytes, who had been baptized on Easter Eve, then for the first time laid aside their white baptismal robes. St. Augustine mentions this custom in a sermon for the day, and it is also alluded to in the Eastertide Vesper hymn, "Ad regias Agni dapes" (or, in its older form, "Ad cœnam Agni providi"), written by an ancient imitator of St. Ambrose. Low Sunday is also called by some liturgical writers Pascha clausum, signifying the close of the Easter Octave, and "Quasimodo Sunday", from the Introit at Mass — "Quasi modo geniti infantes, rationabile, sine dolo lac concupiscite", — which words are used by the Church with special reference to the newly baptized neophytes, as well as in general allusion to man's renovation through the Resurrection. The latter name was common in parts of France and Germany before Vatican II.
Now, let us examine why the Divine Mercy devotion is false. This is not a derogatory attack against the mercy of God. (God forbid that we should ever commit a desperate denial of His mercy, which is an unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost.) Nor is this a rejection of public revelation, but of a false private revelation. This is only an exposition of the truth about the false apparition narrated by the diary of Sr. Faustina Kowalska, a book--not once, but thrice condemned--in the Index of Prohibited Books. We will summarize everything in five points.
Mercy is a real attribute of God. The message of Divine mercy is not something new, but is as old as the Old Testament when God promised the advent of a Savior. In the New Testament, Christ fulfilled His greatest act of love and mercy -- His Passion and Death on the Cross. In these latter days, He refreshed it in our minds and hearts through His frequent apparitions to establish devotion to His Precious Blood, His Holy Face, His Holy Wounds, and most of all, His Sacred Heart -- the ultimate sign of Divine mercy. "Take up my yoke upon you, and learn from me, because I am meek and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls." (Matthew xi. 29). "I am poured out like water; and all my bones are scattered. My heart is become like wax melting in the midst of my bowels." (Psalms xxi. 15).
Is it not, therefore, strange to imagine that Christ claiming to show mercy would manifest Himself without His wounded Heart? Or His Wounds printed in His hands, feet, and side, -- marks of His Passion -- which were sought after by the doubting Apostle? Or His Precious Blood in liquid form, not rays of light? Is not "misericordia" (Latin of "mercy") derived from "miserum cor" which means "sorrowful at heart"? Is not "heartless" the synonym of "merciless"?
.
.
1ST POINT: KOWALSKA'S DIARY WAS (AND IS) FORBIDDEN
The first condemnation was in late 1956 by Pope Pius XII. He simply ordered the Diary to be placed in the Index of Prohibited Books after its examination.
The second condemnation was in 1958:
"1. The supernatural nature of the revelations made to Sr. 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 Sr. Faustina." (November 19, 1958: Plenary Meeting of the Divine Office)
The third condemnation was in 1959:
"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: The distribution of pictures and writings which present the devotion to the Divine Mercy in the forms proposed by Sister Faustina, should be forbidden . . ." (March 6, 1959: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Vol. 51, p. 271)
Placing a book in the Index is the same as condemning it because, in the first place, only condemned books are placed in it, and such were forbidden by reason of its contents dangerous to faith or morals. Note well that it was condemned -- not once, but thrice. The fact alone that it was banned is an enough warning signal that something is wrong with it, although it can be rebutted by proof to the contrary. Therefore, we must refer to the reasons why it was censored. But before we proceed to the errors in the diary, let us first consider some objections:
Objection 1: Pius XII blessed a Divine mercy image in Rome on June 24, 1956. He would have approved it instead of condemned it.
Answer: Notice that the said blessing happened before, not after, the condemnations (compare the dates: 1956, 1958, 1959). Pius XII blessed the image at the time he was not yet aware of its errors. Note also that it was not a universal blessing, as though it were promoted to all the faithful, as in the acknowledgement of an approbated private revelation worthy of belief (e.g. Sacred Heart, Our Lady of Fatima).
Objection 2: The Index prohibits certain books. But the Index was abolished by Paul VI on June 14, 1966. Therefore, those books are not anymore prohibited.
Answer: Books are prohibited according to the nature of their content, such as heresy, schism, apostasy, atheism, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, lust or immodesty, immorality, false revelations or apparitions, and the like. Abolishing the Index does not destroy the pernicious character of those books, since the Index merely specifies in particular prohibited books, either as an example or benchmark for determining which books are generally prohibited, or as a serious warning on account of its content or author. Therefore, with or without the Index, books are considered forbidden those which injure faith and morals, i.e. once forbidden, always forbidden.
Objection 3: But the Diary was pulled out and re-launched in 1978 by John Paul II (who was yet Cardinal at the time). And he later propagated the devotion to the Divine mercy. Therefore, nothing seems wrong with the accounts of Kowalska.
Answer: As stated above in the first response, the nature of a book condemned in the Index is of a pernicious character, and the moral force of the Index is still binding. Therefore, it is a scandalous crime to spread a book known to be censored by the Holy Office through the Index, even after the Index was abolished (since, again, it "remains morally binding"). Hence, Pope Leo XIII solemnly decreed in his General Decrees on the Prohibition and Censorship of Books (Officiorum ac Munerum, §§ 31, 45, 49; January 25, 1897): "No one shall venture to republish books condemned by the Apostolic See. If, for a grave and reasonable cause, any particular exception appears desirable in this respect, this can only be allowed on obtaining beforehand a License from the Sacred Congregation of the Index and observing the conditions prescribed by it."; "Books condemned by the Apostolic See are to be considered as prohibited all over the world, and into whatever Language they may be translated."; "We Decree that these presents and whatsoever they contain shall at no time be questioned or impugned for any fault of subreption, or obreption, or of Our intention, or for any other defect whatsoever; but are and shall be ever valid and efficacious, and to be inviolably observed, both Judicially and extra-Judicially, by all of whatsoever rank and pre-eminence. And We declare to be invalid and of no avail, whatsoever may be attempted knowingly or unknowingly contrary to these, by any one, under any Authority or pretext whatsoever; all to the contrary notwithstanding. . . . No man, therefore, may infringe or temerariously venture to contravene this Docuмent of Our Constitution, Ordination, Limitation, Derogation, and Will. If any one shall so presume, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
Objection 4: The Diary of Kowalska was previously banned because of translation errors. This caused the Sacred Congregation to condemn such book. But later when the translation was revised and the theologians saw nothing contrary to faith, the decision was reversed.
Answer: The errors of such diary were actually made more manifest in the amended translation. Hence we proceed to the examination of some serious notable errors and absurdities.
.
.
2ND POINT: THE ERRORS OF KOWALSKA'S DIARY
As a sample, let us select some notable errors from the Diary (according to the updated translation), such as, but not limited to, the following (with emphasis added):
Error 1:
"The First Friday of the month. After Holy Communion, I suddenly saw the Lord Jesus, and spoke to me these words: 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." (Diary of Sr. Faustina, no. 707, apparition of October 2, 1936)
Comment: Seriously? Is there any other creature more intimately united with Christ than His Mother Mary? Does this imply that Kowalska was also immaculate?
Error 2:
"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. . . ." (ibid., no. 1061, apparition of May 23, 1937).
Comment: Is any sinner capable of loving the Lord better than any angel or at par with Mary Immaculate? Two years after 1937 came World War II (1939-1945) -- you call this a blessing of the world? During those two years, countries were in conflict and the armies were preparing for battle. Notice also the imitation of St. Margaret's title given by Our Lord, as she was called the "Beloved Disciple (Apostle) of the Sacred Heart"; Margaret comes from Greek "margaron" which means "pearl."
Error 3:
"One day Jesus said to me, 'I am going to leave this house [church] . . . Because there are things here which displease me.' And THE HOST CAME OUT OF THE TABERNACLE and came to REST IN MY HANDS and I, with joy, PLACED IT BACK IN THE TABERNACLE. This was repeated a second time, and I did the same thing. Despite this, it happened a third time.” (ibid. , no. 44).
Comment: A religious nun is expected aware that the Church has taught that only the consecrated hands of a priest can touch the Sacred Species. Otherwise, this would imply that either (1) Christ contradicts Himself or the Church contradicts herself, or (2) Faustina is hallucinating or making a sacrilege. But Christ, Who is the Truth, cannot contradict Himself by unreasonably allowing His Sacred Body in the Eucharist be touched by her who is not a priest. And the Church, infallibly guided by the Spirit of Truth, can never contradict herself in terms of doctrine and constant tradition.
From the said errors it is reasonable and sufficient to reject the apparition and to conclude that Kowalska is influenced either by fits of hallucination or, worse, by diabolical spirit. The apparition seemed to disregard her unworthiness, exalt her by flattery, and incite her to vanity.
.
.
3RD POINT: STRANGE IMAGE OF CHRIST
The "Divine mercy" painting shows an image of the apparition (alleged to be our Lord Jesus Christ) wherein he is dressed in white robe, his right hand in a gesture of blessing, and his left hand folding an opening of his chest from which blue and red rays come forth (portrayed as the Precious Blood and water from the Sacred Side of Christ which gushed forth when pierced by the soldier's lance during His Death). However, note the following points:
1. The apparition appeared in her room, not in the tabernacle or altar. Compared to a similar apparition, that of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, our Lord appeared to her from the tabernacle to show that His Merciful Heart is ever present in the Most Blessed Sacrament, waiting to be consoled and adored. On the contrary, Kowalska's apparition, allegedly manifesting the Divine mercy, just came to her privately in her room for no reason.
2. The Holy Wounds in the hands and feet were missing, and the exit of the rays was the central chest, not the Sacred Side. One day when St. Martin of Tours was praying, a devil appeared to him in disguise as our Lord -- surrounded by purple light, crowned with gold and precious stones, clothed in royal robe -- that he may deceive Martin by the brightness and tranquility of his countenance. The apparition repeatedly persuaded Martin with words that he was Christ. But the Saint, filled with the Spirit of truth, staunchly replied: "The Lord Jesus did not predict that He would come clothed in purple, and with a glittering crown upon His head. I will not believe that Christ has come, unless he appears with that appearance and form in which He suffered, and openly displaying the marks of His wounds upon the cross." On hearing these words, the devil vanished like smoke, and filled the cell with such a disgusting smell, that he left unmistakable evidences of his real character (Sulpitius Severus. The Life of St. Martin of Tours, Chapter 24). If the devil can by his own power disguise as our Lord, why then did he not imitate the Sacred Wounds? Certainly he is not able to imitate signs which portray a proper signification of divine truths, since his aim is to deceive. Obviously, those Wounds are so sacred that the devil would hate them because they would torment him, so that the devil cannot perfectly imitate the appearance of our Lord. This could be similar to the case of Kowalska's apparition.
3. The Precious Blood and Water were substituted by rays of light, red and blue. For what reason? Nothing. In all approved apparitions of Our Lord showing His Passion, He manifested Himself in a pitiful state: crucified (as for example, to St. Francis of Assisi), bleeding (as in the Holy Face, to Sr. Marie of St. Peter), His Sacred Heart wounded and crowned with thorns (as in the apparition to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque). Even in numerous passages in the Sacred Scriptures, the emphasis is on the Precious Blood, in liquid form, not rays of light. Further, the only other material symbolism of the Precious Blood is the wine, Christ being truly present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Or it could be held that Our Lord would appear with rays of light, but never to the exclusion of His Sacred Heart, Precious Blood, or Holy Wound.
4. The true symbol of the Divine mercy are the Sacred Heart and the Precious Blood. As stated in one of the twelve promises of the devotion to the Sacred Heart: "Sinners shall find in My Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy" (6th promise). As for the Precious Blood, St. Catherine of Siena states in her prayer, "Precious Blood, ocean of divine mercy, flow upon us!" Further, the Sacred Scriptures in numerous passages always emphasize Christ's Precious Blood by which we were redeemed and shown mercy. If the Sacred Heart and the Precious Blood were the source of such "Divine Mercy" in the image of Kowalska, then both must have been shown. To introduce another symbol is questionable.
5. In all images of Christ, other than as the Crucified and as the sleeping Infant, wherein He raises His right hand in a gesture of blessing, His little finger and ring finger are folded downwards, and the three other fingers exposed, as a sacred symbol of the Trinity and the Incarnate. Christ and the Popes are distinguished from other holy persons by this special gesture. On the contrary, in the painting of the "Divine mercy" of Kowalska, all fingers are raised upward and slightly curved, which is unusual.
If we will thus interpret the strange image of the Divine mercy according to Kowalska, we can reasonably say that it portrays Christ as a merciful God who grants remission of guilt and punishment of sin without the condition of contrition and penance, which is contrary to the Catholic sense of mercy and penance. Whereas, the image of Christ with His Sacred Heart aflame and crowned with thorns, His Holy Wounds, and His red cloak (which signifies His Precious Blood), properly and effectively impresses upon the mind of the faithful the Church's teaching on Christ's merciful love and the call to repentance.
Note:
Pope Leo XIII: "Pictures, in any style of printing, of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Angels and Saints, or other Servants of God, which are not conformable to the sense and Decrees of the Church, are entirely forbidden. New pictures, whether produced with or without Prayers annexed, may not be published without permission of Ecclesiastical Authority." (Officiorum ac Munerum, § 15; January 25, 1897)
St. Thomas Aquinas: "As Augustine states (Cont. Mendac. xiv), "a most pernicious lie is that which is uttered in matters pertaining to Christian religion." Now it is a lie if one signify outwardly that which is contrary to truth. But just as a thing is signified by word, so it is by deed: and it is in this signification by deed that the outward worship of religion consists, as shown above (Summa Theologica II-II. lxxxi. 7). Consequently, if anything false is signified by outward worship, this worship will be pernicious." (Summa Theologica II-II. xciii. 1)
.
.
4TH POINT: THE CHAPLET OF DIVINE MERCY AND OTHER RELATED PRAYERS, AN SENSELESS IMITATION OF PRAYERS
Although the "Chaplet of Divine Mercy" contains no errors, its prayers are imitation of prayers from the Rosary and similar other prayers.
1. Introductory prayers (Our Father, Hail Mary, Apostles' Creed) and the number and arrangement of the beads are similar to that of the Rosary (five sets of ten beads, each set with one large bead). On the contrary, all Chaplets, except that of the Holy Wounds, which are specially dedicated to our Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. Chaplets of the Sacred Heart, of the Precious Blood, and of the Holy Face), are principally composed of 33 small beads in honor of His 33 years of earthly life. Further, the Apostles' Creed was not prioritized (but recited after the Our Father and the Hail Mary), whereas all other similar Chaplets begin with such Creed to dispose one with faith in preparation for meditation.
2. "Eternal Father, I offer you the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity . . ." is similar to the Fatima Reparation Prayer (one of the prayers taught by the angel at Fatima, 1916), "Most Holy Trinity . . . I offer Thee the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity," etc. Note that Fatima apparitions were in 1916 and 1917, whereas Kowalska's version were in the 1930's.
3. "Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us and on the whole world" is similar to an antiphon of the Angelic Trisagion, "Holy God! Holy Strong One! Holy Immortal One, have mercy upon us."
4. "Jesus, King of Mercy, I trust in you!" is similar to a traditional ejaculation to the Sacred Heart, "Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in Thee!" (with 300 days plenary indulgence).
5. The "Three O'Clock Prayer" is demanded to be prayed everyday at three in the afternoon, in memory of the death of our Lord. But this poses an erroneous signification, since on the contrary, our Lord died on Good Friday at 3pm. Hence, contrasted with the devotion to the Sacred Heart, our Lord requested certain religious exercises specially at every first Friday and generally in all Fridays of the year.
Note the following:
Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office: "New forms of worship and devotion, often enough ridiculous, usually useless imitations or corruptions of similar ones which are already legitimately established, are in many places, especially in these recent days, being daily multiplied and propagated among the faithful, giving occasion to great astonishment and to bitter aspersion on the part of non-Catholics." (May 26, 1937; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Vol. 29, p. 304)
Pope Leo XIII: "Books or other writings which narrate new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, miracles, or which introduce new devotions, even under the pretext of being private ones, if published without the Legitimate permission of Ecclesiastical Superiors, are prohibited."; "No one, without license of Legitimate Authority, may publish books or pamphlets of Prayers, Devotions, or of Religious, Moral, Ascetic, or Mystic Doctrine and Instruction, or others of like nature, even though apparently conducive to the fostering of Piety among Christian people; otherwise they are to be considered as prohibited." (Officiorum ac Munerum, §§ 13, 20; January 25, 1897)
Again, the "permission" or "license" obtained in spreading the forbidden book of Kowalska is invalid because the Diary was specially condemned by the Sacred Congregation for its errors, and consequently that the later permission was a grave violation (as cited in the first point of this article).
.
.
5TH POINT: THE "FEAST OF DIVINE MERCY", A MISPLACED CELEBRATION
The "Novena to the Divine Mercy" is said to begin on Good Friday and continue until the first Sunday after Easter Sunday, which is improperly described as "Divine Mercy Sunday" or "Feast of Divine Mercy." As can be observed, such novena overlaps within the octave of the Feast of Our Lord's Resurrection. The first and second day of the novena seem to fit the days it has fallen (Good Friday and Black Saturday) since they commemorate our Lord's Passion. However, the rest of the days of the novena certainly contradict the celebration of the Easter (at least the beginning of Easter) since the mood of the novena is sorrowful, which prolongs the memorial of the Passion. Further, traditionally speaking, the second Sunday of the Easter season is a "low Sunday" which is more appropriate than the said strange celebration. Therefore, such novena and feast present a false signification and oppose the liturgical season.
It is also observable in the 5th day of the novena that the apparition demands, "Today bring to me the souls of those who have separated themselves from my Church . . ." i.e., the "heretics and schismatics" as originally termed in the Diary. However, the footnote of this part was presumptuous as regards the approval of the suggested term "those who have separated themselves from the Church," which footnote states: "Our Lord's original words here were "heretics and schismatics," since He spoke to Saint Faustina within the context of her times. As of the Second Vatican Council, Church authorities have seen fit not to use those designations in accordance with the explanation given in the Council's Decree on Ecuмenism (n.3). Every pope since the Council has reaffirmed that usage. Sister Faustina herself, her heart always in harmony with the mind of the Church, most certainly would have agreed. When at one time, because of the decisions of her superiors and father confessor, she was not able to execute Our Lord's inspirations and orders, she declared: "I will follow Your will insofar as You will permit me to do so through Your representative. O my Jesus, I give priority to the voice of the Church over the voice with which You speak to me (497). The Lord confirmed her action and praised her for it."
The proponents of this false devotion presumed the approval of the change of terms by reason of conformity to a problematic council (which promotes false ecuмenism) and an example of Kowalska's response to her superior. On the contrary, there is a clear contradiction from her response "I give priority to the voice of the Church over the voice with which You speak to me" since the Church, Who follows the voice of Christ its shepherd, accurately records (or at least appropriately considers) the words narrated by private revelations. Although it may be affirmed that the Magisterium prevails over private revelation, it seems strange that words were modified as if Christ and His Church suddenly changed their mind as to be soft for their enemies. Moreover, the Catholic Church since the beginning has constantly named her enemies with harshness as heretics and schismatics, since they are the greatest criminals for their daring offenses against the Faith and ecclesiastical unity.
.
.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The apparition narrated by the Diary of Faustina Kowalska, by reason of its serious errors, cannot have a supernatural origin. It could be a result of either her own hallucination (or even fraud), or the mischief of the devil, or both. Proving the root cause is left to the examination of bishops or other appropriate (legitimate) ecclesiastical authority.
2. Such Diary is a forbidden book regardless of the existence of the Index of Prohibited Books, since it contains serious errors and egocentrism. Private revelations which truly come from heaven are without doctrinal errors (i.e. to safeguard the purity of faith), and are not contrary to public revelation handed down by Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, and consequently are worthy of belief. A drop of poisonous error corrupts the whole faith. To read, keep, or propagate a prohibited book is to sin against the General Decrees.
3. The "Divine Mercy image" according to the form proposed by Kowalska ought not be venerated because it is does not proceed from a true private revelation and because its symbolism falsely represent the attributes of Christ. To venerate otherwise constitutes a sin of superstition, a falsehood in outward worship.
4. The "Divine Mercy Chaplet and other prayers," even though they do not contain serious errors, ought not to be used nor propagated because they proceed from a false apparition. Their contents are useless imitation of prayers already established in other approved devotions. To pray them otherwise is to participate in the propagation of a false apparition from which the prayers were derived or associated, which is a sin of disobedience in relation to the decrees of the Church prohibiting their use.
5. Faustina Kowalska cannot be a Saint by reason of the false apparition. She was canonized according to a false basis by a false pope, and consequently does not deserve to be venerated, nor is she entitled to the dignity of an apostle of divine mercy which was already properly assigned to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, who was the Apostle of the Sacred Heart, the true symbol of God's mercy. To render Kowalska an undue veneration is to sin by superstition.
6. Miracles attributed to the Divine mercy according to the false apparition of Kowalska either cannot be true (which may come from the devil, as determined by bishops or exorcists), or may be true but properly attributed to other legitimate devotions (once proven by evidences). According to St. Thomas Aquinas: "No one can perform a true miracle against the faith, because God is not a witness of falsity. Hence, no one preaching a false doctrine can work miracles, whereas one leading a bad life could." (Comment in II Thessalonians ii, Lecture 1-III). And to cite again, Pope Leo XIII decreed: "Books or other writings which narrate new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, miracles, or which introduce new devotions, even under the pretext of being private ones, if published without the Legitimate permission of Ecclesiastical Superiors, are prohibited." (Officiorum ac Munerum, § 13: January 25, 1897)
7. All other observances in relation to the false apparition, such as the "Divine mercy novena" and the "Feast of Divine mercy," ought not be celebrated because they are contrary to the mood of the beginning of Easter season, which is a time of glorious celebration.
Topic: Why do some trads seem to promote Divine Mercy? (Read 2873 times)