Author Topic: Sister Faustina Kowalska: Writings (Read 12626 times)

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #90 on:** July 31, 2012, 08:03:58 PM »

I meant to say Antipope John XXIII.

Obviously, Pope John XIII (A.D. 965-972) was a good and holy Pope.

Pope John XIII was a true Pope. His reign was in the period A.D. 965-972.

That was merely a typographical error on my part.

Pius IX · « **Reply #91 on:** July 31, 2012, 08:06:59 PM »

Well, I could really nitpick and ask "which antipope John XXIII," the one who reigned during the Middle Ages, or the most recent one.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #92 on:** July 31, 2012, 08:09:18 PM »

Quote from: Pius IX

Well, I could really nitpick and ask "which antipope John XXIII," the one who reigned during the Middle Ages, or the most recent one.

:roll-laugh1:

Great post !!

And welcome to CathInfo.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #93 on:** July 31, 2012, 08:13:38 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

There is a diocesan St. Gertrude's in the Cincinnati area, also.

Yes I attended there for many years.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #94 on:** July 31, 2012, 08:47:18 PM »

Quote from: Pius IX

In my view, a Catholic may regard Pius XII as a pope with moral certainty.

Agreed.

SJB · « **Reply #95 on:** July 31, 2012, 09:06:40 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Elizabeth
SSPV Immaculate Conception is in Norwood.
They have been there for about 14 years.

I was not aware that SGG had ever been in Norwood; I seem to recall it was Sharonville.

the old SGG did used to be SSPV in SW Ohio. There is a diocesan St. Gertrude's in the Cincinnati area, also.

Thank you Elizabeth for your explanation.

this is what I originally said that provoked SJB's "correction"

"the way in which SGG first acquired its properties. The way it split off from the SSPV. The way it has itself split shows there's a serious problem. "

Father Cekada took over SGG, then took it out of the SSPV. That is what I meant.

Elizabeth said the same thing I said.

Anthony Benedict · « **Reply #96 on:** July 31, 2012, 09:57:11 PM »

Quote from: CathMomof7

This whole thing is really very troublesome.

I began to read this thread because, when I was NO the Divine Mercy was really emphasized. Many people I knew prayed the chaplet. I never was offended by the prayers, per se, but I always found the Divine Mercy crowd to be over-zealous.

A few years ago, when I started reading writings of the saints, I found Sr. Faustina's diary online. I read it and one thing mostly stuck out to me as being completely different from anything I read about St. Bernadette, especially. That one thing was lack of humility. Sr. Faustina went on about how Our Lord told her she was the greatest person or had more humility or something similar. While St. Bernadette was always declaring her unworthiness to be visited by Our Blessed Mother, her simpleness, and her sinfulness. It was startling to me, and I decided, based really on nothing other than that, that I didn't want to meditate too long on any of Sr. Faustina's writings.

Interestingly enough, I was reading yesterday a few blogs and comments were NO priests are using Sr. Faustina IN CONTRAST to Medjugorge! Isn't that funny, really. Some priests argue that it is clear in Sr. Faustina's writings that she "grew spiritually" and that spiritual progress is indication of her holiness. They insist that the "seers" of Medjugorge have not shown this "spiritual growth" as their visions are the same yesterday as today and are often ponderings of teenagers. (I will find a link so you can see the reasoning, which is incredibly bizarre and New Agey.)

But I digress...I drew my own conclusion that Sr. Faustina was probably a wonderful person. But I struggle personally with pride Sr. Faustina did not seem to have anything to offer me in regards to that struggle.

I am absolutely not going to debate the beatification of saints under the papacy of post-Vatican II popes. There are many things that cannot be trusted. Are we really to believe that all the popes since VII are worthy of sainthood?

But, there is absolutely zero doubt that we must always reflect on the immeasurable Mercy of Our Lord. Without it, personally, I cannot tell you where I would be. We also can never question Our Lord's Justice, either. Most of us don't deserve His Mercy, anyway. It is a gift, and we should fall on our knees in humility at the very thought of it.

However, I would like to say this to members of this board. There ARE people who come her that are questioning their membership in the NO church. They have questions and this question about Sr. Faustina is often one they have. When they come here looking for real answers to their questions, but are unfamiliar with the personalities on this board, they may leave this forum, decide that trads are argumentative, divisive, rude, and slanderous. And they don't want any part of that.

Sede, you have a devotion to Our Lord's Divine Mercy. Great. You, obviously, have spent much time researching Sr. Faustina and the Divine Mercy Devotion. You have drawn a conclusion that gives you peace. Others have researched and drawn a different conclusion.

In regards to private revelation, this is absolutely reasonable. We just really don't know beyond all doubt on some of these things. The proof, as Bishop Williamson mentioned at length in a tape I have, is in the doctrine and the fruits.

I will use Medjugorge as an example because he talks about this. Very many good hearted and devoted people of good will have received graces from Medjugorge. We cannot deny this. But examination of the "messages" and the lives of the "seers" are surrounded in confusion and error. It, therefore, the apparitions cannot be holy. They cannot.

With the Divine Mercy, we are called to be prudent. We must examine the devotion against everything we know. I don't think there is anything really erroneous about the Divine Mercy, so this is one such devotion we can have real questions about.

Attacking people or becoming defensive because other people have drawn different conclusions is not productive.

THANK YOU!

I wish I had written likewise. I really do know better than to get started on this topic since I went through this more than once on another forum a few years ago.

So, I again rise to revise and extend, etc. etc. and wish only to say...

"Yeah, what she said!"

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #97 on:** July 31, 2012, 10:11:21 PM »

I always wonder why Roncalli took the name of John XX111 when there was
an anti pope by the same name in the middle ages. And that there was no
Pope in the previous 500 years named John.
I always assumed that there was a hidden message that by taking the
name John XX111. To bad it was not seen at that tine.
After reading online the sordid history of Roncalli, and I an sure that
everyone on this forum has read them. He may have been first inline
of the anti popes that will exist until the coming of Peter the Roman who
will suddenly reverse coarse and restore Tradition.

Sigismund · « **Reply #98 on:** August 01, 2012, 05:16:36 PM »

I think his point was that he was not going to be bound by traditions he didn't like, and that he wanted to make it clear who was in charge. The same reason he added St. Joseph to the canon.