Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: SJB on July 28, 2012, 04:19:17 PM
-
CANON 1395
Sister Faustina Kowalska: Writings (Holy Office, 6 March, 1959) AAS 51-271.
A Notification by tbe Holy Office:
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:
1. The distribution of pictures and writings which present the
devotion to the Divine Mercy in the forms proposed by this
Sister Faustina, should be forbidden;
2. It is left to the prudent discretion of the Bishops to remove
such pictures which may have been already exposed for worship.
From the Holy Office, 6 March, 1959.
AAS 51-271; Holy Office, Notification, 6 March, 1959.
-
CANON 1395
Sister Faustina Kowalska: Writings (Holy Office, 6 March, 1959) AAS 51-271.
A Notification by tbe Holy Office:
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:
1. The distribution of pictures and writings which present the
devotion to the Divine Mercy in the forms proposed by this
Sister Faustina, should be forbidden;
2. It is left to the prudent discretion of the Bishops to remove
such pictures which may have been already exposed for worship.
From the Holy Office, 6 March, 1959.
AAS 51-271; Holy Office, Notification, 6 March, 1959.
This was under the false pontificate of Angelo Roncalli, but I believe that it was also a reiteration of a prior suppression by HH Pius XII. Do you have the AAS for that? Perhaps Hobbles, as Librarian General of the forum, has it among his seemingly inexhaustible sources?
-
You are corecty that it is merely an invalid ban by Antipope John XXIII.
Pope Pius XII did NOT ban The Divine Mercy.
-
SJB is seeking to divert attention away from his own sordid private life, which can be read about on another current thread.
-
You are corecty that it is merely an invalid ban by Antipope John XXIII.
Pope Pius XII did NOT ban The Divine Mercy.
The Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani banned Divine Mercy. Do you reject the Holy Office in 1959?
-
Yes, I do, because all Vatican Offices lost their authority upon the death of Pope Pius XII.
Also, Cardinal Ottaviani did not ban The Divine Mercy.
Cardinal Ottaviani supported The Divine Mercy.
It was invalidly banned by Antipope John XXIII.
-
Yes, I do, because all Vatican Offices lost their authority upon the death of Pope Pius XII.
Also, Cardinal Ottaviani did not ban The Divine Mercy.
Cardinal Ottaviani supported The Divine Mercy.
It was invalidly banned by Antipope John XXIII.
Well, that's an extreme opinion :rolleyes: When Pius XII died, everybody lost their offices???
Cardinal Ottaviani was the head of the Holy Office.
-
Do you have the AAS for that? Perhaps Hobbles, as Librarian General of the forum, has it among his seemingly inexhaustible sources?
The author(s) of the Canon Law Digest (Rev. Fr. Bouscaren?) SJB cited did indeed give such a citation. It is indeed in in A. A. S., vol, li., p. 271. The original text is Italian, and it indeed was issued by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.
Canon Law Digest is one of the [many] things that are not in my library. SJB is quite fortunate to posses such a treasure.
-
Yes, I do, because all Vatican Offices lost their authority upon the death of Pope Pius XII.
Also, Cardinal Ottaviani did not ban The Divine Mercy.
Cardinal Ottaviani supported The Divine Mercy.
It was invalidly banned by Antipope John XXIII.
Well, that's an extreme opinion :rolleyes: When Pius XII died, everybody lost their offices???
Cardinal Ottaviani was the head of the Holy Office.
Yes, when Pope Pius XII died, the head of the Holy Office did indeed lose his authority, which is what happened when a Pope died under the way the Vatican was organized before Vatican II.
Only a new Pope could re-appoint the head of the Holy Office.
John XXIII was an Antipope, therefore he did not have the authority to re- apppoint anyone.
-
Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Ottaviani both favoured The Divine Mercy.
It was only opposed by an Antipope, which is obviously unimportant.
-
SJB only started this thread because of the questions that I raised about his financial activities on another thread.
You can read the sensational details here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19821&min=70&num=10
Enjoy.
-
Yes, I do, because all Vatican Offices lost their authority upon the death of Pope Pius XII.
Also, Cardinal Ottaviani did not ban The Divine Mercy.
Cardinal Ottaviani supported The Divine Mercy.
It was invalidly banned by Antipope John XXIII.
Well, that's an extreme opinion :rolleyes: When Pius XII died, everybody lost their offices???
Cardinal Ottaviani was the head of the Holy Office.
I started the thread to show what a Sede Flake you are and because you threatened me in a PM telling me not to discuss Divine Mercy in public.
You try to bully people who don't agree with you. I'm fighting back. Are you not used to that?
-
SJB, you say Sede Catholic tries to bully people who don't agree with him, yet GertrudetheGreat (JL) launched horrible slander at me and several other members for disagreeing with him and you won't call him out for it. That's a double standard.
-
SJB, you say Sede Catholic tries to bully people who don't agree with him, yet GertrudetheGreat (JL) launched horrible slander at me and several other members for disagreeing with him and you won't call him out for it. That's a double standard.
Deal with the issue at hand and then we can discuss whatever it is you are referring to ... Btw, are you agreeing that Sede Flake is a bully?
-
I didn't say Sede is a bully.
-
I didn't say Sede is a bully.
I was asking you if you thought he was, not saying you said anything. Now I'm curious as to why you brought up GtG if it wasn't tit-for-tat.
-
No, I don't think Sede is a bully. And you can't expect people to think he is based on some PM he sent you, whereas GTG's bullying was public.
Now, all I want to know is this: was what GTG said to Tele, ultrarigorist, Sede, and I bullying and slander? Yes or no?
-
No, I don't think Sede is a bully. And you can't expect people to think he is based on some PM he sent you, whereas GTG's bullying was public.
Now, all I want to know is this: was what GTG said to Tele, ultrarigorist, Sede, and I bullying and slander? Yes or no?
What planet are you on? Read Sede Flake's recent public posts.
-
You didn't answer my question.
-
You didn't answer my question.
I'm not here to answer your questions. Now, are you asking me to read all the posts associated with you and GtG and then make a judgment?
-
I don't know if you read my conversation with GTG or not. If not, please go read the "Did Bishop Fellay lie?" thread and make your judgement. If you did read it, go ahead and tell us what you think.
-
I don't know if you read my conversation with GTG or not. If not, please go read the "Did Bishop Fellay lie?" thread and make your judgement. If you did read it, go ahead and tell us what you think.
I think I posted on that thread early on. I agreed that I didn't think one could or should call Fellay a liar, yet one could and should oppose him.
-
I don't know if you read my conversation with GTG or not. If not, please go read the "Did Bishop Fellay lie?" thread and make your judgement. If you did read it, go ahead and tell us what you think.
I think I posted on that thread early on. I agreed that I didn't think one could or should call Fellay a liar, yet one could and should oppose him.
Ok, but that wasn't my question. I asked you if GTG was bullying people on that thread. If you answer the question, I'll let the subject drop.
-
I don't know if you read my conversation with GTG or not. If not, please go read the "Did Bishop Fellay lie?" thread and make your judgement. If you did read it, go ahead and tell us what you think.
I think I posted on that thread early on. I agreed that I didn't think one could or should call Fellay a liar, yet one could and should oppose him.
Ok, but that wasn't my question. I asked you if GTG was bullying people on that thread. If you answer the question, I'll let the subject drop.
Why is it always about answering your question? You sound like the old "Pascendi" on Angelqueen.
-
I don't know if you read my conversation with GTG or not. If not, please go read the "Did Bishop Fellay lie?" thread and make your judgement. If you did read it, go ahead and tell us what you think.
I think I posted on that thread early on. I agreed that I didn't think one could or should call Fellay a liar, yet one could and should oppose him.
Ok, but that wasn't my question. I asked you if GTG was bullying people on that thread. If you answer the question, I'll let the subject drop.
Why is it always about answering your question? You sound like the old "Pascendi" on Angelqueen.
I answered your question, so you could at least answer mine.
-
Here's a little PM piece from Sede Flake:
As I presume you can see from my contretemps with John Gregory, when I wish to expose someone's faults- I can be very effective.
So when somebody "crosses" Sede Flake, he "exposes" their "faults" as to be more "effective." Disgusting.
-
You shouldn't be making fun of someone's screen-name, SJB. Remember what happened when you made fun of Daegus' screen-name?
-
Do you have the AAS for that? Perhaps Hobbles, as Librarian General of the forum, has it among his seemingly inexhaustible sources?
The author(s) of the Canon Law Digest (Rev. Fr. Bouscaren?) SJB cited did indeed give such a citation. It is indeed in in A. A. S., vol, li., p. 271. The original text is Italian, and it indeed was issued by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.
Canon Law Digest is one of the [many] things that are not in my library. SJB is quite fortunate to posses such a treasure.
Apologies, my friend, I should been more clear. I saw that the pronouncement by the Holy Office from 1959 was referenced. What I wondered was whether the earlier suppression was also included in the A.A.S.
-
You shouldn't be making fun of someone's screen-name, SJB. Remember what happened when you made fun of Daegus' screen-name?
Everything is a smokescreen, isn't it?
-
Do you have the AAS for that? Perhaps Hobbles, as Librarian General of the forum, has it among his seemingly inexhaustible sources?
The author(s) of the Canon Law Digest (Rev. Fr. Bouscaren?) SJB cited did indeed give such a citation. It is indeed in in A. A. S., vol, li., p. 271. The original text is Italian, and it indeed was issued by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.
Canon Law Digest is one of the [many] things that are not in my library. SJB is quite fortunate to posses such a treasure.
Shocked, shocked I am. I thought you had EVERYTHING in your library... :smile:
-
I don't know if you read my conversation with GTG or not. If not, please go read the "Did Bishop Fellay lie?" thread and make your judgement. If you did read it, go ahead and tell us what you think.
I think I posted on that thread early on. I agreed that I didn't think one could or should call Fellay a liar, yet one could and should oppose him.
Ok, but that wasn't my question. I asked you if GTG was bullying people on that thread. If you answer the question, I'll let the subject drop.
Why is it always about answering your question? You sound like the old "Pascendi" on Angelqueen.
Yes, it is really annoying when people want a simple question answered. Still, you could bring a quick end to your dry martyrdom by simply answering the bleeding question.
-
Outside of the question of forbidden or not forbidden, and by whom.... What do think of it?
-
I don't know if you read my conversation with GTG or not. If not, please go read the "Did Bishop Fellay lie?" thread and make your judgement. If you did read it, go ahead and tell us what you think.
I think I posted on that thread early on. I agreed that I didn't think one could or should call Fellay a liar, yet one could and should oppose him.
Ok, but that wasn't my question. I asked you if GTG was bullying people on that thread. If you answer the question, I'll let the subject drop.
Why is it always about answering your question? You sound like the old "Pascendi" on Angelqueen.
Yes, it is really annoying when people want a simple question answered. Still, you could bring a quick end to your dry martyrdom by simply answering the bleeding question.
Do you think it might be wise to read the thread I'm being asked to comment on? Until that's done, it's not a simple question.
-
Outside of the question of forbidden or not forbidden, and by whom.... What do think of it?
To be blunt, I think the DM cult is stone cold nuts. Period. And here's why....
Aside from the predictably asinine posts that keep accompanying this perennially contentious question, a reasonable summary of very well informed Traditionalist opinions ( which I have in fact pondered ) on the matter runs something like this:
1. St. Faustina was probably a lovely person and may even have deserved some notice and maybe, at some point, some recognition by the Church. But just who was it, again, that fast-tracked a trendy Vatican II style canonization for her? Hmmm?
2. The reason for the condemnation by a well-respected Cardinal of the Church's dicastery in charge of such things rested, in, all likelihood, with the questionable and at times grotesque representations purported to be contained in her book and which pertain to her alleged "encounter(s)" with the Blessed Sacrament.
3. That the key interlocutor for relieving her questionable "revelations" from the burden of condemnation was no one less than Abp. Karol Wojtyla is hardly a very compelling argument for their "orthodoxy".
4. There can be serious questions raised about emphasis in the matter of the devotions St. Faustina proposed inasmuch as the long-established devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, upon which the fate of France itself rose or fell, can hardly be expected by a rational person to be tossed overboard and replaced - as it has been in objective terms - by a religious who ostensibly wrote rather glowingly of herself. ( When and if a "seer" starts spouting off about their own importance, well.... )
5. The Medjugoogoos and charismaniacs have built a cult around the DM devotion. Which pretty much tells you it simply HAS to have something very seriously wrong with it if THAT lot is so caught up in it.
Get the picture?
-
If I may rise to revise and extend my remarks, Mr. Chairman, allow the following concerning my hasty post on a subject I have, due to Original Sin, allowed to vex your humble servant much too frequently...
I was self-victimized decades ago by the Medjugoogoo cult. It occured early on in my return to the Church and was of brief duration. Ever since, ANYTHING that reminds me of the fatuitous fables to which I gave ear grate like fingernails on a chalkboard.
And the DM cult resonates with particular sharpness due to its ubiquity among all things Nervous Ordeal. So there, I admit it: I have failed miserably against the virtue of detachment! Whenever one of the cultists appears, it is as a reminder that once I, too, was just that.... ummm, gullible... no, impressionable... ( nah, tell it like it was - I was just that DUMB! ) Oy!
So, in all fairness I confess that many souls given to the DM cult are, no doubt whatsoever!, possessed of the purest intentions and filled to the gleaming brims of their lovely, dewy eyeballs with the gentlest of sentiments most pious. And in that, of course, there is neither sin nor matter for correction. Unless, of course, some garrulous grump like yours truly wanders onto the scene. Mea culpa.
Thus, for those who like the DM devotion: Carry on. Sr. Faustina was a peach, absolutely! And as to Papa Wojtyla, who can really blame him for going to the wall for a home town girl, right? I'd probably do the same were it I. And, as to the other difficulties mentioned, considering my remarks were based on evidence provided by other Traditionalists who had really studied the matter closely and whose opinions I found trustworthy, I'll just leave it to those interested to go and look it up for themselves.
So, there you have it, Mr. Chairman. If there is any lesson in all this it is that one is always best off leaving anything "approved" since the return of the Dark Ages (1962) on the table and walking as briskly away as one's gangly limbs can propel him.
-
If there is any lesson in all this it is that one is always best off leaving anything "approved" since the return of the Dark Ages (1962) on the table and walking as briskly away as one's gangly limbs can propel him.
The point is that the Holy Office, in 1959 under Cardinal Ottaviani forbid the devotion. Sr Faustina's diary was also put on the Index of Forbidden Books.
Of course, we must also note that the forbidden devotion was rehabilitated by John Paul II. The same JPII who has rehabilitated Rosmini as Orthodox, put Brown (who denied whole sections of Holy Scripture) as head the Pontifical Biblical Commission , tried to make von Balthasar a cardinal, called Luther a common master of the faith ... also is the one who brings back a condemned Diary?
Are Rosmini's works to be considered orthodox now that the Vatican has taken away his condemnations?
Yes, one should run from all of this.
-
Thank you SJB and Anthony Benedict for answering my question. I knew little about the condemnations, but am not surprised. I did, however, like you, Anthony B., find the diary troublesome years ago when I read it. And the fact that it has always seemed to me to have basically replaced the Sacred Heart devotion, in the same way that Medjugorie replaced Fatima in the new-church, makes it that much more suspicious. One really does need to consider the condemnation that was made and he who lifted it.
-
Must have struck a nerve on this thread. My "critics" count tripled just since lunch time!
Actually, I don't enjoy postulating and pontificating on this issue. There was a canonization ( an infallible decision, so I'm told ) and that is supposed to put paid to notions of "worthiness" regarding the celebrity who gets the halo and the big party.
But then, haven't there been other "political canonizations" lately...and I am not comparing St. Faustina Kowalska, a gem of a nun by all measures, with anyone whose name follows: Paulo Sesto ( didn't he do something or other to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? ), Jose Maria Escriva of OpieDopie-dom, Mother Therese of Calcutta ( yes, I did see the pics of her in the Hindu or Buddhist or whatever temple ), and the ever avuncular Santo Subito hisself?
Point being, IF there were some "agenda" at play - ideological, philosophical, theological, Modernistic, etc. - and IF it was on someone's "to do" list to effect a marginalization of the traditional devotion to the Sacred Heart and the propagandizing of a "superdogma" of "awesome Mercy on tap" ( something near and dear to the Medjugoogoos and the Neo-Cataclysmic Way Crowd, in fact any cult drawing water from the cesspools of Protty ecuмenism ) - would it not be considered a good PR play to plant some folk hero's kisser on a banner, hang it off a Vatican balcony and tell the assembled masses to start praying to the latest "star" in the ecuмenical/conciliar hit parade?
Just asking ( and keeping in mind that St. Faustina herself had zilch to do with this. She might have gotten carried away, imagination-wise. And maybe she didn't. It would not be the first time a well-intentioned soul had their pet spriritual project hijacked by folks with a bigger agenda in mind.... ).
Anyway, I imagine the pressure exerted on the Congregation for the Promotion of the Cause of Saints was staggering, from Poland, and the EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWTN crowd, the entire Medj, Inc. collosus and, of course, the peripatetic papal pilgrim hisself.
This kind of stuff happens. It isn't supposed to, but then, neither is a rump council hijacked by theological lunatics, either.
-
Thank you, Oh Garrulous Grump, for saving this post. I gave you the thumbs up for Humour. Come on tell us where you're from. Just answer the question! :wink:
-
For national security reasons I would have to shoot myself ( or would that be you? I always get it confused! ) were I to disclose my location. However, a bat signal might reach me ( nudge, nudge, wink, wink! ).
I can say this much, however. Where I am from is a hotbed of DM cultic behavior and, yes, the folks into the pastime are nice as pie, sweet as sugar and about as literate about things ecclesiastic as that weird Druid who runs the C of E.
In other words, it's tree stump city, intellectually speaking. So, whatever sizzles sells and it's off to the races. A few "totally awesomes" at the local prayer group meeting and you're in like Flint.
Hardly a daunting climb to the top of Mt. Carmel under the circuмstances.
Anyway, the kind word is most appreciated. One does what one may to try to alleviate the insanity with a little insanity of one's own....
:jumping2:
-
What was thiis thread about again?
-
You may want to look at the OP :-)
original post with attachment (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19861&min=0&num=10)
CANON 1395
Sister Faustina Kowalska: Writings (Holy Office, 6 March, 1959) AAS 51-271.
A Notification by tbe Holy Office:
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:
1. The distribution of pictures and writings which present the
devotion to the Divine Mercy in the forms proposed by this
Sister Faustina, should be forbidden;
2. It is left to the prudent discretion of the Bishops to remove
such pictures which may have been already exposed for worship.
From the Holy Office, 6 March, 1959.
AAS 51-271; Holy Office, Notification, 6 March, 1959.
-
You may want to look at the OP :-)
original post with attachment (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19861&min=0&num=10)
CANON 1395
Sister Faustina Kowalska: Writings (Holy Office, 6 March, 1959) AAS 51-271.
A Notification by tbe Holy Office:
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:
1. The distribution of pictures and writings which present the
devotion to the Divine Mercy in the forms proposed by this
Sister Faustina, should be forbidden;
2. It is left to the prudent discretion of the Bishops to remove
such pictures which may have been already exposed for worship.
From the Holy Office, 6 March, 1959.
AAS 51-271; Holy Office, Notification, 6 March, 1959.
Oh ok llol. I dont know what to think of this. I llike the DM devotion and of course there is nothing wrong with praying it, hhow could thhere be anything wrong with asking for Christs mercy? I do find it odd that as soon as a Polish, Jєω friendlly pope iis elected, all of a sudden Poland is puttiing out saints rightt and left, Kowalska, Kollbe, jasna gora etc.
Ii also feel that Kolbe, the 'apostle of the new miilllenium', who surprise surprise gaave his liife for a Jєωw, is just kiind of suspicious. Kolbe was not Jєω-friendly and often spoke of the need to convert them. His canonization and death story seems to bear thhe sttench of Jєω propaganda.
-
Oh ok llol. I dont know what to think of this. I llike the DM devotion and of course there is nothing wrong with praying it, hhow could thhere be anything wrong with asking for Christs mercy?
It was forbidden by the Holy Office. That's a very good reason.
The Holy Office did not forbid asking for Christ's mercy and you don't need a forbidden devotion to do that.
-
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y36/steeple/DivineMercyJesus.jpg)
This is the original Miraculous Image of The Divine Mercy.
http://www.merciful-jesus.com/THE-IMAGE-OF-MERCIFUL-JESUS-postcard.pdf
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y36/steeple/DivineMercyJesus.jpg
The original Image of The Divine Mercy exactly matches The Shroud of Turin.
That is a Miracle.
To see this Miracle, click on the following link:
http://www.faustina-message.com/index.htm
The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy is very powerful.
This is how to pray The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy:
God said to Saint Faustina Kowlaska:
This prayer will serve to appease My wrath. You will recite it for nine days, on the beads of the rosary, in the following manner: First of all, you will say one OUR FATHER and HAIL MARY and the I BELIEVE IN GOD. Then on the OUR FATHER beads you will say the following words: "Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world." On the HAIL MARY beads you will say the following words: "For the sake of His sorrowful Passion have mercy on us and on the whole world." In conclusion, three times you will recite these words: "Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us and on the whole world."
You can read The Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska for FREE by clicking on this link:
http://www.saint-faustina.com/Diary/DMIMS10.shtml
The footnotes are here:
http://www.saint-faustina.com/Diary/footnotes.html
-
Pope Pius XII believed in The Divine Mercy.
Pope Pius XII defended The Divine Mercy when he was Cardinal Pacelli and later when he was Pope Pius XII.
On 24th June A.D. 1956, His Holiness Pope Pius XII performed a Ceremony to Bless The Image of The Divine Mercy.
This was after extensive contacts between Father Stanislaus Suwala, the Postulator of the Cause of Sr. Faustina Kowalska, and the Father-Generalof the Pallottine Fathers, and Father Alois Misiak, the Head of Apostolate of The Divine Mercy, and the Vatican.
So it was not a matter lightly undertaken by Pope Pius XII.
The Image was taken to Rome for the Ceremony.
On 24th June A.D. 1956, His Holiness Pope Pius XII performed a Ceremony to Bless The Image of The Divine Mercy.
Pope Pius XII defended and promoted The Divine Mercy on several occasions.
Also, as Cardinal Pacelli (before he was elected as Pope Pius XII) he had supported The Divine Mercy.
Pope Pius XII’s support for The Divine Mercy on the occasion mentioned here can be proved by links to the Pallottine Fathers website:
http://www.divinemisericorde.com/culte-de-la-misericorde/position-de-leglise/bref-historique.html
and
http://www.hommage-a-la-misericorde-divine.com/crbst_7.html
I have used http://translate.google.com/#
To make a French to English translation.
The relevant parts say:
…the cult of Divine Mercy under the appearances of Sister Faustina in the world, spreads…After the Second World War, the message of Divine Mercy became known more and more in the world.There was a general postulator in Rome for the cause of Sister Faustina was Father Stanislaus Suwala, Pallottines...
In Rome, 24 June 1956 Blessing of the Icon of Divine Mercy by Pope Pius XII.
And:
In the spring of 1956, Father Alois Misiak, Pallottines and Head of the Apostolate of Divine Mercy in France, took
the initiate, in consultation with his superiors to get the papal blessing, the image of Merciful Jesus...To realize this idea, the image was sent to the Motherhouse of the Pallottine Fathers in Rome (Italy).
Father Stanislaus Suwala, Pallottines and Postulator of the cause of canonization of Sister Faustina, was instructed by his Father
General to submit this request to the Vatican. After numerous contacts with the Vatican,
Pope Pius XII blessed the Icon Merciful Jesus, June 24, 1956 in Rome.
Once granted the papal blessing, the image is returned…
This proves beyond any doubt that His Holiness Pope Pius XII believed in The Divine Mercy and wanted to give it his public support.
Pope Pius XII believed in The Divine Mercy.
Therefore Catholics should also believe in The Divine Mercy.
Pope Pius XII, the last valid Pope to Reign from the Vatican, believed in The Divine Mercy.
The Pope is the Supreme arbiter of the veracity of any Private Revelations.
Catholics are not meant to oppose his will in these matters.
Pope Pius XII (or Cardinal Ottaviani) wanted to make The Feast of The Divine Mercy a National Feast for Poland but some Polish Bishops were afraid that it might antagonize the communist government.
The communists had an intense hatred for The Divine Mercy, and wanted to destroy The Image of The Divine Mercy.
S. Faustina Kowalska had a vision of Cardinal Pacelli defending The Divine Mercy on 29th April 1937 A.D.
The dignitary Pacelli did much work on this.
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska, 1110).
Cardinal Pacelli later became Pope Pius XII.
So the Cardinal who defended The Divine Mercy then became Pope.
Also, The Divine Mercy was given many Imprimaturs under Pope Pius XII.
An example of these many Imprimaturs:
Reference is to the imprimatur of two publications: 1. An image of Jesus with the Chaplet to The Divine Mercy on the back, for which Fr. Sopocko obtained permission in Vilnius on Sept. 1, 1937 (No. R. 200/ 37); 2. A small pamphlet under the title Chrystus Krol Milosierdzia (Christ King of Mercy), which included the novena, the chaplet and the litany to The Divine Mercy. The imprimatur was granted by the Metropolitan Curia in Cracow (L. 671/37). Both were published by the J. Cebulski Publishing House, 22 Szewska St., Cracow.
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska. Footnote 208.)
The above Imprimatur shows that the verdict of the pre-conciliar Church about The Divine Mercy was favourable.
Some people have spent their time reading about The Divine Mercy not for spiritual gain, but instead to try to find fault. Such an attitude is not only futile and arid, but it also contradicts the mind of the Church. When the Imprimatur has been given, the Church has spoken. The matter is closed. We are not protestants.
This is from “The Casuist” (A.D. 1906):
Where the Church has thus given her approval to any particular private revelation, it is no longer permitted to ridicule or to despise it. “Fas non est,” says Card. Franzelin, “tales revelationes contemnere” (de div. trad. 22). To do so were to fail in the respect due to the Church….
Pope Benedict XIV…: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin."
Believe the Imprimaturs given to The Divine Mercy by the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII.
Private revelation has to be interpreted by the Church, not by us.
That is where Faith comes in. We believe, because the Church has approved of the Devotion concerned.
The Church of Pope Pius XI and of Pope Pius XII gave extensive Imprimaturs and other approvals to The Divine Mercy.
Therefore traditional Catholics should certainly accept The Divine Mercy.
-
Oh ok llol. I dont know what to think of this. I llike the DM devotion and of course there is nothing wrong with praying it, hhow could thhere be anything wrong with asking for Christs mercy?
It was forbidden by the Holy Office. That's a very good reason.
The Holy Office did not forbid asking for Christ's mercy and you don't need a forbidden devotion to do that.
Not to get off topic, but that reminds me of a question my N.O. mother had for me regarding JPII's illuminati mysteries. Oh, I mean "luminous". She asked me if I said them. She knows that I don't, and keeps trying to push them on me. I told her that I have no problem meditating on those subjects, but that they don't belong in the rosary. Of course, I could have gotten into all the reasons for having solely the three mysteries/fifteen decades, but I've found that good, theological explanations don't work on alot of people. So I say, keep it simple.
-
Cardinal Ottaviani also promoted The Divine Mercy:
Informative Process of Sr. Faustina's life and virtues is opened by Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, Archbishop of Krakow, encouraged by Cardinal Ottaviani, the Prefect of the Holy Office.
That is from the official website of the Marian Fathers:
http://thedivinemercy.org/message/history/timeline.php
That proves that Cardinal Ottaviani also believed in The Divine Mercy.
Also:
…Cardinal Ottaviani gave instructions to the archbishop actively promoting the beatification of Sr. Faustina to hurry and interview the witnesses before they all died.
(“Saints of the Jubilee”A.D. 2002, edited by Tim Drake, p.95. )
This also proves that Cardinal Ottaviani believed in The Divine Mercy.
Therefore traditional Catholics should certainly accept The Divine Mercy.
-
Pope Pius XII believed in and defended The Divine Mercy.
It was first banned by Antipope John XXIII November A.D. 1958.
Antipope John XIII was involved in banning it 4 times from November A.D. 1958- A.D. 1959, and in putting it on the Index in A.D. 1959.
If anyone is concerned that Antipope John XXIII banned it, do not worry.
It was Antipope John XXIII who did that.
So it is invalid, because he was an Antipope, and therefore he had no Authority.
It happened in A.D. 1959.
No additions to the Index after the death of Pope Pius XII in A.D. 1958 are valid.
So it does not matter at all.
No Sede or traditional Catholic should care about the invalid actions of Antipope John XXIII.
And if anyone mistakenly thinks that John XXIII was a valid Pope, they probably also think that Paul VI was Pope.
Paul VI lifted the banning of The Divine Mercy.
If you believe that John XXIII was a real Pope, then you probably also believe that Paul VI and John Paul II were real Popes.
Paul VI lifted the bannings of The Divine Mercy:
On June 30, 1978, The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (A.A.S. page 350) published a "Notification" signed April 15, 1978, by His Eminence Franjo Cardinal Seper, Prefect, and Archbishop Jerome Hamer, O.P., Secretary. It is as follows:
From various places, especially from Poland, even proceeding from competent authority, it has been asked whether the prohibitions contained in the "Notification" of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, published in the Acts of the Apostolic See, in the year 1959, p. 271, regarding the devotion to The Divine Mercy in the forms proposed by Sister Faustina Kowalska, must be regarded as still in force.
This Sacred Congregation, having now in possession the many original docuмents, unknown in 1959; having taken into consideration the profoundly changed circuмstances, and having taken into account the opinion of many Polish Ordinaries, declares no longer binding the prohibitions contained in the quoted "Notification." On July 12, 1979, in response to the Superior General of the Congregation of Marians of the Immaculate Conception of the B.V.M., who in the name of the Provincial Superior of the American Province of St. Stanislaus Kostka, of said Congregation, had asked for an authoritative explanation of the scope of the text in the "Notification" of 1978, rescinding the prohibitions to spread the devotion to The Divine Mercy proposed by Sister Faustina Kowalska, the Prefect of The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ascertained:
... I have the honor of informing you that with the new "Notification" (A.A.S., 30 June 1978, p. 350)... it was the intention of the Holy See to revoke the prohibition contained in the preceding "Notification" of 1959 (A.A.S., 1959, p. 271), in virtue of which it is understood that there no longer exists, on the part of this S. Congregation, any impediment to the spreading of the devotion to The Divine Mercy in the authentic forms proposed by the Religious Sister mentioned above [The Servant of God Sister Faustina Kowalska]. ”
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska. Footnote 89.)
Canonizations are infallible.
So if you believe that John Paul II was truly Pope, you must accept that Sister Faustina is now Saint Faustina.
Marcel Lefebvre taught that canonizations are infallible.
I am not an SSPX supporter at all, but SSPX supporters usually believe what he said.
Or do you think that Marcel Lefebvre was wrong about canonizations?
Strangely, some of the people who really push the unCatholic idea that canonizations are not valid, are often SSPX.
Their founder said otherwise.
What would be the point of a canonization if they were not infallible?
Canonizations are held to be infallible:
Pope Benedict XIV “De servorum Dei” said:
If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.
And:
Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church, in The Great Means of Salvation and of Perfection said:
To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.
And:
Saint Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, in "The Catholic Controversy said:
...to say the Church errs is to say no less that God errs, or else that He is willing and desirous for us to err; which would be a great blasphemy.
The form of canonization was unchanged by Vatican II:
The words spoken by a Pope when he canonizes a Saint:
In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God’s assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define ...to be a Saint, and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the Saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
This can be compare to the infallible teachings about infallibilty:
...teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed, that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when [1) carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority [2] he explains a doctrine of faith or morals [3] to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.
And:
The Catholic Encyclopedia (A.D. 1907) said:
Canonization, therefore, creates a cultus which is universal and obligatory
So if you believe that John Paul II was a true Pope, you have to believe that Sister Faustina Kowalska is now Saint Faustina Kowalska.
-
To reply to some confusion by a couple of posters:
Somebody expressed dismay that John Paul II had canonized S. Faustina Kowalska.
Only a Sedevacantist could logically object on that ground, because the canonizations of any valid Pope are infallible.
However, Sedevacantists should not be concerned either, because John Paul II also canonized Padre Pio.
Antipope John XXIII was responsible for the banning of Padre Pio during his “Pontificate”.
Antipope John XXIII was responsible for the banning of S. Faustina Kowalska during his “Pontificate”.
Paul VI lifted the banning of Padre Pio.
Paul VI lifted the banning of S. Faustina Kowalska.
We do not give any validity to the banning by Antipope John XIII of Padre Pio.
So, if we are logical, we will not give any validity to the banning of S. Faustina Kowalska by Antipope John XIII.
Paul VI lifted the ban on Padre Pio and on S. Fautina Kowalska.
It has no bearing on the validity of a Devotion if the conciliar Church accept it as well. John Paul II also “canonized” Padre Pio. Yet we all know that Padre Pio is very holy.
So a “canonization” by John Paul II does affect the holiness of the person JPII canonized.
If charismatics and Medjugorije supporters believe in The Divine Mercy, that does not affect The Divine Mercy being true. They also believe that 2+2 = 4, which is still is true even though they believe it.
And there are many good Catholics who believe in The Divine Mercy.
-
Where the Church has thus given her approval to any particular private revelation, it is no longer permitted to ridicule or to despise it. “Fas non est,” says Card. Franzelin, “tales revelationes contemnere” (de div. trad. 22). To do so were to fail in the respect due to the Church….
Pope Benedict XIV…: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin."
What does the Church say about someone who promotes reading books on the Index of Forbidden Books?
CANON 1395
Sister Faustina Kowalska: Writings (Holy Office, 6 March, 1959) AAS 51-271.
A Notification by tbe Holy Office:
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:
1. The distribution of pictures and writings which present the
devotion to the Divine Mercy in the forms proposed by this
Sister Faustina, should be forbidden;
2. It is left to the prudent discretion of the Bishops to remove
such pictures which may have been already exposed for worship.
From the Holy Office, 6 March, 1959.
AAS 51-271; Holy Office, Notification, 6 March, 1959.
-
And BTW, whatever happened to Catholics saying the Chaplets to the Sacred Heart, Precious Blood, Holy Wounds and Holy Face--to name just four. :confused1:
Cor Jesu sacratissimum, miserere nobis :pray:
Cor Jesu sacratissimum, miserere nobis
Cor Jesu sacratissimum, miserere nobis
-
If you can see that Antipope John XIII was an Antipope, then his banning is invalid because he was an Antipope.
If you are not a Sedevacantist, then you recognize Paul VI as Pope.
Paul VI lifted the ban:
On June 30, 1978, The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (A.A.S. page 350) published a "Notification" signed April 15, 1978, by His Eminence Franjo Cardinal Seper, Prefect, and Archbishop Jerome Hamer, O.P., Secretary. It is as follows:
From various places, especially from Poland, even proceeding from competent authority, it has been asked whether the prohibitions contained in the "Notification" of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, published in the Acts of the Apostolic See, in the year 1959, p. 271, regarding the devotion to The Divine Mercy in the forms proposed by Sister Faustina Kowalska, must be regarded as still in force.
This Sacred Congregation, having now in possession the many original docuмents, unknown in 1959; having taken into consideration the profoundly changed circuмstances, and having taken into account the opinion of many Polish Ordinaries, declares no longer binding the prohibitions contained in the quoted "Notification." On July 12, 1979, in response to the Superior General of the Congregation of Marians of the Immaculate Conception of the B.V.M., who in the name of the Provincial Superior of the American Province of St. Stanislaus Kostka, of said Congregation, had asked for an authoritative explanation of the scope of the text in the "Notification" of 1978, rescinding the prohibitions to spread the devotion to The Divine Mercy proposed by Sister Faustina Kowalska, the Prefect of The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ascertained:
... I have the honor of informing you that with the new "Notification" (A.A.S., 30 June 1978, p. 350)... it was the intention of the Holy See to revoke the prohibition contained in the preceding "Notification" of 1959 (A.A.S., 1959, p. 271), in virtue of which it is understood that there no longer exists, on the part of this S. Congregation, any impediment to the spreading of the devotion to The Divine Mercy in the authentic forms proposed by the Religious Sister mentioned above [The Servant of God Sister Faustina Kowalska].”
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska. Footnote 89.)
-
And BTW, whatever happened to Catholics saying the Chaplets to the Sacred Heart, Precious Blood, Holy Wounds and Holy Face--to name just four. :confused1:
Cor Jesu sacratissimum, miserere nobis :pray:
Cor Jesu sacratissimum, miserere nobis
Cor Jesu sacratissimum, miserere nobis
Exactly. And what exactly is the value of this new devotion over and above that of the Sacred Heart? The main difference that I can see is this new one is very Novus Ordo - it promises lots of mercy without demanding anything in return.
The message of the Sacred Heart is that Christ loves us and asks us to make reparation. That's what the Church has always promoted and the devotion to the Sacred Heart is the perfect means to that end. The picture of the "Divine Mercy" even looks like the Sacred Heart image - but with the Heart removed. Instead, it has those spooky looking rays. Does Jesus wish to hide His Heart now? Is that the message?
What exactly distinguishes this pale imitation of the Sacred Heart from the Sacred Heart Itself? What exactly do you think we are supposed to gain from it that we don't get from the ancient devotion to His Heart?
-
:pray:
links can be found on
http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/chaplets/chap07.htm
http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/chaplets/chap09.htm
http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/chaplets/chap55.htm
http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/chaplets/chap57.htm
-
Must books to read :reading:
"The Golden Arrow" The Revelations of Sr. Mary of St. Peter
"The Devotion to the Sacred Heart" Fr. John Croiset, S.J.
-
One problem with Sede Catholic's argument, which he has never properly addressed, is his claim that the pre-John XXIII Church approved of the Divine Mercy devotion. His evidence seems to rest on two things:
1) The local bishop of Krakow granted an imprimatur to a booklet containing an image of the Divine Mercy and some prayers.
2) Pope Pius XII was a follower of the Divine Mercy devotion.
Now, the problem with the first argument is that granting an imprimatur is not the same thing as declaring that a vision/miracle is worthy of belief. No bishop pre-Vatican II has ever declared the visions of Sr. Faustina "worthy of belief." On the contrary, in 1959, Pope John XXIII, under the advice of Cardinal Ottaviani, placed her writings on the Index of Forbidden Books, and the Holy Office forbid the further spread of devotion to the Divine Mercy "in the forms proposed by this Sister Faustina," as we can see from what SBJ posted.
The second argument seems to rely mostly on hearsay. I've yet to see any solid evidence that Pope Pius XII was a follower of the Divine Mercy devotion. Besides, the following statements are ignorant at best, dishonest at worst:
Pope Pius XII blessed the Icon Merciful Jesus, June 24, 1956 in Rome.
Once granted the papal blessing, the image is returned…
This proves beyond any doubt that His Holiness Pope Pius XII believed in The Divine Mercy and wanted to give it his public support.
OK, so because the Pope blessed an image of Our Lord, that makes him beyond any doubt a devout follower of this devotion?
Also,
The above Imprimatur shows that the verdict of the pre-conciliar Church about The Divine Mercy was favourable.
Some people have spent their time reading about The Divine Mercy not for spiritual gain, but instead to try to find fault. Such an attitude is not only futile and arid, but it also contradicts the mind of the Church. When the Imprimatur has been given, the Church has spoken. The matter is closed. We are not protestants.
Since when does granting an Imprimatur mean that the Church has given its final word on any matter? Besides, the granting of an Imprimatur is not infallible--it simply means that, to the best knowledge of the one granting the imprimatur, the books/pamphlet/etc. is free from moral or doctrinal error. However, mistakes have been known to happen, and imprimaturs withdrawn.
This is not even taking into account the fact the the Church has never made it de fide to believe in the truth of any private revelation. So the following quotes are irrelevant:
This is from “The Casuist” (A.D. 1906):
Where the Church has thus given her approval to any particular private revelation, it is no longer permitted to ridicule or to despise it. “Fas non est,” says Card. Franzelin, “tales revelationes contemnere” (de div. trad. 22). To do so were to fail in the respect due to the Church….
Pope Benedict XIV…: "When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin."
The first quote means that Catholics shouldn't mock any vision that has been approved for belief by the faithful. It does not mean that they have to believe in it or even that they should. It is simply, in the Church's judgment, "worthy of belief," so those who believe in it and who promote devotion to it should not be ridiculed or despised.
The second quote clearly cannot be referring to all visions, since the Church does not make it binding on its faithful to believe in the truth of any private revelations/visions.
I'm not saying that you're wrong necessarily, but for my purposes, at least, you haven't done a sufficient job in showing that the Church, as a whole, ever approved of this devotion pre-John Paul II.
-
What was thiis thread about again?
SJB cyber-stalking his new target, SedeCatholic is what this thread is about.
It's not as if SJB writes kind words, promotes Catholic devotions, encouragement, mercy or compassion in his/her posts to fellow Catholics on this forum.
-
I forgot this one. It's The Sacred Heart Chaplet #1 (the other was #2):
http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/chaplets/chap24.htm
Sorry.
-
In this passage the Bishops, it is true, receive an authorization, but they have also a charge laid upon them. Let no Bishop think that he fulfills his duty by denouncing to Us one or two books, while a great many others of the same kind are being published and circulated. Nor are you to be deterred by the fact that a book has obtained elsewhere the permission which is commonly called the Imprimatur, both because this may be merely simulated, and because it may have been granted through carelessness or too much indulgence or excessive trust placed in the author, which last has perhaps sometimes happened in the religious orders.
This passage from Pascendi was mentioned in a 1952 book I have, titled, "What is the Index."
Chapter 5 of this book deals with the "Methods for Examining Books by The Congregation of the Holy Office." There are very detailed and explicit steps taken to place a book on The Index.
-
:pray:
links can be found on
http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/chaplets/chap07.htm
http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/chaplets/chap09.htm
http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/chaplets/chap55.htm
http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/chaplets/chap57.htm
Out of curiosity, does anyone know of a book that contains a description of a bunch of chaplets and instructions on how to pray them?
-
Oh ok llol. I dont know what to think of this. I llike the DM devotion and of course there is nothing wrong with praying it, hhow could thhere be anything wrong with asking for Christs mercy?
It was forbidden by the Holy Office. That's a very good reason.
The Holy Office did not forbid asking for Christ's mercy and you don't need a forbidden devotion to do that.
Not to get off topic, but that reminds me of a question my N.O. mother had for me regarding JPII's illuminati mysteries. Oh, I mean "luminous". She asked me if I said them. She knows that I don't, and keeps trying to push them on me. I told her that I have no problem meditating on those subjects, but that they don't belong in the rosary. Of course, I could have gotten into all the reasons for having solely the three mysteries/fifteen decades, but I've found that good, theological explanations don't work on alot of people. So I say, keep it simple.
Thats a good point, and s a previous post said, I guess Sacred Heart devotion is really no different.
-
Out of curiosity, does anyone know of a book that contains a description of a bunch of chaplets and instructions on how to pray them?
I don't know what chaplets this book contains, or what year it came out, but the title is: "My Treasury of Chaplets" by Patricia Quintiliani. It can be gotten through Amazon.com. Be sure to use Matthew as your source!
-
Out of curiosity, does anyone know of a book that contains a description of a bunch of chaplets and instructions on how to pray them?
I don't know what chaplets this book contains, or what year it came out, but the title is: "My Treasury of Chaplets" by Patricia Quintiliani. It can be gotten through Amazon.com. Be sure to use Matthew as your source!
Yes, that sounds like exactly what I was looking for! Sure, it probably has some Novus Ordo prayers in there (one description says it contains the Luminous Mysteries), but that's a small price to pay to have them all collected in one place. Thanks, magdalena!
-
Beautiful painting of the Sacred Heart of Jesus:
http://www.strawberryhillltd.com/ibarraran.html
-
Do you have the AAS for that? Perhaps Hobbles, as Librarian General of the forum, has it among his seemingly inexhaustible sources?
The author(s) of the Canon Law Digest (Rev. Fr. Bouscaren?) SJB cited did indeed give such a citation. It is indeed in in A. A. S., vol, li., p. 271. The original text is Italian, and it indeed was issued by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.
Canon Law Digest is one of the [many] things that are not in my library. SJB is quite fortunate to posses such a treasure.
Yes, it is Bouscaren.
-
Phew! This kind of tumult always arises when the DM cult gets copy, doesn't it?
Anyway, one cannot, as with Medj, Inc., overlook the financial bounty this cult benefits from with its worldwide influence throught the charismaniacs, the Medjugoogoos and their enforcer goons and the EEEEEEEWWWWWWWWTN gang.
Which is not to say that any true expression of piety, properly propagandized and under the auspices of the Church should not enjoy material sufficiency. Bp. Sheen got into quite a tussle with Cd. Spellman when all those cards and letters started rolling in, chock full of money, for Bp. Sheen's apostolate, after all. The Abp. of NY wanted a cut. It ended up being refereed by Pope Pius XII.
Anyway, there are, it would appear ( and my lame attempts at humor aside ) that there are some substantial questions on specific issues which seem to be fair game for investigation. And, no, for our DM cultists, not about the sanctity of St. Faustina; but, instead, some of her writings and the background on just how those went from the Index of Forbidden Works to the top of the charts under the impressario-ship of a particularly Polish phenomenologist/personalist
pope.
And, Magdelana, tell your relative that you are only deferring recourse to the "phlorescent" mysteries until the "lugubrious" ones are promulgated! :)
-
The pre-conciliar Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII in the A.D. 1950s established a Religious Order to spread The Divine Mercy:
On August 2, 1955, the Ordinary of Gorzow, Zygmunt Szelazek, on the basis of special authorization, established the Congregation of the Most Holy Lord Jesus Christ, Merciful Redeemer, whose aim was to spread the cult of The Divine Mercy and to assist the Church hierarchy.
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska. Footnote 96.)
Our Lord had told S. Faustina Kowalska that He wished for this Religious Order of Nuns, which S. Faustina prophesied would be founded.
This Religious Order was founded by the pre-conciliar Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII because S. Faustina told the pre-conciliar Catholic Church that Our Lord wanted this Religious Order to be founded.
Thus, there was clearly a high degree of belief by the pre-conciliar Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII in The Divine Mercy.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF POPE PIUS XII ACTUALLY FOUNDED A RELIGIOUS ORDER TO SPREAD THE DIVINE MERCY.
They were also known as the "Congregation of the Merciful Redeemer."
They are now called "The Congregation of the Sisters of Merciful Jesus" and have over 30 Religious Houses spread through more than 10 different countries.
This is their website:
http://www.faustina-message.com/
The link above also proves that The Image of The Divine Mercy exactly matches The Image on The Shroud of Turin.
This is a wonderful Miracle from God.
By A.D.1953, some 25 million pieces of Divine Mercy literature had been distributed around the world.
From http://thedivinemercy.org/library/article.php?NID=3466
The Primate of Poland, Cardinal August Hlond, also believed in The Divine Mercy:
During this time, Fr. Sopocko also began working on a treatise "De Misericordia Dei Deque Eiusdem Festo Instituendo." about the concept of Divine Mercy and about the Feast in its honor.
He was encouraged by Cardinal August Hlond even before the war to pursue this work at the time when Fr. Sopocko had presented the Cardinal with his research regarding the matter of Divine Mercy.
(BLESSED FATHER MICHAEL SOPOCKO (1888-1975) Biography - Part I :A biography based on excerpts from the book “THE SERVANT OF GOD, FR. MICHAEL SOPOCKO” by Father Henry Ciereszko.)
http://www.faustina-message.com/index.htm
This proves that Cardinal Hlond, the Primate of Poland also believed in The Divine Mercy.
Cardinal Prince Adam Sapieha, Cardinal of Poland, also promoted The Divine Mercy:
The first Sunday after Easter was celebrated as the Feast of The Divine Mercy, which Cardinal Adam Sapieha in 1951 invested with a plenary indulgence for seven years.
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska. Footnote 89.)
This proves that Cardinal Prince Adam Sapieha, Cardinal of Poland, promoted The Divine Mercy, and granted a Plenary Indulgence.
It also proves that Cardinal Prince Adam Sapieha also wanted The Feast of The Divine Mercy.
Archbishop Romuald also believed in The Divine Mercy:
In 1935, during the celebrations concluding the Jubilee Year of the Redemption of the World, the image of The Divine Mercy was transferred to the Ostra Brama [“Eastern Gate” to the city of Vilnius] and placed in a high window so that it could be seen from far away. It was there from April 26 to April 28. By permission of Archbishop Romuald…, on April 4, 1937, the image was blessed and placed in the St. Michael’s Church in Vilnius…
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska. Footnote 1.)
This proves that Archbishop Romuald believed in The Divine Mercy.
This also proves that The Image of The Divine Mercy was Venerated on the Feast of the Divine Mercy in A.D. 1935 with permission (in A.D. 1935 it fell on Sunday 28th April).
There is a photograph of a vast crowd Venerating the Image when it was transferred to the Ostra Brama Shrine of Our Lady above the Eastern Gate
And:
Strangely, all things came about just as the Lord had requested. In fact, it was on the first Sunday after Easter [April, 1935] that the Image was publicly honoured by crowds of people for the first time. For three days it was exposed and received public veneration. Since it was placed at the very top of a window at Ostra Brama [Shrine of Our Lady above the “Eastern Gate” to the city of Vilnius], it could be seen from a great distance.
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska. 89).
And:
Probably Father Sopocko's pamphlet called Milosierdzie Boze (Studium teologiczne-praktyczne) [The Divine Mercy (A Theological - Practical Study)], published in Vilnius in 1936. Imprimatur was given by Bishop Romuald on June 30, 1936, No. R. 298/36 (A. SF.). The cover of the pamphlet showed a color copy of Eugene Kazimierowski's image painted in Vilnius.
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska. Footnote 136.)
This proves that S.Faustina Kowalska’s Bishop, Bishop Romuald gave the Imprimatur to The Divine Mercy Devotion in A.D. 1936.
And:
Reference is to the imprimatur of two publications: 1. An image of Jesus with the Chaplet to The Divine Mercy on the back, for which Fr. Sopocko obtained permission in Vilnius on Sept. 1, 1937 (No. R. 200/ 37); 2. A small pamphlet under the title Chrystus Krol Milosierdzia (Christ King of Mercy), which included the novena, the chaplet and the litany to The Divine Mercy. The imprimatur was granted by the Metropolitan Curia in Cracow (L. 671/37). Both were published by the J. Cebulski Publishing House, 22 Szewska St., Cracow.
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska. Footnote 208.)
This proves that The Novena to The Divine Mercy, The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy, and The Litany to The Divine Mercy were all given the Imprimatur in A. D. 1937.
S. Faustina Kowalska’s Spiritual Director and her Confessor also believed in The Divine Mercy.
S. Faustina Kowalska’s Spiritual Director and Confessor, Fr. Michael Sopocko, was a very holy priest of formidable erudition:
The Rev. Prof. Michael Sopocko, born on November 1, 1888… appointed him to the Chair of Pastoral Theology at the School of Theology of the Stefan Batory University in Vilnius. In 1934 he became docent of the Warsaw University, officially delegated to the Chair of Pastoral Theology at the University of Vilnius. In the same year he became rector of St. Michael's Church in Vilnius. For many years he was confessor to many communities of monks and nuns. He was ordinary confessor of the Sisters of Our Lady of Mercy from January 1, 1933 to January 1, 1942. During the war he was professor at the Seminary at Bialystok, …The Rev. Msgr. Dr. Michael Sopocko died on Sister Faustina's name day, February 15, 1976... His Eminence, Stephen Card. Wyszynski, Prymate of Poland, sent a telegram expressing his condolences.
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska. Footnote 22.)
S. Faustina Kowalska’s other Confessor was Fr. Andrasz, who also believed in The Divine Mercy, and was, like Fr. Sopocko, an extraordinarily holy priest:
Father Joseph Andrasz, S.J., born at Zakopane on October 16, 1891. He entered the Jesuit Order on September 22, 1906, and was ordained on March 19, 1919. He worked at the Jesuit Publishing House (Wydawnictwo Apostolstwa Modlitwy) for eight years. In 1930 he became the manager of the Publishing House and editor of the monthly Messenger of the Sacred Heart (Poslaniec Serca Jezusowego). From 1932 he was the extraordinary confessor of the novitiate of the Sisters of Our Lady of Mercy. He died on February 1, 1963 (A. SJ-C).
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska. Footnote 31.)
Father Andrasz, S. Faustina Kowalska’s other Confessor, believed in The Divine Mercy and promoted it:
Probably Father M. Sopocko, because he was chiefly active in spreading the devotion of The Divine Mercy and in efforts to found the new community; but Sister Faustina may also have had in mind Father Andrasz or Mother Irene Krzyzanowska, because they, too, made efforts to spread the devotion of The Divine Mercy.
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska. Footnote 236.)
Also:
The novena which is in the Diary was published, with some changes, in a pamphlet called Chrystus Krol Milosierdzia (Christ King of Mercy) in 1937, by the J. Cebulski Press, Cracow. The cover had a colored picture representing the Merciful Christ with the rays and the inscription "Jezu, ufam Tobie" ("Jesus, I trust in You"). The contents included the Novena to The Divine Mercy, the Litany and the Chaplet. The superior of the Cracow house, Mother Irene Krzyzanowska, sent out the leaflet to the other houses of the Congregation. The sisters said the prayers privately, but did not know their origin.
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska. Footnote 206.)
This also proves that S. Faustina Kowalska’s Mother Superior believed in and promoted The Divine Mercy.
So Father Sopocko and Father Andrasz and S. Faustina Kowalska’s Mother Superior all believed in and promoted The Divine Mercy.
Thus, Pope Pius XII believed in The Divine Mercy.
Cardinal Ottaviani believed in The Divine Mercy.
Cardinal Hlond, the Primate of Poland believed in The Divine Mercy.
Cardinal Prince Adam Sapieha, Cardinal of Poland, believed in The Divine Mercy.
Archbishop Romuald (S. Faustina Kowalska’s Bishop) believed in The Divine Mercy.
The Ordinary of Gorzow, Zygmunt Szelazek, believed in The Divine Mercy.
Many Polish Bishops believed in The Divine Mercy.
Many other Bishops throughout the world believed in The Divine Mercy.
Father Michael Sopocko, S. Faustina Kowalska’s Spiritual Director and the Convent’s Confessor, believed in The Divine Mercy.
Father Joesph Andrasz, S. Faustina Kowalska’s convent’s other Confessor, believed in The Divine Mercy.
Mother Irene Krzyzanowska, S. Faustina Kowalska’s Mother Superior, believed in The Divine Mercy.
The Divine Mercy was an Approved Devotion in the Pontificates of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII as can be shown by the fact that The Divine Mercy was granted many Imprimaturs throughout the world.
Some Examples of Imprimaturs given to The Divine Mercy:
Bishop Romuald gave the Imprimatur to The Divine Mercy Devotion in A.D. 1936.
The Novena to The Divine Mercy, The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy, and The Litany to The Divine Mercy were all given the Imprimatur by the Metropolitan Curia in Cracow in A. D. 1937.
THUS, THE DIVINE MERCY IS AN APPROVED DEVOTION OF THE PRE- CONCILIAR CATHOLIC CHURCH OF POPE PIUS XI AND POPE PIUS XII.
The pre-conciliar Catholic Church in the time of Pope Pius XII in the A.D. 1950s established a Religious Order for the purpose of spreading The Divine Mercy. This order was inspired by the Directions given by Our Lord to S. Faustina Kowalska for the founding of such a community.
It was founded because S. Faustina told Pope Pius XII’s pre-conciliar Catholic Church that Our Lord wanted this Order to be founded.
Thus we can see the very great degree of approval given to The Divine Mercy by the pre-conciliar Catholic Church in the lifetime of Pope Pius XII.
Therefore Catholics should believe in The Divine Mercy.
Therefore Sede Catholics and other traditional Catholics should believe in The Divine Mercy.
-
"lefebvre fan" raised some objections.
A “lefebvre fan” should accept what Marcel Lefebvre taught: that canonizations are infallible.
"lefebvre fan" presumably thinks that John Paul II was a valid Pope. If that were the case, then lefebvre fan would have to accept John Paul II’s canonization as valid.
So you are not being logical, "lefebvre fan".
Also, SJB only started this thread to antagonize me. So you are being used.
“lefebvre fan” disputed that Pope Pius XII supported The Divine Mercy.
Here is proof that Pope Pius XII did support The Divine Mercy.
Pope Pius XII believed in The Divine Mercy.
Pope Pius XII defended The Divine Mercy when he was Cardinal Pacelli and later when he was Pope Pius XII.
On 24th June A.D. 1956, His Holiness Pope Pius XII performed a Ceremony to Bless The Image of The Divine Mercy.
This was after extensive contacts between Father Stanislaus Suwala, the Postulator of the Cause of Sr. Faustina Kowalska, and the Father-Generalof the Pallottine Fathers, and Father Alois Misiak, the Head of Apostolate of The Divine Mercy, and the Vatican.
So it was not a matter lightly undertaken by Pope Pius XII.
The Image was taken to Rome for the Ceremony.
On 24th June A.D. 1956, His Holiness Pope Pius XII performed a Ceremony to Bless The Image of The Divine Mercy.
Pope Pius XII defended and promoted The Divine Mercy on several occasions.
Also, as Cardinal Pacelli (before he was elected as Pope Pius XII) he had supported The Divine Mercy.
Pope Pius XII’s support for The Divine Mercy on the occasion mentioned here can be proved by links to the Pallottine Fathers website:
http://www.divinemisericorde.com/culte-de-la-misericorde/position-de-leglise/bref-historique.html
and
http://www.hommage-a-la-misericorde-divine.com/crbst_7.html
I have used http://translate.google.com/#
To make a French to English translation.
The relevant parts say:
…the cult of Divine Mercy under the appearances of Sister Faustina in the world, spreads…After the Second World War, the message of Divine Mercy became known more and more in the world.There was a general postulator in Rome for the cause of Sister Faustina was Father Stanislaus Suwala, Pallottines...
In Rome, 24 June 1956 Blessing of the Icon of Divine Mercy by Pope Pius XII.
And:
In the spring of 1956, Father Alois Misiak, Pallottines and Head of the Apostolate of Divine Mercy in France, took
the initiate, in consultation with his superiors to get the papal blessing, the image of Merciful Jesus...To realize this idea, the image was sent to the Motherhouse of the Pallottine Fathers in Rome (Italy).
Father Stanislaus Suwala, Pallottines and Postulator of the cause of canonization of Sister Faustina, was instructed by his Father
General to submit this request to the Vatican. After numerous contacts with the Vatican,
Pope Pius XII blessed the Icon Merciful Jesus, June 24, 1956 in Rome.
Once granted the papal blessing, the image is returned…
This proves that His Holiness Pope Pius XII believed in The Divine Mercy and wanted to give it his public support.
Pope Pius XII believed in The Divine Mercy.
Therefore Catholics should also believe in The Divine Mercy.
Pope Pius XII, the last valid Pope to Reign from the Vatican, believed in The Divine Mercy.
The Pope is the Supreme arbiter of the veracity of any Private Revelations.
Catholics are not meant to oppose his will in these matters.
Pope Pius XII (or Cardinal Ottaviani) wanted to make The Feast of The Divine Mercy a National Feast for Poland but some Polish Bishops were afraid that it might antagonize the communist government.
The communists had an intense hatred for The Divine Mercy, and wanted to destroy The Image of The Divine Mercy.
S. Faustina Kowalska had a vision of Cardinal Pacelli defending The Divine Mercy on 29th April 1937 A.D.
The dignitary Pacelli did much work on this.
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska, 1110).
Cardinal Pacelli later became Pope Pius XII.
So the Cardinal who defended The Divine Mercy then became Pope.
"lefebvre fan" should have the humility to accept that because Pope Pius XII and his Bishops had no problem with The Divine Mercy, then the Devotion is perfectly acceptable.
"lefebvre fan" claimed that Cardinal Ottaviani was against The Divine Mercy, but provide no evidence or sources for his inaccurate claims.
I have provided proofs that Cardinal Ottaviani supported The Divine Mercy:
Informative Process of Sr. Faustina's life and virtues is opened by Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, Archbishop of Krakow, encouraged by Cardinal Ottaviani, the Prefect of the Holy Office.
That is from the official website of the Marian Fathers:
http://thedivinemercy.org/message/history/timeline.php
That proves that Cardinal Ottaviani also believed in The Divine Mercy.
Also:
…Cardinal Ottaviani gave instructions to the archbishop actively promoting the beatification of Sr. Faustina to hurry and interview the witnesses before they all died.
(“Saints of the Jubilee”A.D. 2002, edited by Tim Drake, p.95. )
This also proves that Cardinal Ottaviani believed in The Divine Mercy.
"lefebvre fan", have the humility to accept that the Catholic Church is right.
Imprimaturs are actually meant to be treated with respect, not disrespect as lefebvre fan has done.
When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin.
This obviously applies to approved visions, as it actually says.
This thread was started by a very dishonest man, SJB, out of malice.
Pope Pius XII believed in The Divine Mercy.
Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Prince Adam Sapieha, Cardinal Hlond, etc. all believed in The Divine Mercy.
There is nothing wrong with it at all.
And if you are not a Sedevacantist, you are actually obliged to accept the canonization of Saint Faustina Kowlaska by John Paul II.
Many Sedes believe in The Divine Mercy as well.
-
Another poster wondered what had happened to other chaplets.
Since there are so many Chaplets, one more will be good as well.
Also, no one is suggesting replacing any of them.
The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy can be done as well as any others that one might choose.
Here is a link to the Chaplet of The Divine Mercy:
http://www.merciful-jesus.com/THE-IMAGE-OF-MERCIFUL-JESUS-postcard.pdf
-
Off topic post removed.
-
SJB, can you explain why the man you consider your former priest, froze the bank account you "handled" ?
-
Okay, okay.
Before you use up all the bandwidth in Europe and the Americas, enough, already.
As mentioned, no one is telling anyone to NOT use the devotion. The issues are in the realm of public information and they are reasonable questions to raise.
And, by the way, isn't your screen name an oxymoron?
-
What a pointless insult.
Also, I did not start this thread.
It was started by SJB because he wanted to provoke me.
SJB only started this thread because of the questions that I raised about his financial activities on another thread.
You can read the sensational details here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19821&min=70&num=10
Enjoy.
-
Okay, okay.
Before you use up all the bandwidth in Europe and the Americas, enough, already.
As mentioned, no one is telling anyone to NOT use the devotion. The issues are in the realm of public information and they are reasonable questions to raise.
And, by the way, isn't your screen name an oxymoron?
Sede catholic is using "Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'"
The OP was very simple, as it quoted the Holy Office decision. That information is now in the Library section of the forum.
-
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.
-
The problems with the trad community can be understood easily when one considers SGG.
The issue of Terry Schiavo alone was shocking enough to me that I will never consider attending there. How so many "traditional" Catholics could acquiesce to such incredibly scandalous preaching is simply beyond my comprehension.
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.
Perhaps it has something to do with this region of the country. That's Elizabeth's theory.
One thing that's interesting about this region of traditionalism is that it's kept a large degree of autonomy. Perhaps it is the lack of strong outside authority that has created this fiercely competitive social environment, that is caustic to the Faith of the local Catholics.
-
The problems with the trad community can be understood easily when one considers SGG.
The issue of Terry Schiavo alone was shocking enough to me that I will never consider attending there. How so many "traditional" Catholics could acquiesce to such incredibly scandalous preaching is simply beyond my comprehension.
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.
Perhaps it has something to do with this region of the country. That's Elizabeth's theory.
One thing that's interesting about this region of traditionalism is that it's kept a large degree of autonomy. Perhaps it is the lack of strong outside authority that has created this fiercely competitive social environment, that is caustic to the Faith of the local Catholics.
The SSPV was formed when the '83 SSPX "split" occurred. Newly formed SSPV acquired the properties. SGG (the Delaware corporation) was formed by a "split" with SSPV. There are several other corporations that make up the SGG/Brooksville group.
-
Hey, wait a minute here! I remember Myrna posting here awhile back that she was going to another forum & invited us to follow her there. I didn't as I spend too much time on this one already & don't want to start on another one. But apparently SJB took her up on her offer & went over there. Now she's saying that he's following her around the internet?! For real? Glad I didn't go.
I don't read all of SJB's posts - sometimes for lack of time & sometimes for lack of interest. But I do enjoy the posts I do read. At least he can spell & I appreciate that. I followed the SGG saga because I was having problems with my own priest & I guess misery loves company. I've never been to Cincinnati except maybe to drive thro on my way to someplace else & don't know all the characters involved but I tend to believe that something awful was going on there. If I were to take sides I would be on SJB's side. I can understand his frustration when people can't see what he sees so clearly.
As for Divine Mercy, since it's not an article of faith we don't have to believe in it & it's a matter of personal opinion so the people for or against it shouldn't be jamming their opinion down other's throats. We must believe in divine mercy of course. I just don't understand why this is such a bone of contention here. Next thing you know someone is going to post how Medjugorje is the second coming of Fatima & get all riled up for nothing.
-
And, Magdelana, tell your relative that you are only deferring recourse to the "phlorescent" mysteries until the "lugubrious" ones are promulgated! :)
Say what? :confused1:
I'll say it if I can pronounce it! :laugh1:
-
Hey, wait a minute here! I remember Myrna posting here awhile back that she was going to another forum & invited us to follow her there. I didn't as I spend too much time on this one already & don't want to start on another one. But apparently SJB took her up on her offer & went over there. Now she's saying that he's following her around the internet?! For real? Glad I didn't go.
Myrna didn't make this claim, Sede catholic did. He's mistaken, apparently blinded by his emotions.
As for Divine Mercy, since it's not an article of faith we don't have to believe in it & it's a matter of personal opinion so the people for or against it shouldn't be jamming their opinion down other's throats. We must believe in divine mercy of course. I just don't understand why this is such a bone of contention here. Next thing you know someone is going to post how Medjugorje is the second coming of Fatima & get all riled up for nothing.
Fatima isn't an article of Faith either, but it is an approved Devotion. Divine Mercy was forbidden (in a manner according to the Holy Office notice) and the diary was put on the Index of Forbidden Books.
-
Perhaps it has something to do with this region of the country. That's Elizabeth's theory.
.
Fr. Pheiffer told me that before SSPV came and busted everything up, the parish had 2,000 families. He said it was the largest traditional Catholic place in the US. I am pretty sure he is from the Cincinnati area.
Other laypeople and and old nun have told me of when a particular SSPV priest came around to sell them on their concept. (that priest was not Fr. C.) and this further confirms what Fr. said.
I do not think it is reasonable to place Sr. Faustina in the same category as Medugorje.
Sr.Faustina died in 1938, and the Yugoslavian events started in 1981. There are a few issues like the Holy Mass, Catholic nuns and V2 which seem to make negative comparisons too emotionally-driven.
-
The SSPV was formed when the '83 SSPX "split" occurred. Newly formed SSPV acquired the properties. SGG (the Delaware corporation) was formed by a "split" with SSPV. There are several other corporations that make up the SGG/Brooksville group.
Okay but if I recall correctly SGG was in Norwood in the 80s. I remember seeing the ads for it in the newspaper. It might have belonged to the SSPV at that time, but it was called SGG.
-
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.
-
The SSPV was formed when the '83 SSPX "split" occurred. Newly formed SSPV acquired the properties. SGG (the Delaware corporation) was formed by a "split" with SSPV. There are several other corporations that make up the SGG/Brooksville group.
Okay but if I recall correctly SGG was in Norwood in the 80s. I remember seeing the ads for it in the newspaper. It might have belonged to the SSPV at that time, but it was called SGG.
No, Immaculate Conception is in Norwood. The Church St. Gertrude the Great was in Sharonville. It was sold in 2004 when the SGG on Rialto Rd. was built.
-
No, Immaculate Conception is in Norwood.
I know Immaculate Conception is in Norwood. I recall the advertisements for St. Gertrude the Great in the Cincinnati Enquirer in the 80s - I thought I recalled them saying it was in Norwood.
What was the name and location of the original SSPX chapel in Cincinnati before the split of the SSPV? What was the year of the SSPV/SGG split?
The Church St. Gertrude the Great was in Sharonville. It was sold in 2004 when the SGG on Rialto Rd. was built.
Are you saying that was the original SSPX chapel that was taken by Father Cekada?
-
How were these writings treated before the possible reign of John XXIII?
-
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.
-
How were these writings treated before the possible reign of John XXIII?
There were fine.
They were accepted by many Cardinals and Bishops in Poland, France, Italy, England, Ireland, and the USA., etc.
The first "banning" was by Antipope John XXIII.
Which obviously counts for nothing.
This whole controversy was started by an Antipope.
Pope Pius XII believed in The Divine Mercy.
Antipope Johhn XIII also was responsible for the banning of Padre Pio.
-
There were fine.
They were accepted by many Cardinals and Bishops in Poland, France, Italy, Englad, Ireland, and the USA., etc.
The first "banning" was by Antipope John XXIII.
I see. Thank you.
In my view, a Catholic may regard Pius XII as a pope with moral certainty. John XXIII is a interesting case, and since I do not know if one can clearly argue that he was a public heretic (and therefore lost the papacy automatically), I consider him a dubious but possible pope.
-
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.
-
Well, I could really nitpick and ask "which antipope John XXIII," the one who reigned during the Middle Ages, or the most recent one.
-
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.
-
There is a diocesan St. Gertrude's in the Cincinnati area, also.
Yes I attended there for many years.
-
In my view, a Catholic may regard Pius XII as a pope with moral certainty.
Agreed.
-
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.
-
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!"
-
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.
-
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.