Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sede Catholic on June 08, 2012, 09:05:26 PM
-
THANK YOU
Some time ago, I started a thread on General Discussion, (entitled “Please help with this”) requesting help with some computing matters that I did not fully understand.
Several people here were kind enough to help me with those.
I now wish to thank them publicly.
To all of the following, Thank you:
Vladimir,
Telesphorus,
MaterDominici,
Graham,
gobosox91,
Thursday,
theology101,
Capt McQuigg,
Hermengild,
and a former member of CathInfo whom I contacted on another Forum. He knows who he is.
Thank you all very much.
God Bless all of you.
In particular, I would like to thank Vladimir, Graham, and MaterDominici.
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for your detailed advice, Vladimir.
Thank you for all of your help and support.
God Bless you, Vladimir.
Dear Graham,
Thank you for your detailed advice.
Thank you also for the time and effort that you put into it.
Thank you for putting The Image of The Divine Mercy and The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy on to the photobucket site for me here:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y36/steeple/DivineMercychaplet.jpg
and Graham, thank you also especially for putting The Image of The Divine Mercy onto the photobucket site for me here:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y36/steeple/DivineMercyJesus.jpg
God Bless you, Graham.
Dear MaterDominici,
Thank you for all of your very detailed advice and help.
Thank you for making The Image of The Divine Mercy into a usable jpg on CathInfo here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/dmercy-pic.jpg
Thank you especially, MaterDominici, for making The Image of The Divine Mercy into the Holy Picture next to my CathInfo username.
What I believe is called my “avatar”. Though I think that is a pagan term, so I do not use it.
Thank you, MaterDominici, for putting The Image of The Divine Mercy next to my CathInfo username
Thus:
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y36/steeple/DivineMercyJesus.jpg)
MaterDominici, thank you for all the effort and time that you spent on putting this beautiful Picture of
The Divine Mercy next to my Username.
God Bless you, MaterDominici.
-
Isn't there a discordance between being a "sede Catholic," but promulgating the Bogus Ordo devotion?
-
Isn't there a discordance between being a "sede Catholic," but promulgating the Bogus Ordo devotion?
Here you go Diego, no need to repeat previous conversations:
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7181
-
They are being completely illogical, that small number of people who wrongly think that there is a discrepancy between believing in The Divine Mercy and being a Sede.
Sedes understand that Benedict XVI is an Antipope.
The Divine Mercy is a Catholic Devotion approved of by the Catholic Church in the A.D. 1930’s.
So the two beliefs are entirely compatible.
Pope Pius XII believed in The Divine Mercy and defended The Divine Mercy and performed a Ceremony Blessing The Image of The Divine Mercy.
The Divine Mercy was given extensive Imprimaturs by the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XI and also under Pope Pius XII.
It was banned several times by Antipope John XXIII.
For those who are concerned by this, be reassured by the fact that under Paul VI the Church completely lifted the bans.
If you believe that John XXIII was Pope, you probably also believe that Paul VI was a valid Pope as well.
John Paul II canonized S. Faustina Kowalska.
If you believe that John Paul II was a valid Pope, then you have to accept his canonizations:
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:
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.
So if you accept John Paul II as Pope, you have to accept that he infallibly canonized Saint Faustina Kowalska.
Many Sede laity, priests, and also Sede Bishops believe in The Divine Mercy.
Also, The Divine Mercy was given many Imprimaturs under Pope Pius XII.
An example of these many Imprimaturs for The Divine Mercy:
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.)
Another Imprimatur for The Divine Mercy:
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.)
When the Church has given Imprimaturs, we are supposed to take notice of those.
I have proved elsewhere on CathInfo that Pope Pius XII believed in The Divine Mercy and promoted it.
I have proved elsewhere on CathInfo that Cardinal Ottaviani believed in and promoted The Divine Mercy.
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 Jalbzykowski (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.
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 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:
“The Congregation of the Most Holy Lord Jesus Christ, Merciful Redeemer”
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/
On it your can see the Miracle that The Holy Face of Jesus from The Shroud of Turin exactly matches The Holy Face of Jesus from 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.
The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska can be read online for free by clicking this link:
http://www.saint-faustina.com/Diary/DMIMS1.shtml
The Footnotes to the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska can be read online for free by clicking this link:
http://www.saint-faustina.com/Diary/footnotes.html
Do not be robbed of one of the final true Devotions from God, which is entirely accepted by the Catholic Church.
Do not be tricked by the banning by Antipope John XXIII, which was lifted by Paul VI anyway.
The Divine Mercy is from God. It was believed in by Pope Pius XII. It is very powerful.
-
Sorry, Sede, but I need to correct you. Canonizations are not infallible.
There's more to the Divine Mercy story, but I won't get into that.
-
Sorry, Sede, but I need to correct you. Canonizations are not infallible.
Where did you get that from?
-
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:
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:
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:
...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.
The solemn canonization of a saint is proper to the pope. Indeed it is commonly held that this is an exercise of the papal infallibility.
And:
Canonization, therefore, creates a cultus which is universal and obligatory
If anyone after reading the above quotes, is so proud as to claim that he knows better than the Church, I challenge him to provide quotes from equally authoritative sources against canonizations.
I am a Catholic, so I accept the decisions of valid Popes.
That is what genuine Catholics do.
-
Sede Catholic, are you the same poster who used to post as Mel fan or something like that? Just curious as your writing style is very similar.
-
Yes, I did use a different name last year.
Then I let my account lapse.
This year I wanted to rejoin, and I informed Matthew that I did not want that user name.
So Matthew kindly allowed me to open a new account instead.
-
Yes, I was also taught that Canonizations ARE infallible, however, I have also heard that canonizations that were done by the faithful and not the pope are not infallible. Some saints in the early church were declared Saints from other Christians. As I said, I am confused about that because it is something that I read on the Internet.
If a true pope canonized a saint to Saint, that was infallible.
-
My main problem with the Divine Mercy devotion is this passage from Sr. Faustina's diary:
One day Jesus said to me, I am going to leave this house... because there are things here which displease Me. And the Host came out of the tabernacle and came lo rest in my hands and I, with joy, placed it back in the tabernacle. This was repeated a second time, and I did the same thing. Despite this, it happened a third time, but the Host was transformed into the living Lord Jesus, who said to me, I will stay here no longer! At this, a powerful love for Jesus rose up in my soul. I answered, "And I, I will not let You leave this house, Jesus!" And again Jesus disappeared while the Host remained in my hands. Once again I put it back in the chalice and closed it up in the tabernacle. And Jesus stayed with us. I undertook to make three days of adoration by way of reparation.
Seems like divine approval for communion in the hand to me. Out of curiosity, how do you go about explaining this passage, Sede Catholic?
-
Obviously, it is nothing at all like divine approval for communion in the hand. There is no connection at all.
On only two occasions in her whole life, S. Faustina had contact with the Eucharist with her hand.
And one of those occasions was an accident where the Host was accidentally allowed to fall by the priest at Mass.
The second occasion was when Our Lord caused it to happen, via a Miracle.
We all know that only priests are allowed to handle the Eucharist except in very rare occurrences.
The celebrated Very Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., S.T.D., LL.D., L.H.D. gives an example of an exceptional case where even the laity may licitly touch the Eucharist:
The Holy Eucharist could be given as Viaticuм—hence,
without the obligation of fasting— to all Catholics situated
in grave danger because of the attack, even though they
actually have not been injured. If no priest were available,
lay persons could give the Viaticuм to themselves
and to others, presuming that they could get to the tabernacle
and procure the Blessed Sacrament.
http://www.cmri.org/adsum/adsum2008-july.pdf
Blessed Clare touched the Eucharist to protect it from the Heathen.
This is mentioned in “Tyburn and Who Went Thither” by Mother Mary Magdalen Taylor. A.D. 1954 edition. pp.83-85.
In “Lives of The Queens of Scotland” it is recounted that Mary, Queen of Scots was given permission by the Pope to give herself Holy Communion when she was incarcerated.
So in exceptional circuмstances there can be contact between the hands of laity and the Eucharist.
How much more so can that apply to a Nun, especially if Our Lord wishes it.
A false claim from these two occasions has been made by Feenyites who have tried to make out that The Divine Mercy causes people to believe in communion in the hand. Such a false claim is completely ridiculous.
S. Faustina Kowalska certainly never advocated such a thing. And she died many years before the horror of communion in the hand.
She was filled with a deep reverence for the Eucharist.
Indeed, in one of her prophetic visions there is a warning about what appears to be the novus ordo.
It really comes down to a matter of authority.
Do you accept the authority of the pre-conciliar Catholic Church, or do you reject that authority?
The Divine Mercy was given many Imprimaturs by the Catholic Church in the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI and
in the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
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….
...When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin.
That is where Faith comes in.
We believe, because the Church has approved of the Saints concerned.
Believe the Imprimaturs given to The Divine Mercy by the pre-conciliar Catholic Church of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII.
Private revelation has to be interpreted by the Church, not by us.
We are not supposed to critically analyze whether the Church has made the right decisions with Imprimaturs.
Instead, we are supposed to accept the Imprimaturs of the Church.
-
Sede Catholic and Myrna are correct that Canonizations by the Pope are Infallible.
-
Isn't there a discordance between being a "sede Catholic," but promulgating the Bogus Ordo devotion?
Here you go Diego, no need to repeat previous conversations:
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7181
Thank you. Neither there nor here does the devotee provide what was requested, evidence that the suspect passages were intentionally mistranslated.
Having visited this devotion previously, I remain of the opinion that the Divine Mercy devotion is a presumption on the mercy of God and a distraction from our Catholic duty to repent, do penance, and make reparation for our sins. As best I can discern, this devotion approaches being a Novus Ordoe equivalent of kapparot (the тαℓмυdic ritual of waving a chicken over one's head to transfer one's sins to the chicken).
-
That is because you did not make such a request.
-
Also, you say that you "remain of the opinion..."
Why do you ignore the Imprimaturs of the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XI and of Pope Pius XII?
Why do you put your opinion above the judgments of the Catholic Church?
Do you really think that you have detected errors in The Divine Mercy that the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII could not see when they gave the Imprimaturs to The Divine Mercy?
The Catholic Church of Pope Pius XI and of Pope Pius XII has approved of The Divine Mercy.
Good Catholics accept the decisions of the Church
-
A permission to print from a bishop, even from the Bishop of Rome, is not an infallible act.
-
That is because you did not make such a request.
I did not say that I was the one who made the requests.
-
It does not require an infallible act.
The Divine Mercy was given many Imprimaturs by the Catholic Church in the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI and
in the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
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 said:
...When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin.
You are not meant to try and find fault with the decisions of the Church.
You are supposed to accept the decisions of the Church.
You are meant to be obedient to the Church.
That is how the Saints behaved.
They aspired to perfect obedience to the Church.
So should we.
-
[yawn]
-
You are welcome.
Let's save the argument for another thread instead of ruining this thank-you thread.
-
Yes, you are right Vladimir.
I also found it in bad taste that all this criticism of an approved Devotion was raised on a thank you thread.
And the criticisms were made with such a reckless disregard for the Imprimaturs given to The Divine Mercy by the Catholic Church.
I have encountered highly intelligent Sedes, who have been lied to about The Divine Mercy.
When it has been proved to them that the Church of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII approved of The Divine Mercy with Imprimaturs, those intelligent Sedes have accepted the truth.
Non-Sedes in the conciliar Church accept The Divine Mercy completely.
Possibly 99% of those who oppose The Divine Mercy are either Feenyites or are in the “recognize-but-disobey” crowd.
This is because both Feenyites and recognize-but-disobeyers are opposed to obedience to true Popes.
So they reject what the Church has decreed about The Divine Mercy.
And Feenyites and recognize-but-disobeyers constitute far, far less than 1/1000th of Roman Catholics.
So we can easily see that their attitude comes from pride.
I have not encountered Feenyites who have humility.
I have not encountered opponents of The Divine Mercy who have humility.
To claim to know better than the Church is pride.
Thank you again for your help.
God Bless you, Vladimir.
-
I omitted to provide the source for where I got The Image of The Divine Mercy,
So here it is:
http://www.merciful-jesus.com/THE-IMAGE-OF-MERCIFUL-JESUS-postcard.pdf
It is the true and original Image of The Divine Mercy.
-
Dear Telesphorus,
Thank you for showing the true facts.
God Bless you, Tele.
-
Dear MyrnaM,
I was happy to see you defend canonizations.
Canonizations are to be believed – not despised.
Catholics accept that the Church is right about canonizations.
Non-Catholics do not.
God Bless you, Myrna.
-
Dear Spiritus,
I was gratified to see that you also defend the Church’s canonizations.
We should always defend the Church and Catholic teaching against lies.
Let us never fail in our duty, and fall silent out because of human respect or cowardice
God Bless you, Spiritus.
It is the true and original Image of The Divine Mercy.
-
The above post was badly edited.
I accidentally included part of a previous post in it.
The above post should have read:
Dear Spiritus,
I was gratified to see that you also defend the Church’s canonizations.
We should always defend the Church and Catholic teaching against lies.
Let us never fail in our duty, or fall silent, because of human respect or cowardice.
God Bless you, Spiritus.
-
Mea Culpa, I was wrong about canonizations & infallibility. To be truthful I hadn't ever given it much thought before & I thought I'd read somewhere that they weren't infallible. This to me also explained nicely the suspicious canonizations of late. However I did look it up in my handy-dandy Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John Hardon & he says, "Beatification ALLOWS veneration of the blessed, canonization REQUIRES it." [emphasis mine]
Also I did read the rest of the thread just now with all the other sources and information. You learn something new every day on this forum! Thanks all for setting me straight.
-
There is no such thing as a 'Feeneyite'.
-
It does not require an infallible act.
If it is not infallible and not de fide. No Catholic is bound to it.
The Divine Mercy was given many Imprimaturs by the Catholic Church in the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI and in the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII. When the Imprimatur has been given, the Church has spoken. The matter is closed. We are not protestants.
An Imprimatur is simply a permission to publish. An imprimatur is not infallible, not de fide, and no Catholic is bound to it. Don't believe me? Look at the mountains of Novus Ordo horse droppings published under imprimaturs.
I am not a Protestant. Since you brought up the subject, I don't know about you.
This is from “The Casuist” (A.D. 1906)
[yawn] Not Magisterium.
...Pope Benedict XIV said: When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin.
He says, "these visions." What visions? What is the antecedent of "these"?
Does this "saying" have ex cathedra character?
You are not meant to try and find fault with the decisions of the Church.
You are supposed to accept the decisions of the Church.
You are meant to be obedient to the Church.
That is how the Saints behaved.
They aspired to perfect obedience to the Church.
So should we.
Coming from a sede vacantist pushing a Bogus Ordo fraud, this may be one of the most hypocritical (or schizophrenic) exhortations I have ever heard.
Where is your side-by-side evidence that the Diary of Many Handwriting Styles has been misquoted? Certainly it is a fraud in itself, but where is your evidence that the fraud has been misquoted?
-
Obviously, it is nothing at all like divine approval for communion in the hand. There is no connection at all.
On only two occasions in her whole life, S. Faustina had contact with the Eucharist with her hand.
And one of those occasions was an accident where the Host was accidentally allowed to fall by the priest at Mass.
The second occasion was when Our Lord caused it to happen, via a Miracle.
We all know that only priests are allowed to handle the Eucharist except in very rare occurrences.
Hmm, you may be on to something. Still, I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from. I've seen many Novus Ordo-ites who say that this miracle somehow "foreshadowed" the liberalization of communion in the hand. (See, for instance, this page: http://thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3715 (http://thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3715), and scroll down to the third comment).
-
Mea Culpa, I was wrong about canonizations & infallibility. To be truthful I hadn't ever given it much thought before & I thought I'd read somewhere that they weren't infallible. This to me also explained nicely the suspicious canonizations of late. However I did look it up in my handy-dandy Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John Hardon & he says, "Beatification ALLOWS veneration of the blessed, canonization REQUIRES it." [emphasis mine]
Also I did read the rest of the thread just now with all the other sources and information. You learn something new every day on this forum! Thanks all for setting me straight.
Dear Thorn,
I am happy that you have seen the truth.
It is also very commendable that you admitted the error.
That shows integrity and humility.
Also I did read the rest of the thread just now with all the other sources and information. You learn something new every day on this forum!
I assume that this partly refers to The Divine Mercy.
I am glad that here, also, you had the integrity to recognize the truth when it was proved to you.
God Bless you, Thorn.
-
Obviously, it is nothing at all like divine approval for communion in the hand. There is no connection at all.
On only two occasions in her whole life, S. Faustina had contact with the Eucharist with her hand.
And one of those occasions was an accident where the Host was accidentally allowed to fall by the priest at Mass.
The second occasion was when Our Lord caused it to happen, via a Miracle.
We all know that only priests are allowed to handle the Eucharist except in very rare occurrences.
Hmm, you may be on to something. Still, I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from. I've seen many Novus Ordo-ites who say that this miracle somehow "foreshadowed" the liberalization of communion in the hand. (See, for instance, this page: http://thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3715 (http://thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3715), and scroll down to the third comment).
Dear Lefebvre Fan:
Thank you for accepting that I “may be on to something.”
It is good that you accept that, it often shows integrity and humility to accept things.
The comment made by the person "Edward" who left a comment on the blog that you referenced, was the typical kind of remark that people just throw out on the internet without any worthwhile reflection. He was just some Novus Ordo attender indulging in novus ordo musings.
God Bless you, Lefebvre Fan.
As you have now realized:
There were only two occasions in her whole life when S. Faustina had contact with the Eucharist with her hand.
And one of those occasions was an accident where the Host was accidentally allowed to fall by the priest at Mass. The second occasion was when Our Lord caused it to happen, via a Miracle.
We all know that only priests are allowed to handle the Eucharist except in very rare occurrences.
The celebrated Very Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., S.T.D., LL.D., L.H.D. gives an example of an exceptional case where even the laity may licitly touch the Eucharist:
The Holy Eucharist could be given as Viaticuм—hence,
without the obligation of fasting— to all Catholics situated
in grave danger because of the attack, even though they
actually have not been injured. If no priest were available,
lay persons could give the Viaticuм to themselves
and to others, presuming that they could get to the tabernacle
and procure the Blessed Sacrament.
http://www.cmri.org/adsum/adsum2008-july.pdf
Blessed Clare touched the Eucharist to protect it from the Heathen.
This is mentioned in “Tyburn and Who Went Thither” by Mother Mary Magdalen Taylor. A.D. 1954 edition. pp.83-85.
In “Lives of The Queens of Scotland” it is recounted that:
Mary, Queen of Scots was given permission by the Pope to give herself Holy Communion.
So in exceptional circuмstances there can be contact between the hands of laity and the Eucharist. How much more so can that apply to a Nun, especially if Our Lord wishes it.
A false claim from these two occasions has been made by Feenyites who have tried to make out that The Divine Mercy causes people to believe in communion in the hand. Such a false claim is completely ridiculous.
S. Faustina Kowalska certainly never advocated such a thing.
And she died many years before the horror of communion in the hand.
She was filled with a deep reverence for the Eucharist.
Indeed, in one of her prophetic visions there is a warning about what appears to be the novus ordo.
There is no connection between S.Faustina Kowalska and the evil practice of communion in the hand.
Also, the pre-conciliar Church repeatedly approved of The Divine Mercy.
They did not make such an untrue and absurd connection.
It really comes down to a matter of authority.
Do you accept the authority of the pre-conciliar Catholic Church, or do you reject that authority?
The Divine Mercy was given many Imprimaturs by the Catholic Church in the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI and
in the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
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 said:
...When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin. "
That is where Faith comes in.
We believe, because the Church has approved of the Saints concerned.
Believe the Imprimaturs given to The Divine Mercy by the pre-conciliar Catholic Church of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII.
Private revelation has to be interpreted by the Church, not by us.
We are not supposed to critically analyze whether the Church has made the right decisions with Imprimaturs.
Instead, we are supposed to accept the Imprimaturs of the Church.
-
I WAS WRONG WHEN I MISTAKENLY THOUGHT THAT IN THE “DIARY” THERE WAS A MENTION OF A NEED
OF WATER BAPTISM TO GO TO HEAVEN.
THERE IS NOT.
IT DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THAT.
THERE IS NO SUCH CLAIM IN THE DIARY.
THERE IS NOTHING FEENYITE ABOUT THE DIVINE MERCY.
-
Almost all of the recognize-but-disobey crowd are fine about The Divine Mercy.
Most Sedevacantists are also fine about The Divine Mercy.
Most people in the conciliar church are also fine about The Divine Mercy.
-
Diego is a liar.
Diego has lied on this thread as I will prove later in this post.
Diego also treated with contempt the teachings of an eighteenth century Pope.
Diego has also made untrue statements on other threads.
Diego has questioned the prophesied Era of Peace promised by Our Lady of Fatima.
Read his proud, defiant unbelief here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=18709&min=10&num=10
Read more nonsense by Diego here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/CALIFORNIANS-grab-your-scythes-and-pitchforks
Read how he is refuted by CathInfo members, such as Graham, Raoul76, etc.
Diego has trolled this thank-you thread.
That is rude, and it is a breach of etiquette.
It really is a tacky thing to do. To troll a thank-you thread is really tacky and is in bad taste.
Diego is a troll.
He trolled this thank-you thread with the following illogical, illiterately phrased, and pointless utterance:
Isn't there a discordance between being a "sede Catholic," but promulgating the Bogus Ordo devotion?
I explained the obvious:
They are being completely illogical, that small number of people who wrongly think that there is a discrepancy between believing in The Divine Mercy and being a Sede.
Sedes understand that Benedict XVI is an Antipope.
The Divine Mercy is a Catholic Devotion approved of by the Catholic Church in the A.D. 1930’s.
So the two beliefs are entirely compatible.
Pope Pius XII believed in The Divine Mercy and defended The Divine Mercy and performed a Ceremony Blessing The Image of The Divine Mercy.
The Divine Mercy was given extensive Imprimaturs by the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XI and also under Pope Pius XII.
When the Church has given Imprimaturs, we are supposed to take notice of those.
I have proved elsewhere on CathInfo that Pope Pius XII believed in The Divine Mercy and promoted it.
I have proved elsewhere on CathInfo that Cardinal Ottaviani believed in and promoted 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 is their website:
http://www.faustina-message.com/
On it your can see the Miracle that The Holy Face of Jesus from The Shroud of Turin exactly matches The Holy Face of Jesus from The Divine Mercy.
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.
Many Sede laity, priests, and also Sede Bishops believe in The Divine Mercy.
So do Catholics who are not Sedevacantist.
They must: S. Faustina was infallibly canonized by their pope.
I proved that The Divine Mercy was an approved Devotion of the pre-conciliar Church of Pope Pius XI and of Pope Pius XII.
I remain of the opinion that the Divine Mercy devotion is a presumption on the mercy of God and a distraction from our Catholic duty to repent, do penance, and make reparation for our sins.
That is a disgusting attitude.
To reject and defy the approval of The Divine Mercy by the Catholic Church is pride and bad will.
Then Diego talks about presumption !!!
The rest of his comment is just theologically illiterate.
The Divine Mercy emphasizes the Mercy of God, and it is filled with the call to repent, do penance, and make reparation for our sins. So it does exactly what Diego claims it does not.
Diego ends that post with:
…waving a chicken over one's head to transfer one's sins to the chicken).
What irrelevant nonsense.
A permission to print from a bishop, even from the Bishop of Rome, is not an infallible act.
Diego’s pride is amazing.
He talks with contempt of pre-conciliar Catholic Imprimaturs, even Imprimaturs that are given by a pre-conciliar Pope.
This is not the Catholic way to treat Popes. It is sinful. It is wrong. And good Catholics, when they read his defiance of the Church, will know that it is sinful.
The Divine Mercy was given many Imprimaturs by the Catholic Church in the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI and in the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII. When the Imprimatur has been given, the Church has spoken. The matter is closed. We are not protestants.
An Imprimatur is simply a permission to publish. An imprimatur is not infallible, not de fide, and no Catholic is bound to it. Don't believe me? Look at the mountains of Novus Ordo horse droppings published under imprimaturs.
This is a distortion of the facts.
Imprimaturs are usually given by Bishops, Archbishops, or Cardinals.
The Nihil Obstat is given BEFORE the Imprimatur. The Nihil Obstat guarantees that there is nothing contrary to the Faith or morals in the writing.
It is fee from error.
If a book has theological errors, it would not be given the Nihil Obstat or the Imprimatur:
Imprimatur is Latin for "let it be printed." When a Roman Catholic bishop grants his imprimatur to a printed work, he assures the reader that nothing therein is contrary to Catholic faith or morals. This imprimatur is not given lightly; only after a thorough review process.
http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/imprimatur.asp
THAT CRUSHES EVERY OBJECTION THAT OPPONENTS OF THE DIVINE MERCY CAN RAISE.
THE NIHIL OBSTATS AND IMPRIMATURS GIVEN TO THE DIVINE MERCY BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF POPE PIUS XI AND POPE PIUS XII GUARANTEE THAT THE DIVINE MERCY IS ENTIRELY FREE FROM ANY THEOLOGICAL ERRORS WHATSOEVER.
Diego then brings up Novus Ordo Imprimaturs. This is disingenuous, because I have only mentioned pre-conciliar Imprimaturs. So his comment is entirely irrelevant.
I am not a Protestant. Since you brought up the subject, I don't know about you.
I had not claimed that he was a protestant. He then casts aspersions on my Catholicity.
I am a Catholic.
The fact that I am a Catholic is obvious to anyone of good will from my username, “Sede Catholic”.
It was merely another irrelevant comment of bad will made by Diego.
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 said:
...When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin.
This is from “The Casuist” (A.D. 1906)
[yawn] Not Magisterium.
Diego again speaks contemptuously about the authority of the Catholic Church.
The Casuist was a premier theological journal of its time.
The section that I quoted contained quotations from Pope Benedict XIV, and from Cardinal Franzelin who was the Papal Theologian to Pope Pius IX at the Vatican Council of A.D. 1870.
Who does this Diego character think he is?
Who is “Diego” to question the true Popes?
Are you a Feenyite, Diego?
...Pope Benedict XIV said: When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin.
He says, "these visions." What visions? What is the antecedent of "these"?
Does this "saying" have ex cathedra character?
It is obvious that Pope Benedict XIV is speaking about visions in general, and anyone of good will can see that.
Diego shows disobedience to the Church, immense bad will, and pride.
We are required to obey true Popes. When they speak, they expect Catholics to listen to them.
Notice that Diego treats the eighteenth century Pope Benedict XIV with great contempt:
“Does this "saying" have ex cathedra character? ”
Diego displays contempt for what the Pope says.
It is not relevant whether it is ex cathedra or not. It is an order from a Pope.
Catholics will obey an order from a true Pope. We are bound to do so.
That is the teaching of the Church:
Nor is it to be supposed that a position advanced in an encyclical does not, ipso facto, demand assent. In writing them it is true that the Popes do not exercise their teaching authority to the full. But such statements come under the ordinary teaching of the Church, which is covered by the promise, “He who hears you, hears Me” (St. Luke X:16). For the most part the positions advanced, the duties inculcated by these encyclical letters are already bound up, under some other title, with the general body of Catholic teaching. And when the Roman Pontiffs go out of their way to pronounce on such subject which has heretofore been controverted, it must be clear to everybody that, in the mind and intention of the Pontiffs concerned, this subject can no longer be regarded as a matter of free debate among theologians.
(Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Paragraph 20.)
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can determine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circuмstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has agreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forth insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary…
(Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii.)
If Diego claims that what Pope Benedict XIV says can be disobeyed, the burden of proof is on Diego to prove that.
I have recounted the teachings of the Church. Diego has shown sinful contempt for those teachings.
You are not meant to try and find fault with the decisions of the Church.
You are supposed to accept the decisions of the Church.
You are meant to be obedient to the Church.
That is how the Saints behaved.
They aspired to perfect obedience to the Church.
So should we.
Coming from a sede vacantist pushing a Bogus Ordo fraud, this may be one of the most hypocritical (or schizophrenic) exhortations I have ever heard.
That is just a meaningless insult.
Also, here Diego shows his real malice.
What he says is very dishonest.
I will now prove his dishonesty to the Forum.
You will recall that I had proved that The Divine Mercy was an approved devotion of the Catholic Church under Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII in A.D. 1936. So when, afterwards, Diego repeats his claim that it is Bogus Ordo, he is lying.
Diego is a Liar.
This is not merely stupidity on the part of Diego, because I had already proved that The Divine Mercy was an approved devotion of the pre-conciliar church.
It is not stupidity, it is dishonesty.
Then Diego talks about hypocrisy !!!
More hypocrisy from Diego is evident when again he pretends that there is a reason why Sedes cannot believe in The Divine Mercy.
I had already completely refuted this illogical (and illiterately phrased) claim earlier in the thread, by pointing out that:
Sedes know that Benedict XVI is an Antipope.
The Divine Mercy is an approved devotion of the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII.
Those two facts are entirely compatible. Anyone of good will can see that.
But Diego, out of bad will, pretends that this something he can validly bring up, even after it has been totally refuted.
So this comment by Diego is very dishonest.
Where is your side-by-side evidence that the Diary of Many Handwriting Styles has been misquoted? Certainly it is a fraud in itself, but where is your evidence that the fraud has been misquoted?
More lies. More emoting and lies. I do not know if Diego knows that what he is repeating is lies. But it is.
That is easy to prove.
On the internet, the lie has been put out that S. Faustina Kowalska did not write the Diary.
This is a lie which has only ever been spread on the internet. It is not found in any book, journal, academic dissertation, or any other worthwhile source.
The truth is that S. Faustina Kowalska wrote the Diary herself.
This can easily be proved.
This false claim is that the Diary was the fabrication of the Nuns in S. Faustina’s convent. It is a lie. The truth is easily proved by the fact that S. Faustina’s Confessor and Spiritual Director Fr. Michael Sopocko had asked S. Faustina to write everything down AND TO GIVE IT TO HIM. So he had access to it before any of the nuns in the convent. And he was instrumental in getting it published. And what an insult such a false claim is to S. Faustina, and to the whole convent of exceptionally holy pre-conciliar nuns, and to the local Ordinary who gave the imprimatur, and to Fr. Sopocko, and to everyone else in the pre-conciliar Catholic Church who attested to the authenticity of the writings of S. Faustina.
There are also photographs of the original manuscript.
An expert on The Divine Mercy, Robert Stackpole, wrote:
There is no evidence of tampering with the original text. (I have seen the original autograph myself.) Furthermore, anyone who reads the Diary in the Polish original or in English can clearly tell that the text was written by a single author.
The handwriting in the Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska is the same as the handwriting in the photographs of her letters to priest and nuns and her own family.
Her letters have also been published as a book.
Another false claim is the claim that S. Faustina could not write. This again is a lie. The truth is easily proved by the fact that S. Faustina’s Confessor and Spiritual Director Fr. Michael Sopocko had asked S. Faustina to write everything down AND TO GIVE IT TO HIM. This is recounted both in her own diary, and in the footnotes that accompany it, and was verified by her Confessor and Spiritual Director Father Michael Sopocko. Also, S. Faustina Kowalska wrote letters to priests and nuns and to her own family.
The Letters of S. Faustina Kowalska have been published as a book.
Therefore it is really wicked and dishonest of these liars to pretend that she could not write.
The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska has been very accurately translated into English.
So you can have real confidence in the accuracy of the translation of The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska.
Sometimes the entries in The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska are not in chronological order. This is because:
For a long time Sister Faustina did not take notes of her experiences and of graces received. It was only at the explicit order of her confessor, Father Sopocko, that she began to write down her experiences as they occurred, and also earlier ones as she remembered them.
(The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska. Footnote 42.)
Diego asked about translations.
The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska is a meticulously accurate translation from the Polish.
An international team of experts, comprised of priests, nuns, laity, carefully translated the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowlaska into English.
The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska can be read online for free by clicking this link:
http://www.saint-faustina.com/Diary/DMIMS1.shtml
The Footnotes to the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska can be read online for free by clicking this link:
http://www.saint-faustina.com/Diary/footnotes.html
This online book is completely accurate. It is the same as the physical paper book which you can buy.
The translation of the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska is completely accurate.
All the editions of the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska in English are from the same meticulously accurate translation.
So if you buy the book, The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska, you can have complete confidence that it is the true translation.
A Novena prayer from the Diary has been reprinted separately in prayer books.
This has sometimes been changed by modernists. It is NOT the Diary itself which has been changed, but only this Novena prayer which has only been changed in some prayer books.
In the Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska, it says:
"Today bring to Me the pagans and those who do not yet know me. I was thinking also of them during My bitter Passion, and their future zeal comforted My Heart. Immerse them in the ocean of My mercy.”
In some prayer books, they have dared to remove Our Lord’s words: “the pagans”.
Instead, in some prayer books, they have put: “THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD”
Most Compassionate Jesus, You are the Light of the whole world. Receive into the abode of Your Most Compassionate Heart the souls of pagans who as yet do not know You. Let the rays of Your grace enlighten them that they, too, together with us, may extol Your wonderful mercy; and do not let them escape from the abode which is Your Most Compassionate Heart.
In some prayer books, they have removed S. Faustina Kowalska’s words: “pagans who as yet do not know you”.
Instead, in some prayer books, they have put: “those who do not believe in God and of those who as yet do not know you.”
May the light of Your love
Enlighten the souls in darkness;
Grant that these souls will know You
And, together with us, praise Your mercy.
In some prayer books, they have left out this prayer which includes the words: “Enlighten the souls in darkness;”
Eternal Father, turn Your merciful gaze upon the souls of pagans and of those who as yet do not know You, but who are enclosed in the Most Compassionate Heart of Jesus. Draw them to the light of the Gospel. These souls do not know what great happiness it is to love You. Grant that they, too, may extol the generosity of Your ' mercy for endless ages. Amen.
In some prayer books, they have removed the word of S. Faustina Kowalska: “pagans”
Instead, in some prayer books, they have put: “those who do not believe in you”
Fifth Day
“Today bring to Me the souls of heretics and schismatics, and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy. During My bitter Passion they tore at My Body and Heart; that is, My Church. As they return to unity with the Church, My wounds heal, and in this way they alleviate My Passion.”
In some prayer books, they have dared to remove Our Lord’s words: “heretics and schismatics”.
Instead, in some prayer books, they have put: “THOSE WHO HAVE SEPARATED THEMSELVES FROM MY CHURCH”
Most Merciful Jesus, Goodness Itself, You do not refuse light to those who seek it of You. Receive into the abode of Your Most Compassionate Heart the souls of heretics and schismatics. Draw them by Your light into the unity of the Church, and do not let them escape from the abode of Your Most Compassionate Heart; but bring it about that they, too, come to adore the generosity of Your mercy.
In some prayer books, they have removed the words of S. Faustina Kowalska: “heretics and schismatics”.
Instead, in some prayer books, they have put: “those who have separated themselves from Your Church.”
Even for those who have torn the garment of Your unity,
A fount of mercy flows from Your Heart.
The omnipotence of Your mercy, Oh God.
Can lead these souls also out of error.
In some prayer books, they have left out this prayer which includes the words: “Can lead these souls also out of error.”
Eternal Father, turn Your merciful gaze upon the souls of heretics and schismatics, who have squandered Your blessings and misused Your graces by obstinately persisting in their errors. Do not look upon their errors, but upon the love of Your own Son and upon His bitter Passion, which He underwent for their sake, since they, too, are enclosed in the Most Compassionate Heart of Jesus. Bring it about that they also may glorify Your great mercy for endless ages. Amen.
In some prayer books, they have removed the words of S. Faustina Kowalska: “heretics and schismatics”.
Instead, in some prayer books, they have put: “those who have separated themselves from Your Son’s Church”
The Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska contains the true Novena of The Divine Mercy Prayers.
The Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska is a highly accurate translation.
It is only some prayer books in circulation that contain a bad translation of a novena.
Some people have concerns about the canonization of S. Faustina Kowalska by JP II.
John Paul II did promote The Divine Mercy, but he also promoted Fatima and “Canonized” Padre Pio.
And he “beatified” Jacinta and Francisco of Fatima.
So it is illogical to reject The Divine Mercy based on the support of John Paul II. By that false standard you would reject Fatima and Padre Pio as well.
Also, it was the work and efforts of Father Michael Sopocko (and many other including Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Ottaviani) which led to The Divine Mercy being accepted by the Catholic Church. So let us not take the credit away from them and give it to JPII instead.
Thorn was mistaken about some things, and was man enough to admit it.
Thorn showed integrity.
Lefebvre fan was mistaken about some things, and was man enough to admit.
Lefebvre fan showed integrity.
A Feenyite, Home-Aloner troll who got banned, recently said things that were untrue about The Divine Mercy. Commendably, when I proved him wrong, he admitted that he had been wrong about The Divine Mercy and said:
Regarding the Divine Mercy…What you wrote is enough. It seems I was indeed wrong about most. It doesn't really matter to me. So I take back what I said.
He also said:
I thought wrong about the Divine Mercy. You showed me evidence I had never seen showing me it was not so. Therefore, I admit I was in error and retract my position.
I hope that Diego will also retract his false statements, or will he display less honour than a Feenyite, Home-Aloner troll, who got banned by Matthew from CathInfo.
Diego, one of the hallmarks of a man is to be able to admit when one is wrong.
Do you, Diego, have the humility, the honesty, the integrity, the manliness, and the honour to admit that you have been wrong?
Diego also dared to claim that it is certainly a fraud, when The Divine Mercy has the approval of the Church of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII.
The arrogance, pride, and disobedience of this dishonest Diego are astonishing.
I have the truth and the Imprimaturs of the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII on my side.
Diego has nothing on his side.
Except lies, bad will, and malice.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that against a fact there is no argument.
Against this fact there is no argument:
The Divine Mercy is an approved devotion of the Catholic Church.
To mock The Sacred Heart would be Blasphemy.
To mock The Divine Mercy is also Blasphemy.
They are both approved Devotions of the Catholic Church.
-
If anyone else has any questions at all about The Divine Mercy, please feel free to PM me about it.
If you are not a member of CathInfo, and you have any questions about The Divine Mercy, please consider joining CathInfo and then you can PM me about your questions.
-
Finally, I would like to thank again all those whose names I mentioned at the beginning of this thread.
Thank you all for your help.
Yours,
Sede Catholic.
-
Almost all of the recognize-but-disobey crowd are fine about The Divine Mercy.
Most Sedevacantists are also fine about The Divine Mercy.
Most people in the conciliar church are also fine about The Divine Mercy.
"All" except the SSPV. They, how shall one say kindly?...they dispute it. I've heard, perhaps you have too on the 'famous radio show' with Fr. Jenkins.
-
The SGG does not believe in the Divine Mercy either. Bishop Dolan once criticized it.
Sede Catholic, do you know if the CMRI believes in it? I've never heard them say and would like to know. Thank you.
God Bless.
-
Finally, I would like to thank again all those whose names I mentioned at the beginning of this thread.
Thank you all for your help.
Yours,
Sede Catholic.
Your devotion to the Divine Mercy intrigues me, but especially that you have a Brit Flag on your page. Are you a Brit living in the States or in GB?
Anyway, the folks at SSPV, especially on the radio show, say that this devotion was 'designed' to crush devotion to the Sacred Heart. What a stretch! I vehemently disagree. What say you?
-
Anyway, the folks at SSPV, especially on the radio show, say that this devotion was 'designed' to crush devotion to the Sacred Heart.
Interesting. That's precisely what Bishop Dolan said.
(FYI: I'm not an SGG supporter, I'm merely stating what he said.)
-
Anyway, the folks at SSPV, especially on the radio show, say that this devotion was 'designed' to crush devotion to the Sacred Heart.
Interesting. That's precisely what Bishop Dolan said.
(FYI: I'm not an SGG supporter, I'm merely stating what he said.)
I catch your 'drift' on that....
Sede Catholic wrote: "THAT CRUSHES EVERY OBJECTION THAT OPPONENTS OF THE DIVINE MERCY CAN RAISE.
THE NIHIL OBSTATS AND IMPRIMATURS GIVEN TO THE DIVINE MERCY BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF POPE PIUS XI AND POPE PIUS XII GUARANTEE THAT THE DIVINE MERCY IS ENTIRELY FREE FROM ANY THEOLOGICAL ERRORS WHATSOEVER."
This is something I never knew. I was always under the impression that the 'mods' had disarranged virtually all her diaries and quotes so I stayed away from the study of her, but maintained the devotion. My question now is: Where does one find 'untainted', pure writings of her diaries? Sorry, I'm new to this, so much of Sede's explanation is what I'll have to go back and read.
-
The SGG does not believe in the Divine Mercy either. Bishop Dolan once criticized it.
Sede Catholic, do you know if the CMRI believes in it? I've never heard them say and would like to know. Thank you.
God Bless.
I don’t believe in SGG.
Daniel Dolan can hardly take the moral high ground about anything. Terri Schiavo? Let alone Danny-boy’s own life.
The CMRI are not a cult. Unlike some other faux-traditionalists, such as SGG and others.
Therefore, the CMRI do not have an official position about The Divine Mercy.
The Divine Mercy is an approved devotion which has been extensively Imprimatured by the pre-conciliar Catholic Church of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII.
The CMRI priests obviously respect all Imprimaturs given to The Divine Mercy under Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII.
I do know that some CMRI clergy have believed in The Divine Mercy.
If you know any who do not, it would be good to tell them about the Imprimaturs given to The Divine Mercy by the Church of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, and the personal support given to The Divine Mercy by Pope Pius XII and his Cardinals.
-
For what it's worth, this is posted elsewhere here on the forum also:
(by the way, I'm not saying I advocate what they write, I'm only posting it for your information purpose).
"Posted Apr 25, 2012, 2:53 am"
"A fellow trad was concerned that in some Catholic circles the divine mercy prayer (prayed on rosary beads) was replacing the recitation of the Holy Rosary. If true it would be a very serious concern. As well, an SSPV priest noted that rays on the divine mercy picture of Jesus are replacing the image of the Sacred Heart, of course veneration and devotion to the Sacred Heart is an ancient Catholic devotion. There's also a New age aspect to the practice (imo) in that it is strictly a message of mercy with no meditation or contemplation of Our Lord's Justice. As a wise traditional priest once told his flock.... "God is perfectly merciful, however He is also perfectly just". "
-
Thank you for the response, Sede.
-
"God is perfectly merciful, however He is also perfectly just". "
I like this very much! I see you too are a Brit....Is that you harvesting grape for some good wine? Nothing like a great glass of Zin, I always say!
-
I'm sure Marie appreciates your support, but let's give others a turn. Might as well get out the pom pom's??????????????????????
I'm not sure I quite understand this.....new here, just wondering! :rahrah: :rahrah:
-
I'm sure Marie appreciates your support, but let's give others a turn. Might as well get out the pom pom's??????????????????????
I'm not sure I quite understand this.....new here, just wondering! :rahrah: :rahrah:
You can only give one person so many likes or dislikes before you reach your limit. Once you reach your limit, you'll have to wait for someone else to like or dislike them before you can do so again.
-
Thank You, Spiritus Sanctus! BTW, thats a good screen name.... also, I didn't know I had gave Marie a thumbs up before! Hey ok! so I did, I did see a putty tat! Lets all head to an English Pub....I'm buy'n! :cheers:
-
Thank You, Spiritus Sanctus! BTW, thats a good screen name.... also, I didn't know I had gave Marie a thumbs up before! Hey ok! so I did, I did see a putty tat! Lets all head to an English Pub....I'm buy'n! :cheers:
Maybe it was all that good Zin (http://i6.ifrm.com/6294/90/emo/glug.gif)
Thank you kindly, all the same!
(http://i6.ifrm.com/html/emoticons/laugh.gif)
-
Thank You, Spiritus Sanctus! BTW, thats a good screen name.... also, I didn't know I had gave Marie a thumbs up before! Hey ok! so I did, I did see a putty tat! Lets all head to an English Pub....I'm buy'n! :cheers:
Maybe it was all that good Zin (http://i6.ifrm.com/6294/90/emo/glug.gif)
Thank you kindly, all the same!
(http://i6.ifrm.com/html/emoticons/laugh.gif)
Great Find! How'd I miss that? I "hate" beer........except.....well.....once in a while a good micro brew, maybe a Linenkugal Summer Shandy, or a Sam Adams.....(more hops)!
Nice work! :scratchchin:
-
The main “objections” will now be refuted:
It has been falsely claimed that the devotion to The Divine Mercy stops people praying the rosary. How illogical this claim is. These devotions are not mutually exclusive.
If someone has decided to stop praying the Rosary, it is because they have decided to stop praying the Rosary.
The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy takes only a few minute to say. Although some people like to pray it slowly whilst meditating on it, which is even better.
However, the fact that it can be said in just a few minutes shows that it is not something which takes up so much of a person’s day that there is no time left to pray the Rosary.
People spend far more time watching television than they spend praying The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy.
You might as well say that they decided to stop praying the Rosary because they watch television in the time that they could have been praying the Rosary.
Most people who have given up the Rosary spend more time on the internet than they spend praying The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy.
Also, other Chaplets have been prayed without any controversy. The Chaplet of Mercy of The Holy Wounds of Jesus (from Margaret Mary Chambon) has been approved of by the Church.
The Sacred Penitentiary in A.D. 1924 approved of it. It is very similar to The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy.
The Sacred Penitentiary in A.D. 1924 approved of The Chaplet of Mercy of The Holy Wounds.
The Chaplet of Mercy of The Holy Wounds is prayed on ordinary blessed Rosary beads.
The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy is also prayed on ordinary blessed Rosary beads.
One can pray the Rosary and The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy, and many Catholics do.
It has been falsely claimed that the devotion stops people being devoted to the Sacred Heart. This is also illogical. Devotion to the Sacred Heart and Devotion to The Divine Mercy are not mutually exclusive. If someone has decided to stop praying to the Sacred Heart, it is because they have decided to stop praying to the Sacred Heart.
The Divine Mercy encourages devotion to the Sacred Heart. The Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska is filled with love of the Sacred Heart and worship of the Sacred Heart.
Also, devotion to the Sacred Heart and devotion to The Divine Mercy have been linked by the Saints for centuries.
For Example:
Saint John Eudes in his “Meditations for the Feast of the Sacred Heart” in a part entitled:
"The Divine Mercy should be the Object of our Very Special Devotion"
says: Of all the divine perfections mirrored in the Sacred Heart of our Savior we should have a very special devotion to divine mercy and we should endeavor to engrave its image on our heart.
Pope Pius XII, in his Papal Encyclical “Haurietis Aquas” in A.D. 1956 wrote: …the mystery of God's merciful love for the human race. In this special manifestation Christ pointed to His Heart, with definite and repeated words, as the symbol by which men should be attracted to a knowledge and recognition of His love; and at the same time He established it as a sign or pledge of mercy and grace for the needs of the Church and our times…
Devotion to The Divine Mercy is considered by the Church to be part of Devotion to The Sacred Heart.
Pope Pius XII wrote this Encyclical on The Sacred Heart in A.D. 1956, the same year that Pope Pius XII Blessed The Image of The Divine Mercy in Rome.
It has been falsely claimed that there is too much emphasis on God’s Mercy and not enough about Hell.
This is simply untrue.
S. Faustina was given a very frightening vision of Hell which she describes in detail.
There are many passages in The Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska concerning Hell and the loss of souls.
The urgency of the need to avoid Damnation is when of the biggest themes in The Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska.
There is a great emphasis on the eternal punishment of Hell.
There is a great emphasis in The Divine Mercy about the Justice of God.
And that those who are not Catholic must be converted to save them from Hell. Read the Novena Prayers. Part of them are about praying for the conversion of pagans and heretics and schismatics.
Finally, it is a matter of authority.
If a few faux-traditionalist invalidly ordained priests in the SSPV are defying Catholic Imprimaturs, they should accept the decisions of the pre-conciliar Catholic Church.
Look at how dishonest many of these men are.
They do not tell their duped followers that The Divine Mercy was approved by the pre-conciliar Catholic Church.
Rosemary had a good thread on CathInfo a while ago, proving that the SSPV are invalidly ordained.
So don’t listen to a bunch of laymen running a cult.
Go to the CMRI and get valid Sacraments.
The SSPV, and friends, have no authority.
Without a celebret among the lot of them, they reject the authority of the Church of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII.
This is the position of the Catholic Church:
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….
...When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin.
-
Wow! Thank You, Sede! I've got some study to do here! :reporter:
-
Wow! Thank You, Sede! I've got some study to do here! :reporter:
Dear Roman55,
God Bless you.
It is a real pleasure to have helped you.
I hope that this helps your spiritual life.
God Bless you, Roman55.
Yours,
Sede Catholic.
-
...
Sede Catholic wrote:
"THAT CRUSHES EVERY OBJECTION THAT OPPONENTS OF THE DIVINE MERCY CAN RAISE.
THE NIHIL OBSTATS AND IMPRIMATURS GIVEN TO THE DIVINE MERCY BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF POPE PIUS XI AND POPE PIUS XII GUARANTEE THAT THE DIVINE MERCY IS ENTIRELY FREE FROM ANY THEOLOGICAL ERRORS WHATSOEVER."
This is something I never knew...My question now is: Where does one find 'untainted', pure writings of her diaries? Sorry, I'm new to this, so much of Sede's explanation is what I'll have to go back and read.
Any book edition of "The Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska" is a meticulously accurate translation.
All the English language editions are the same edition. They are all the same.
And it is a meticulously accurate translation.
Also, that is the edition which is available free online if you click this link:
http://www.saint-faustina.com/Diary/DMIMS1.shtml
The Footnotes to the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska can be read online for free by clicking this link:
http://www.saint-faustina.com/Diary/footnotes.html
It’s a good idea to bookmark it.
The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska is a meticulously accurate translation from the Polish.
An international team of experts, comprised of priests, nuns, and laity, very carefully and meticulously translated the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska into English.
The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska can be read online for free by clicking this link:
http://www.saint-faustina.com/Diary/DMIMS1.shtml
The Footnotes to the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska can be read online for free by clicking this link:
http://www.saint-faustina.com/Diary/footnotes.html
This online book is the same meticulously accurate translation.
It is the same translation as the physical paper book which you can buy.
The translation of the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska is completely accurate.
All the editions of the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska in English are from the same meticulously accurate translation.
So if you buy the book, The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska, you can have complete confidence that it is the true translation.
-
You have not answered any of the objections.
You have not demonstrated that the supposed papal approval (of which I remain skeptical) had any magisterial character whatsoever.
The supposed diary has been demonstrated to be in the handwriting of several different persons. You claim that the objectionable parts of the diary were mistranslated, but provide no specifics.
No matter how manic your obsession, no matter how bold and colorful you shout your mantra over and over, the simple fact remains—the supposed diary is a fraud with objectionable content.
-
Thank you for the response, Sede.
Dear Spiritus,
It is a pleasure.
I am glad to have helped you.
Yours,
Sede Catholic.
-
Thank You, Spiritus Sanctus! BTW, thats a good screen name
Thank you, Roman55! I like your screen-name as well.
God Bless.
-
You have not answered any of the objections.
Diego is a Liar.
I had addressed numerous objections from him and other people on this thread.
Anyone of integrity can easily see that.
I had answered his and other people’s questions in great detail, and I have cited numerous sources.
Anyone can easily see that by reading this thread.
I had also proved that Diego had lied.
You have not demonstrated that the supposed papal approval (of which I remain skeptical) had any magisterial character whatsoever.
That is a meaningless comment.
I had already given quotes from Pope Benedict XIV and from the Casuist and from Cardinal Franzelin, and from Pope Pius XI and from Pope Pius XII, showing that it is sinful to behave as Diego is behaving, with blatant contempt for the judgments of the Church:
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 said:
...When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin.
It is an order from a Pope.
Catholics will obey an order from a true Pope.
We are bound to do so.
That is the teaching of the Church:
Nor is it to be supposed that a position advanced in an encyclical does not, ipso facto, demand assent. In writing them it is true that the Popes do not exercise their teaching authority to the full. But such statements come under the ordinary teaching of the Church, which is covered by the promise, “He who hears you, hears Me” (St. Luke X:16). For the most part the positions advanced, the duties inculcated by these encyclical letters are already bound up, under some other title, with the general body of Catholic teaching. And when the Roman Pontiffs go out of their way to pronounce on such subject which has heretofore been controverted, it must be clear to everybody that, in the mind and intention of the Pontiffs concerned, this subject can no longer be regarded as a matter of free debate among theologians.
(Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Paragraph 20.)
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can determine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circuмstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has agreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forth insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary…
(Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii.)
If Diego claims that what Pope Benedict XIV says can be disobeyed, the burden of proof is on Diego to prove that.
I have recounted the teachings of the Church.
Diego has shown sinful contempt for those Catholic teachings.
The supposed diary has been demonstrated to be in the handwriting of several different persons.
Again, Diego is repeating lies.
I had already proved on this thread that the Diary was genuine:
On the internet, the lie has been put out that S. Faustina Kowalska did not write the Diary.
This is a lie which has only ever been spread on the internet. It is not found in any book, journal, academic dissertation, or any other worthwhile source.
The truth is that S. Faustina Kowalska wrote the Diary herself.
The truth is easily proved by the fact that S. Faustina’s Confessor and Spiritual Director Fr. Michael Sopocko had asked S. Faustina to write everything down AND TO GIVE IT TO HIM. And he was instrumental in getting it published. And what an insult such a false claim is to S. Faustina, and to the whole convent of exceptionally holy pre-conciliar nuns, and to the local Ordinary who gave the imprimatur, and to Fr. Sopocko, and to everyone else in the pre-conciliar Catholic Church who attested to the authenticity of the writings of S. Faustina.
There are also photographs of the original manuscript.
An expert on The Divine Mercy, Robert Stackpole, wrote:
There is no evidence of tampering with the original text. (I have seen the original autograph myself.) Furthermore, anyone who reads the Diary in the Polish original or in English can clearly tell that the text was written by a single author.
The handwriting in the Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska is the same as the handwriting in the photographs of her letters to priests and to nuns and to her own family.
Her letters have also been published as a book.
Another false claim is the claim that S. Faustina could not write. This again is a lie. The truth is easily proved by the fact that S. Faustina’s Confessor and Spiritual Director Fr. Michael Sopocko had asked S. Faustina to write everything down AND TO GIVE IT TO HIM. This is recounted both in her own diary, and in the footnotes that accompany it, and was verified by her Confessor and Spiritual Director Father Michael Sopocko. Also, S. Faustina Kowalska wrote letters to priests and nuns and to her own family.
The Letters of S. Faustina Kowalska have been published as a book.
Therefore it is really wicked and dishonest of these liars to pretend that she could not write.
The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska has been very accurately translated into English.
So you can have real confidence in the accuracy of the translation of The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska.
So again Diego did not speak the truth.
You claim that the objectionable parts of the diary were mistranslated, but provide no specifics.
Again what Diego says is completely untrue.
I had already addressed that issue exhaustively:
I had already provided the following specifics:
Diego asked about translations.
The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska is a meticulously accurate translation from the Polish.
An international team of experts, comprised of priests, nuns, laity, carefully translated the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowlaska into English.
The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska can be read online for free by clicking this link:
http://www.saint-faustina.com/Diary/DMIMS1.shtml
The Footnotes to the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska can be read online for free by clicking this link:
http://www.saint-faustina.com/Diary/footnotes.html
This online book is completely accurate. It is the same as the physical paper book which you can buy.
The translation of the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska is completely accurate.
All the editions of the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska in English are from the same meticulously accurate translation.
So if you buy the book, The Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska, you can have complete confidence that it is the true translation.
A Novena prayer from the Diary has been reprinted separately in prayer books.
This has sometimes been changed by modernists. It is NOT the Diary itself which has been changed, but only this Novena prayer which has only been changed in some prayer books.
In the Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska, it says:
"Today bring to Me the pagans and those who do not yet know me. I was thinking also of them during My bitter Passion, and their future zeal comforted My Heart. Immerse them in the ocean of My mercy.”
In some prayer books, they have dared to remove Our Lord’s words: “the pagans”.
Instead, in some prayer books, they have put: “THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD”
Most Compassionate Jesus, You are the Light of the whole world. Receive into the abode of Your Most Compassionate Heart the souls of pagans who as yet do not know You. Let the rays of Your grace enlighten them that they, too, together with us, may extol Your wonderful mercy; and do not let them escape from the abode which is Your Most Compassionate Heart.
In some prayer books, they have removed S. Faustina Kowalska’s words: “pagans who as yet do not know you”.
Instead, in some prayer books, they have put: “those who do not believe in God and of those who as yet do not know you.”
May the light of Your love
Enlighten the souls in darkness;
Grant that these souls will know You
And, together with us, praise Your mercy.
In some prayer books, they have left out this prayer which includes the words: “Enlighten the souls in darkness;”
Eternal Father, turn Your merciful gaze upon the souls of pagans and of those who as yet do not know You, but who are enclosed in the Most Compassionate Heart of Jesus. Draw them to the light of the Gospel. These souls do not know what great happiness it is to love You. Grant that they, too, may extol the generosity of Your ' mercy for endless ages. Amen.
In some prayer books, they have removed the word of S. Faustina Kowalska: “pagans”
Instead, in some prayer books, they have put: “those who do not believe in you”
Fifth Day
“Today bring to Me the souls of heretics and schismatics, and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy. During My bitter Passion they tore at My Body and Heart; that is, My Church. As they return to unity with the Church, My wounds heal, and in this way they alleviate My Passion.”
In some prayer books, they have dared to remove Our Lord’s words: “heretics and schismatics”.
Instead, in some prayer books, they have put: “THOSE WHO HAVE SEPARATED THEMSELVES FROM MY CHURCH”
Most Merciful Jesus, Goodness Itself, You do not refuse light to those who seek it of You. Receive into the abode of Your Most Compassionate Heart the souls of heretics and schismatics. Draw them by Your light into the unity of the Church, and do not let them escape from the abode of Your Most Compassionate Heart; but bring it about that they, too, come to adore the generosity of Your mercy.
In some prayer books, they have removed the words of S. Faustina Kowalska: “heretics and schismatics”.
Instead, in some prayer books, they have put: “those who have separated themselves from Your Church.”
Even for those who have torn the garment of Your unity,
A fount of mercy flows from Your Heart.
The omnipotence of Your mercy, Oh God.
Can lead these souls also out of error.
In some prayer books, they have left out this prayer which includes the words: “Can lead these souls also out of error.”
Eternal Father, turn Your merciful gaze upon the souls of heretics and schismatics, who have squandered Your blessings and misused Your graces by obstinately persisting in their errors. Do not look upon their errors, but upon the love of Your own Son and upon His bitter Passion, which He underwent for their sake, since they, too, are enclosed in the Most Compassionate Heart of Jesus. Bring it about that they also may glorify Your great mercy for endless ages. Amen.
In some prayer books, they have removed the words of S. Faustina Kowalska: “heretics and schismatics”.
Instead, in some prayer books, they have put: “those who have separated themselves from Your Son’s Church”
It is only some prayer books in circulation that contain a bad translation of a novena.
The Diary itself has been meticulously translated into English.
The Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska contains the true Novena of The Divine Mercy Prayers.
The Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska is a highly accurate translation.
So again Diego did not tell the truth.
I had provided specifics about mistranslation, and I had even started the above quote with the words: "Diego asked about translations."
No matter how manic your obsession ... the simple fact remains—the supposed diary is a fraud with objectionable content.
That is just another lie.
Diego states the lie that The Diary is a fraud.
Diego cannot furnish any evidence of that, because there is none.
The Diary is genuine.
THE EXPERTS SAY THAT THE DIARY IS GENUINE.
I have cited numerous authorities to prove what I have said about The Divine Mercy.
As everyone here can easily see, simply by reading this thread.
Diego has cited nothing.
He cannot prove a single thing that he has said. Because it is Lies.
He just makes brief, cheap, empty responses, because he has nothing worthwhile to say.
His posts are very dishonest, and in that they are a reflection of their author.
He is a man of bad will.
He is not sincere.
Diego also talked about obsession.
I have never started a thread about The Divine Mercy on CathInfo. Not even one.
I have only responded to what others have said.
Diego has brought The Divine Mercy up on two different threads in the last few days.
Diego has done that on Gobosox's thread about the end of the world, and on this one.
The reason he and I are arguing now is because Diego had the vile bad taste to derail a thank-you thread, repeatedly, with lies.
Diego was rebuked about that by Vladimir, one of the many decent people here.
Graham and Raoul76, etc. have pointed out that what Diego posted was untrue on the thread Diego started about California.
Diego has not got a proper regard for the truth.
Diego is simply a liar.
On another thread, Diego expressed doubts about the "Era of Peace" prophesied by Our Lady.
Ascetik had to rebuke Diego.
Ascetik said to Diego: Didn't seem like you were relaxed before... you went on some pope bashing, anti Saint Faustina tirade just because I simply linked to a page with sources on it that you didn't like.
Well, the deposit of Faith doesn't say you have to believe in Fatima or Lourdes or The Sacred Heart apparitions of St. Catherine Laboure either. It also not required in the deposit of Faith to believe in approved miracles or the Shroud of Turin either. So it seems like an entirely superfluous argument to me to just disregard prophecies of the great chastisement/3DD/period of peace just because it's not part of the deposit of faith.
The great chastisement/period of peace , what have you, is not whether its necessary for salvation to believe in it, but whether it will happen. You are certainly free to believe there will be no period of peace and that man will continue into a downward spiral until the Second Coming, but I personally believe there will be a period of peace.
You are free to reject that, although I don't see why anyone would after reading what Mary and the saints and prophecies have said.
Diego has treated an eighteenth century Pope's words with contempt.
Diego rejects the Imprimaturs of the Catholic Church.
On another thread, Diego posted the absurd claim that California had been ticked out of 8 TRILLION DOLLARS of tax.
CathInfo members Graham and Raoul76, etc. on that thread showed that Diego's claim was untrue.
What Diego says is too often untrue.
He is full of pride.
Diego has misled people about The Divine Mercy, as anyone of good will can see from reading this thread.
Also, I would draw the Forum's attention to the fact that Diego has not answered my question.
I asked Diego, if he was a Feenyite.
He has not answered.
Do you not have the integrity to answer that question, Diego?
Are you a Feenyite, Diego?
-
It does not require an infallible act.
If it is not infallible and not de fide. No Catholic is bound to it.
The Divine Mercy was given many Imprimaturs by the Catholic Church in the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI and in the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII. When the Imprimatur has been given, the Church has spoken. The matter is closed. We are not protestants.
An Imprimatur is simply a permission to publish. An imprimatur is not infallible, not de fide, and no Catholic is bound to it. Don't believe me? Look at the mountains of Novus Ordo horse droppings published under imprimaturs.
I am not a Protestant. Since you brought up the subject, I don't know about you.
This is from “The Casuist” (A.D. 1906)
[yawn] Not Magisterium.
...Pope Benedict XIV said: When the Church has examined and approved these visions, no one may any longer doubt their supernatural and divine origin.
He says, "these visions." What visions? What is the antecedent of "these"?
Does this "saying" have ex cathedra character?
You are not meant to try and find fault with the decisions of the Church.
You are supposed to accept the decisions of the Church.
You are meant to be obedient to the Church.
That is how the Saints behaved.
They aspired to perfect obedience to the Church.
So should we.
Coming from a sede vacantist pushing a Bogus Ordo fraud, this may be one of the most hypocritical (or schizophrenic) exhortations I have ever heard.
Where is your side-by-side evidence that the Diary of Many Handwriting Styles has been misquoted? Certainly it is a fraud in itself, but where is your evidence that the fraud has been misquoted?
-
If we all could please use larger fonts, my neighbour could read Cathinfo thread's from his house through my glass door to save electricity. Thank you.
Same text for those few people sitting directly in front of their computers:
If we all could please use larger fonts, my neighbour could read Cathinfo thread's from his house through my glass door to save electricity. Thank you.
:scratchchin:
-
Why do you ignore the Imprimaturs of the Catholic Church of Pope Pius XI and of Pope Pius XII?
Can you concisely list these "imprimaturs?" Just list the references as to what was approved and by whom. Please respond with something short and concise.
THE NIHIL OBSTATS AND IMPRIMATURS GIVEN TO THE DIVINE MERCY BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF POPE PIUS XI AND POPE PIUS XII GUARANTEE THAT THE DIVINE MERCY IS ENTIRELY FREE FROM ANY THEOLOGICAL ERRORS WHATSOEVER
.
The "nihil obstat" is provided by a censor who reviews the written material. The "imprimatur" is a permission granted for printing by an ordinary.
Divine Mercy contains theological errors, that is a fact. This is why the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottiavani put the diary on the index and suppressed any local devotions, but I believe it was left to the ordinary to determine the exact timing and method of supression.
-
If we all could please use larger fonts, my neighbour could read Cathinfo thread's from his house through my glass door to save electricity. Thank you.
Same text for those few people sitting directly in front of their computers:
If we all could please use larger fonts, my neighbour could read Cathinfo thread's from his house through my glass door to save electricity. Thank you.
:scratchchin:
[size=9]Even adults can play.[/size]
See 3:38 pm here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19145&min=10&num=10
-
Even adults can play.
See 3:38 pm here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19145&min=10&num=10
I saw it and got the giggles.
Diego, you are priceless. :-)
P.S. Those people having difficulties with the font size on the screen : please install the Firefox browser and use its menu "View" and then sub-menu "Zoom" to increase or decrease all the fonts on screen (ctrl and "+" or "-" key does the same).
-
Sede Catholic, while I stand corrected on canonizations & read your information on Divine Mercy, I still do not like or believe in the Divine Mercy picture or devotions & have a take it or leave it attitude toward it. Therefore I don't intend to get in an argument over it.
I do believe in divine mercy. That's enough for me. I don't need signs & wonders.
-
Yes, I was also taught that Canonizations ARE infallible, however, I have also heard that canonizations that were done by the faithful and not the pope are not infallible. Some saints in the early church were declared Saints from other Christians. As I said, I am confused about that because it is something that I read on the Internet.
If a true pope canonized a saint to Saint, that was infallible.
To add to what you have written - Only GOD can elevate a Saint.
The canonization process is an instrument whereby the Church identifies that this
has occured.
-
Even adults can play.
See 3:38 pm here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19145&min=10&num=10
I saw it and got the giggles.
Diego, you are priceless. :-)
P.S. Those people having difficulties with the font size on the screen : please install the Firefox browser and use its menu "View" and then sub-menu "Zoom" to increase or decrease all the fonts on screen (ctrl and "+" or "-" key does the same).
Thank you.