Is The Divine Mercy Devotion Catholic?

Is The Divine Mercy Devotion Catholic?

As we approach Divine Mercy Sunday, it might be a good idea to reflect on this relatively new devotion and Feast Day in the Church.   Personally, I’ve never been attracted to it at all. I dislike the image which compares very unfavourably, in my view, to the traditional image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and I’m taken aback by some of the things Our Lord allegedly said to Sister Faustina.  However, I realise a lot of faithful Catholics do like the image and pray the Divine Mercy devotions sincerely. This thread is not, in any way, intended to be a criticism of them. 

Two articles are offered here to encourage discussion. The first is  a very honest enquiry on an American blog, entitled Criticisms and Responses to the Divine Mercy Devotion  and the second is the article below, by Fr Peter Scott, a priest of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX)  which is thought provoking.  After reading the articles, please feel free to share your thoughts on the topic proposed for discussion: Is the Divine Mercy Devotion Catholic?

******************************************************

What are we to think of the Divine Mercy devotion?

Many people have certainly received graces from the devotion to Divine Mercy propagated by St. Faustina, and her personal piety was certainly most exemplary. However, this does not necessarily mean that this devotion is from God. It is true that Pope John Paul II promoted this devotion, that it was through his efforts that the prohibition was lifted on April 15, 1978, and that he even introduced a feast of Divine Mercy into the Novus Ordo. However, the fact that good and pious people receive graces and that Sister Faustina was pious do not necessarily means that it is from heaven. In fact, it was not only not approved before Vatican II. It was condemned, and this despite the fact that the prayers themselves of the chaplet of Divine Mercy are orthodox.

Condemned by the Holy Office

There were two decrees from Rome on this question, both of the time of Pope John XXIII. The Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, in a plenary meeting held on November 19, 1958, made the following decisions:

The supernatural nature of the revelations made to Sister Faustina is not evident.

No feast of Divine Mercy is to be instituted.

It is forbidden to divulge images and writings that propagate this devotion under the form received by Sister Faustina.

The second decree of the Holy Office was on March 6, 1959, in which the following was established:

The diffusion of images and writings promoting the devotion to Divine Mercy under the form proposed by the same Sister Faustina was forbidden.

The prudence of the bishops is to judge as to the removal of the aforesaid images that are already displayed for public honor.

What was it about this devotion that prevented the Holy Office from acknowledging its divine origin? The decrees do not say, but it seems that the reason lies in the fact that there is so much emphasis on God’s mercy as to exclude His justice. Our sins and the gravity of the offense that they inflict on God is pushed aside as being of little consequence. That is why the aspect of reparation for sin is omitted or obscured.

The true image of God’s mercy is the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced with a lance, crowned with thorns, dripping precious blood. The Sacred Heart calls for a devotion of reparation, as the popes have always requested. However, this is not the case with the Divine Mercy devotion. The image has no heart. It is a Sacred Heart without a heart, without reparation, without the price of our sins being clearly evident. It is this that makes the devotion very incomplete and makes us suspicious of its supernatural origin, regardless of Sister Faustina’s own good intentions and personal holiness. This absence of the need for reparation for sins is manifest in the strange promise of freedom from all the temporal punishment due to sin for those who observe the 3:00 p.m. Low Sunday devotions. How could such a devotion be more powerful and better than a plenary indulgence, applying the extraordinary treasury of the merits of the saints? How could it not require as a condition that we perform a penitential work of our own? How could it not require the detachment from even venial sin that is necessary to obtain a plenary indulgence?

Presumption in the Writings of Sister Faustina

The published Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalski (Marian Press, Stockbridge, MA, 2007) also indicates several reasons to seriously question the supernatural origin of the more than 640 pages of voluminous and repeated apparitions and messages. The characteristic of any true mystic who has received supernatural graces is always a profound humility, sense of unworthiness, awareness and profession of the gravity of his sins. Yet this humility is strangely lacking in Sister Faustina’s diary. On October 2, 1936, for example, she states that the “Lord Jesus” spoke these words to her: “Now I know that it is not for the graces or gifts that you love me, but because My will is dearer to you than life. That is why I am uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.” (§707, p. 288). This gives every appearance of being a claim of being more united to Jesus than anybody else, even the Blessed Virgin Mary, and certainly more than all the other saints. What pride, to believe such an affirmation, let alone to assert that it came from heaven!

In April 1938, Sister Faustina read the canonization of St. Andrew Bobola and was filled with longing and tears that her congregation might have its own saint. Then she affirms the following: “And the Lord Jesus said to me, Don’t cry. You are that saint.” (§1650, p. 583). These are words that most certainly no true saint would affirm, but rather his sinfulness and unworthiness of his congregation. This presumption in her writings is not isolated. She praises herself on several occasions through the words supposedly uttered by Jesus. Listen to this interior locution, for example: “Beloved pearl of My Heart, I see your love so pure, purer than that of the angels, and all the more so because you keep fighting. For your sake I bless the world.” (§1061, p. 400). On May 23, 1937 she describes a vision of the Holy Trinity, after which she heard a voice saying: “Tell the Superior General to count on you as the most faithful daughter in the Order” (§1130, p. 417). It is consequently hardly surprising that Sister Faustina claimed to be exempt from the Particular and General Judgments. On February 4, 1935, she already claimed to hear this voice in her soul: “From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged” (§374, p. 168). Add to this the preposterous affirmation that the host three times over jumped out of the tabernacle and placed itself in her hands (§44, p. 23), so that she had to open up the tabernacle herself and place it back in there, tells the story of a presumption on God’s grace which goes beyond all reason, let alone as the action of a person supposedly favored with innumerable and repeated mystical and supernatural graces.

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

Comments (176)

  • Andrea Chamberlain

    Re: the mosaic law issue it was Joseph not having Mary stoned, nothing to do with their marriage which of course was fully valid from the time of part I.

    Christ allowed His body to be profaned by the hands of sinners at the time of His passion. He can do what He wants with His body when He wants whether we understand it or not. Certainly what is happening now post-Vatican II in terms of sacrilege compares to nothing else ever in history.

    Baby Jesus has been held and touched by other saints who played with Him as children – before they were priests. No one thinks of this as a problem as far as I have ever been able to tell or read.

    I don’t really understand what people here are saying though. Is someone saying that it was really Satan appearing to St. Faustina and he who took the Eucharist out of the tabernacle and put it in her hands? Is someone saying that St. Faustina made everything up and had no visions? Is someone saying she was psychotic and imagined everything? Is someone saying that it may have been Christ who placed Himself in her hands but she sinned by putting Him back in the tabernacle and if so how would she have avoided sinning in such a case?

    And I certainly haven’t meant to accuse anyone of trying not to listen to evidence or anything similar. I am just passionate about issues I believe in and I know that most people don’t change their minds about things, no matter what, including me.

    I must confess that I feel its better to err on the side of belief in most cases because of the story of what happened to the bishop who suppressed La Sallette at his funeral. That scares the living daylights out of me. I will see if I can find the story again online. I know even St. Padre Pio was briefly fooled by a false apparition which also makes me not want to disbelieve anything too readily.

    January 25, 2018 at 12:01 am
    • editor

      You say that Christ “allowed His body to be profaned at the hands of sinners at the time of His passion”. Well, yes, and so we know that the only people to handle Christ were those inflicting pain on His Body. That’s surely not an argument in support of Communion in the hand. Who wants to be listed among Christ’s abusers?

      As for your claim that the Baby Jesus was held and touched by saints – never heard of that and I’ve read widely over the years on the lives of a large number of saints. I know that saints such as Therese of Lisieux had a devotion to the Child Jesus but I’ve never heard or read anywhere that she played with Him!

      However, these attempts to justify Communion in the hand won’t work. The Church’s tradition from the earliest times, when the reception of Communion in the hand was prohibited as the understanding of the Real Presence grew and to avoid abuses, cannot be discounted so easily. Exceptions make bad law, so even if there were an example to be found of a saint who touched the Child Jesus, that does not change the fact that it is self-evidently scandalous for lay people to handle the Blessed Sacrament in these faithless days when large numbers of Catholics clearly have doubts about the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Surveys conducted in the USA have shown as many as 70% not believing that truth of the Faith.

      As for “what are people here saying…” I think we’ve between us explained very clearly that Christ would not act in a way to contradict the ruling of His Church, which, at the time of Sr Faustina’s claims about the “flying Host”, unequivocally forbade Communion in the hand. Just as Our Lady, at Lourdes and elsewhere, in private apparitions where the local priest or bishop instructed the seer not to return to the vision site, she always complied. Never once did she advocate disobeying the Bishop. Such is the delicacy of Heaven towards the authority which Christ Himself bequeathed to His Church.

      January 25, 2018 at 9:40 am
    • Athanasius

      Andrea

      The Divine Mercy apparitions were originally rejected and placed on the Index by the Church. It was after Vatican II, and with a Polish Pope, that they suddenly found favour and became popular. LaSalette is likewise dubious and Medjugorje is a demonstrable fraud, as I’m sure you will agree.

      The upshot of it all during these dangerous days of confusion and crisis is: don’t lay too much store by these kinds of reported apparitions. Trust Lourdes, Fatima, etc., but not those questionable ones at such a questionable time. Besides, they are a complete distraction.

      January 26, 2018 at 12:50 am
  • Andrea Chamberlain

    I found the reported events after La Sallette on a website called op54rosary – so this is what I was referencing above – I will summarize:

    1. Bishop Ginoulhiac died in an insane asylum
    2. Bishop Fava his successor was found dead on the floor naked with his fists clenched and his eyes wide open
    3. Bishop Gilbert of Amiens was found dead on the floor and then during his funeral his coffin inexplicably fell off it’s stand and rolled into the street
    4. Archbishop Darboy of Paris was assassinated by a mob just as Maximin had advised him he would be within 3 years of his interview

    January 25, 2018 at 3:32 am
    • editor

      Andrea,

      If those things really happened, then they were caused by diabolical activity. God does not work in that way. Even those popes who did not comply with Our Lady’s requests at Fatima, did not suffer in that way – heavens, they’ve been canonised!

      So, that won’t wash. Apart from anything else, La Salette was a private revelation and no Catholic is obliged to accept or believe a private revelation (Fatima is in a different category – it’s a public, prophetic revelation)

      January 25, 2018 at 9:27 am
  • Andrea Chamberlain

    Yes of course no one is obliged to believe in any private revelation and I have no idea why things don’t happen similar to that in other situations… The only other parallel event I have heard of is the ending of the French monarchy exactly 100 years after their refusal to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. But maybe Vatican II is itself everyone’s ongoing punishment for the suppression of the message of Fatima.

    January 25, 2018 at 11:33 pm

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: