Eastern Catholics celebrating Divine Mercy Sunday?

[Cecil_Corn]

Divine Mercy Sunday wasn’t celebrated at the EF Mass I went to and I’d imagine it wasn’t celebrated at most EC parishes.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The title of Divine Mercy Sunday is really just a sub-title that has been added onto the Second Sunday of Easter.

Nothing changed when Pope John Paul II made this “change”. All that happened is that now in the Ordo (calendar) and the Missal you will see an entry that says Second Sunday of Easter (or Divine Mercy Sunday).

No prayers have been changed. The readings are the same as they had been before.

Some parishes choose to display the Divine Mercy image. Some will pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet before or after the Mass.

It is not a new Solemnity. After all, every Sunday is a Solemnity.

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

I concur. As we see this persistent advise to our OP hasn’t resulted in that happening.

Divine Mercy is special. If you are Catholic you should celebrate it. Thomas Sunday should be rechristened Divine Mercy Sunday because this is what Jesus asked for. Fyi, its the same Gospel reading anyway.

It seems that sometimes people use Latinization as an excuse to move the Eastern Churches farther from Rome and back to Orthodoxy.

This should be a feast of the Universal Church.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Since when does private revelation, even when held in high esteem by a Pope, supercede Patristic Tradition, even outaide the Pope’s Patriarchal Church? Sure Eastern bishops can choose to do so or not, but nothing in Catholicism demands your statement and in fact many contradict it.

 

[Casilda]

This is an old thread, but being as I was restored to the Church as an Eastern Catholic, we did not have a DM Sunday. Last year, when out of town, I did attend a Latin parish’s DM Sunday.

 

[porthos11]

Divine Mercy is special. If you are Catholic you should celebrate it. Thomas Sunday should be rechristened Divine Mercy Sunday because this is what Jesus asked for. Fyi, its the same Gospel reading anyway.

It seems that sometimes people use Latinization as an excuse to move the Eastern Churches farther from Rome and back to Orthodoxy.

This should be a feast of the Universal Church.

No, for the simple reason that Divine Mercy Sunday is a devotion (and therefore nobody is bound to celebrate it) and it does not override liturgy. There will be no “re-christening” of Low Sunday to anything else, as it is the Octave Day of Easter. That is the second-highest ranking day of the liturgical calendar and no private revelation can ever trump the Easter celebration. There is no “Mass of Divine Mercy”. It is always the Mass and Office of the Octave Day of Easter (Low Sunday), with the rank of Solemnity, and the Sequence of Easter can even be sung.

The Octave is a most ancient practice and emphasizes the Solemnity. Given that there are only two Octaves left in the Calendar tells us how special these Solemnities are. No 20th-century apparition, no matter how approved, can justify messing with the Octave of Easter.

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

Since when does private revelation, even when held in high esteem by a Pope, supercede Patristic Tradition, even outaide the Pope’s Patriarchal Church? Sure Eastern bishops can choose to do so or not, but nothing in Catholicism demands your statement and in fact many contradict it.

What about St. Paul was that not a private revelation?

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

No, for the simple reason that Divine Mercy Sunday is a devotion (and therefore nobody is bound to celebrate it) and it does not override liturgy. There will be no “re-christening” of Low Sunday to anything else, as it is the Octave Day of Easter. That is the second-highest ranking day of the liturgical calendar and no private revelation can ever trump the Easter celebration. There is no “Mass of Divine Mercy”. It is always the Mass and Office of the Octave Day of Easter (Low Sunday), with the rank of Solemnity, and the Sequence of Easter can even be sung.

The Octave is a most ancient practice and emphasizes the Solemnity. Given that there are only two Octaves left in the Calendar tells us how special these Solemnities are. No 20th-century apparition, no matter how approved, can justify messing with the Octave of Easter.

It is a remarkably liturgical devotion… Well sorry it has already been done, and in doing we see how false is your thesis as it doesn’t really mess with, but rather, compliments the Octave of Easter. So you can get on board or you can be a Protestant.

 

[porthos11]

It is a remarkably liturgical devotion… Well sorry it has already been done, and in doing we see how false is your thesis as it doesn’t really mess with, but rather, compliments the Octave of Easter. So you can get on board or you can be a Protestant.

It isn’t a liturgical devotion. It’s a private devotion, and a private revelation.

Private revelations bind none of the faithful even if approved by the Church.

And no, my thesis is not false. Study the 2002 Missal and you will see that while the phrase “also known as Divine Mercy Sunday” is attached a subtitle, none of the texts were ever changed from the Mass of the Octave of Easter. Divine Mercy is NOT liturgically celebrated. Nothing, as in absolutely nothing, ever overrides the Octave of Easter. Sorry to say, but I am not the one who is off. You are.

Further, calling me a Protestant is patently false, because again, no private revelation is binding on the faithful. It may be imprudent to do so, but any Catholic can freely disregard any private revelation or devotion without sin.

 

[porthos11]

What about St. Paul was that not a private revelation?

St. Paul’s revelations have been recorded in Scripture. That makes them part of the deposit of faith, and are therefore PUBLIC revelation and binding on the faithful.

Public revelation closed with the death of St. John.

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

This is an old thread, but being as I was restored to the Church as an Eastern Catholic, we did not have a DM Sunday. Last year, when out of town, I did attend a Latin parish’s DM Sunday.

I would argue that Thomas Sunday is already and has always been in reality Divine Mercy Sunday. When St. Faustina inquired about the Feast that Jesus asked her to make celebrated she found out it already existed. Now arguably in some ways the Divine Mercy was a correction for the Western Liturgy and maybe it is not so needed in the Eastern Rites where mercy is already liturgically emphasized. Nevertheless it would be good for the whole Church in this time of renewed persecution.

If anything it represents even less of a change for the Byzantine Rites than it did for the Latin rite. Nothing would change about Thomas Sunday. It would still be the second octave in Easter and the liturgy would be the same with the exception that their is modern acknowledgement of this ancient focus, and the emphasis would be on the universality of the feast for the Church.

What is needed now is humility. Lets not repeat the mistakes of the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th centuries that lead to increased division and bitterness between the Eastern and Western Rites.

 

[porthos11]

I would argue that Thomas Sunday is already and has always been in reality Divine Mercy Sunday. When St. Faustina inquired about the Feast that Jesus asked her to make celebrated she found out it already existed. Now arguably in some ways the Divine Mercy was a correction for the Western Liturgy and maybe it is not so needed in the Eastern Rites where mercy is already liturgically emphasized. Nevertheless it would be good for the whole Church in this time of renewed persecution.

If anything it represents even less of a change for the Byzantine Rites than it did for the Latin rite. Nothing would change about Thomas Sunday. It would still be the second octave in Easter and the liturgy would be the same with the exception that their is modern acknowledgement of this ancient focus, and the emphasis would be on the universality of the feast for the Church.

What is needed now is humility. Lets not repeat the mistakes of the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th centuries that lead to increased division and bitterness between the Eastern and Western Rites.

Divine Mercy Sunday did not change a single word to the texts of the Western liturgy.

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

It isn’t a liturgical devotion. It’s a private devotion, and a private revelation.

Private revelations bind none of the faithful even if approved by the Church.

And no, my thesis is not false. Study the 2002 Missal and you will see that while the phrase “also known as Divine Mercy Sunday” is attached a subtitle, none of the texts were ever changed from the Mass of the Octave of Easter. Divine Mercy is NOT liturgically celebrated. Nothing, as in absolutely nothing, ever overrides the Octave of Easter. Sorry to say, but I am not the one who is off. You are.

Further, calling me a Protestant is patently false, because again, no private revelation is binding on the faithful. It may be imprudent to do so, but any Catholic can freely disregard any private revelation or devotion without sin.

You say that your thesis was not false then you go and support my argument that your thesis is in fact false. Confused at all?

Yes exactly because the second Sunday in the Octave of Easter was already Divine Mercy Sunday as is Thomas Sunday. Nothing would change except this emphasis on unity which you seem to want to resist and which is arguably what lead the schism between the East and West to begin with.

How is St. Faustina different than St. Paul? Did Paul not have a private revelation which gave new insight into public revelation? You resistance then to it seems entirely irrational and prideful. How is this not harboring the spirit of protest within your heart, hence Protestantism?

You said it yourself already. How would adding Divine Mercy Sunday as a subtitle to Thomas Sunday and acknowledging the theology expressed in this private revelation that the Church’s magisterium has determined is a benefit to the universal Church be something you desire to oppose so vigorously?

 

[porthos11]

You say that your thesis was not false then you go and support my argument that your thesis false. Confused at all?

Yes. I’m not sure where you’re drawing this from. My thesis is not false.

Yes exactly because the second Sunday in the Octave of Easter was already Divine Mercy Sunday as is the Thomas Sunday. Nothing would change except this emphasis on unity which you seem to want to resist and which is arguably what lead the schism between the East and West to begin with.

It was not Divine Mercy Sunday until St. John Paul II declared it to be.

How is St. Faustina different than St. Paul? Did Paul not have a private revelation which gave new insight into public revelation? Is this not the same thing. You resistance then to it seems entirely irrational and prideful. How is this not harboring the spirit of protest within your heart, hence Protestantism?

BIG difference. St. Paul was an apostle, and his revelations all took place while the apostles were still alive, i.e. before the death of St. John. This makes St. Paul’s revelations part of the deposit of faith.

St. Faustina came centuries after St. John’s death, when public revelation closed.

Everyone is bound to public revelation. No one is bound to private revelation.

You said it yourself already. How would adding Divine Mercy Sunday as a subtitle to Thomas Sunday and acknowledging the theology expressed in this private revelation that the Church’s magisterium as determined is a benefit to the universal Church something you need to oppose so vigorously?

Because the texts of the liturgy have not changed. Not a single word. East AND West.

 

[wynd]

Yes exactly because the second Sunday in the Octave of Easter was already Divine Mercy Sunday as is Thomas Sunday. Nothing would change except this emphasis on unity which you seem to want to resist and which is arguably what lead the schism between the East and West to begin with.

Exhibit A as to why Orthodox Christians are sometimes wary of any prospect of reunion with the Catholic Church. “Unity” doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean “everyone takes on 20th-century Latin spirituality.”

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

It was not Divine Mercy Sunday until St. John Paul II declared it to be.

.

So your problem is that you don’t really understand what the Divine Mercy actually is. This has been the source of so much division within the Church.

When St. Faustina inquired about the feast Jesus asked her to have the Universal Church celebrate she found out it already existed. It is in fact not new, it is a very old part of our liturgical custom preserved in both the Eastern and Latin Rites. This is why your thesis is wrong because this in no way shape or form messes with the octave of Easter. As I said it compliments it. Puts a increased emphasis upon it that is particular to Church unity and this time of post-christian persecution we are entering with a vengeance. So yes the all the Churches need to subtitle second Sunday in the Octave of Easter Divine Mercy Sunday and they need to take the revelation seriously and explore how it informs the oldest liturgical impulses of the Church.

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

Exhibit A as to why Orthodox Christians are sometimes wary of any prospect of reunion with the Catholic Church. “Unity” doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean “everyone takes on 20th-century Latin spirituality.”

This exactly why the schism happened in the first place. This is not 20th century Latin Spirituality. Jesus made this for you too, and if it had been nun with a second grade education in some Eastern order of the Church I would be saying the same thing. Because I have no wish to make a fetish out of my theology.

 

[porthos11]

So your problem is that you don’t really understand what the Divine Mercy actually is. This has been the source of so much division within the Church.

When St. Faustina inquired about the feast Jesus asked her to have the Universal Church celebrate she found out it already existed. It is in fact not new, it is a very old part of our liturgical custom preserved in both the Eastern and Latin Rites. This is why your thesis is wrong because this in no way shape or form messes with the octave of Easter. As I said it compliments it. Puts a increased emphasis upon it that is particular to Church unity and this time of post-christian persecution we are entering with a vengeance. So yes the all the Churches need to subtitle second Sunday in the Octave of Easter Divine Mercy Sunday and they need to take the revelation seriously and explore how it informs the oldest liturgical impulses of the Church.

If merely subtitling it is all this entails there is no problem.

But “Divine Mercy” will never be liturgically celebrated ever, at least, not on that day. So there will be no “re-christening”. It will always be Thomas Sunday in the East and Low Sunday in the West. Divine Mercy is observed with private devotional activity on that day, as is the indulgence.

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

If merely subtitling it is all this entails there is no problem.

But “Divine Mercy” will never be liturgically celebrated ever, at least, not on that day. So there will be no “re-christening”. It will always be Thomas Sunday in the East and Low Sunday in the West. Divine Mercy is observed with private devotional activity on that day, as is the indulgence.

As you already have demonstrated it is not liturgically celebrated in the Latin rite either. So why would your Church need to liturgical celebrate it when no else is?

So you say hey there is no problem. Then your ugly pride rears it head again, and you stamp your foot down and you seem to want to tell me exactly where I can stick my private devotion. But you know what? I am only the messenger here. If you want to deny the veracity of the revelation then go ahead, but I would caution you that you do so to your own peril. Cause’ when Jesus gives us a revelation to inform our theology and especially when it is clear that it was intended for all cultures within the Church I know I would choose to listen no matter where it came from. But if you instead wish to make a fetish out of your liturgical culture just like the Protestants do with the Bible, where they completely strip it from it proper context and actually in this way abuse it, then go right ahead but more the pity to you.

 

[porthos11]

As you already have demonstrated it is not liturgically celebrated in the Latin rite either. So why would your Church need to liturgical celebrate it when no else is?

So you say hey there is no problem. Then your ugly pride rears it head again, and you stamp your foot down and you seem to want to tell me exactly where I can stick my private devotion. But you know what? I am only the messenger here. If you want to deny the veracity of the revelation then go ahead, but I would caution you that you do so to your own peril. Cause’ when Jesus gives us a revelation to inform our theology and especially when it is clear that it was intended for all cultures within the Church I know I would choose to listen no matter where it came from. But if you instead wish to make a fetish out of your liturgical culture just like the Protestants do with the Bible, where they completely strip it from it proper context and actually in this way abuse it, then go right ahead but more the pity to you.

Perhaps you can refrain from calling people names. It’s hurtful.