Eastern Catholics celebrating Divine Mercy Sunday?

[Devoted_to_Jude]

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.

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

First maybe you’ve finally realized by now, no one is speaking of changing the texts of the liturgy. So this is just you getting upset about your own fantasies. It has nothing to do with what is actually being discussed in reality.

Now the above sounds like a lot of legalism to me. Something else which is common to all forms of Protestantism. No one is suggesting that we make St. Faustina’s diary part of the liturgical cannon. We close what could become canonical with the death of St. John for good reason. I think the central point is that nothing about the Divine Mercy is new. It is all a comment on Public revelation. So even this question isn’t necessary. The problem is her private revelation asked for public recognition. Jesus asked her to make the second Sunday in the Octave of Easter Divine Mercy Sunday, and the Bishop of Rome accepted this.

It is really meant to bring unity to the Church as whole. Unlike the Rosary this isn’t a Latin devotion but devotion clearly that included theological nods to both cultures East and West. It is something we can share, but you don’t seem to want that.

Fine then why make the pretense of being in communion with the Roman Church at all? Why not just go back to Orthodoxy?

 

[porthos11]

First maybe you’ve finally realized by now, no one is speaking of changing the texts of the liturgy. So this is just you getting upset about your own fantasies. It has nothing to do with what is actually being discussed in reality.

Now the above sounds like a lot of legalism to me. Something else which is common to all forms of Protestantism. No one is suggesting that we make St. Faustina’s diary part of the liturgical cannon. We close what could become canonical with the death of St. John for good reason. I think the central point is that nothing about the Divine Mercy is new. It is all a comment on Public revelation. So even this question isn’t necessary. The problem is her private revelation asked for public recognition. Jesus asked her to make the second Sunday in the Octave of Easter Divine Mercy Sunday, and the Bishop of Rome accepted this.

It is really meant to bring unity to the Church as whole. Unlike the Rosary this isn’t a Latin devotion but devotion clearly that included theological nods to both cultures East and West. It is something we can share, but you don’t seem to want that.

Fine then why make the pretense of being in communion with the Roman Church at all? Why not just go back to Orthodoxy?

Prideful. Protestant. Pretense.

Never mind. I already you to not call me names.

 

[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.”

If you turn your back on this devotion that involves the liturgical cultures of both East and West then yes it will over time become solely a facet of Latin spirituality. To me this is an olive branch that Jesus is giving us to unite the Universal Church more fully before the coming unprecedented persecution is brought to bear upon us. Why spite in the face of that?

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

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

What name did I call you? Are you are upset because I alleged that you seem to motivated by a spirit of Protestation? Maybe you are really upset with the fact that the shoe might fit? I am just being honest about what I believe I am observing. I don’t mean to insult you or denigrate you, personally. Even if turns out that my impressions are correct we are all sinners, but if we can’t have an honest conversation then what is the point?

 

[SyroMalankara]

You want an ‘honest conversation’? Honestly you dont know what you are talking about. Your interpretation of private and public revelation is way off, meaning you are self-interpreting eg being protestant. Our bishops in full Communion with the Pope, and of the late St. John Paul the Great have recognized that Thomas Sunday and the Eastern practices and devotions belong in the East and whatever your sui iuris church with its Synod and head decides belongs in the West.

Your misinterpretation would have grave consequences for unity and has never been practiced or mentioned.

If you don’t like it, I suggest you take some time off the internet to pray the Divine Mercy prayers instead of being divisive (protestant) and causing harm to the Church. There are countless private revelations in the East that could make the same universal claims and you could be accused of ignoring them, but we are civil and seek not to injure the Lord’s Body.

 

[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.

I don’t know. This is a prayer given to us by Jesus that comments directly and supplements the Divine Liturgy. I don’t know if we can say theologically if it is liturgical or not. What are you saying that if the Apostles were still alive then this would be okay, but since they aren’t we are free to totally dismiss it?

Again we can’t elevate St. Faustina’s writing to the status of something canonical for exactly the above reason, but then to use that as pretext to dismiss the revelation completely under the rubric of it being merely a private devotion. Then why do we need a magistirum at all?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Do you have theological education or background in canon law? Seems to me that you are treading in unfamiliar waters. You are elevating a devotion held in high esteem in the West and saying the East must accept the practice the way you say so, or we are protestant. No Pope has accused the East of such things, yet you do so lightly and flippantly. Don’t you think you are speaking way above your pay grade?

 

[porthos11]

You want an ‘honest conversation’? Honestly you dont know what you are talking about. Your interpretation of private and public revelation is way off, meaning you are self-interpreting eg being protestant. Our bishops in full Communion with the Pope, and of the late St. John Paul the Great have recognized that Thomas Sunday and the Eastern practices and devotions belong in the East and whatever your sui iuris church with its Synod and head decides belongs in the West.

Your misinterpretation would have grave consequences for unity and has never been practiced or mentioned.

If you don’t like it, I suggest you take some time off the internet to pray the Divine Mercy prayers instead of being divisive (protestant) and causing harm to the Church. There are countless private revelations in the East that could make the same universal claims and you could be accused of ignoring them, but we are civil and seek not to injure the Lord’s Body.

Are you talking to me or him/her?

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

You want an ‘honest conversation’? Honestly you dont know what you are talking about. Your interpretation of private and public revelation is way off, meaning you are self-interpreting eg being protestant. Our bishops in full Communion with the Pope, and of the late St. John Paul the Great have recognized that Thomas Sunday and the Eastern practices and devotions belong in the East and whatever your sui iuris church with its Synod and head decides belongs in the West.

Your misinterpretation would have grave consequences for unity and has never been practiced or mentioned.

If you don’t like it, I suggest you take some time off the internet to pray the Divine Mercy prayers instead of being divisive (protestant) and causing harm to the Church. There are countless private revelations in the East that could make the same universal claims and you could be accused of ignoring them, but we are civil and seek not to injure the Lord’s Body.

You haven’t actually contradicted anything I’ve said. I believe I’ve been clear and cogent so I feel like the confusion is caused by your own projection and resistance. I don’t and obviously can’t disagree with anything in the first paragraph, but the focus of this conversation had shifted to Eastern Rite hostility.

If you want to be productive then why not mention some of those devotions about which you speak, as opposed to merely asserting that they exist and that they contradict me, and in so doing we explore how they might be similar or different together,

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

Do you have theological education or background in canon law? Seems to me that you are treading in unfamiliar waters. You are elevating a devotion held in high esteem in the West and saying the East must accept the practice the way you say so, or we are protestant. No Pope has accused the East of such things, yet you do so lightly and flippantly. Don’t you think you are speaking way above your pay grade?

I do have a theological education, but not much of a background in cannon law. Any specific information to what I am saying involving cannon law would be appreciated.

The rest of this is not what I am saying at all. You don’t have to accept this practice the way I say, and again as I commented a moment ago my comments go more toward your apparent hostility to something the magisterium of the Church believes Jesus clearly intended for the whole Church (something that would cause you no trouble at all but you resist seemingly out of a sense of spite or ignorance motivated by your refusal to learn anything about it due to spiteful feelings). That’s been my main focus is understand your, again apparent, hostility. This seeming spirit of protest against the Magisterium or a revelation by Jesus is why alleged protestation. Because it seems every bit derived from you desire to make a fetish out of your liturgical culture.

Yes I am speaking above my pay-grade obviously. However that doesn’t make what I am saying not, in fact, true. Only a cogent rebuttal that demonstrates my blunder in logic would do that–and a cogent argument is not one comprised of merely naked assertions that I am wrong.

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

You want an ‘honest conversation’? Honestly you dont know what you are talking about. Your interpretation of private and public revelation is way off, meaning you are self-interpreting eg being protestant. Our bishops in full Communion with the Pope, and of the late St. John Paul the Great have recognized that Thomas Sunday and the Eastern practices and devotions belong in the East and whatever your sui iuris church with its Synod and head decides belongs in the West.

Your misinterpretation would have grave consequences for unity and has never been practiced or mentioned.

If you don’t like it, I suggest you take some time off the internet to pray the Divine Mercy prayers instead of being divisive (protestant) and causing harm to the Church. There are countless private revelations in the East that could make the same universal claims and you could be accused of ignoring them, but we are civil and seek not to injure the Lord’s Body.

You seem to fear that any bridge, even one that arguably Jesus requested to be built, between the complimentary distinctions in theological emphasis that exists among the various rites, is really only a pretext for your rite to be overrun by Rome (I also believe this goes to the very highest segments of your ecclesiastical hierarchy and it is the reason that no Pope would dear speak as boldly as I am even if he shared my beliefs-if I were a bishop I certainly would be much, much more politic in expressing these opinions, and for all we know this is what is actually happened behind closed doors. Obviously publicly any hint of Rome pushing anything on the Eastern Churches would have ramifications for restored communion with the Orthodox Churches–and here my lie some underlying motives of your ecclesiastical hierarchy. My bottom line is that we should all just listen to Jesus. If we did then we could actually restore real unity the among all Bishops). Anyway, I think if that if the above is true then it is tremendous pity and a lost opportunity.

Only you know honestly if behind all your protestations that I am factually mistaken about the “differences in private and public revelation” this isn’t the true emotion motivating you.

I can only say that so far your comments have provided no evidence to disabuse me of the belief that it is.

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

Prideful. Protestant. Pretense.

Never mind. I already you to not call me names.

It is tragically funny that in everything I’ve said to you this is what you get hung up on and becomes your focus. Perhaps this explains it all.

Anyway sorry you felt that I called you names. Although factually I don’t believe I did. Even still I am sorry that you feel that way.

 

[SyroMalankara]

You seem to fear that any bridge, even one that arguably Jesus requested to be built, between the complimentary distinctions in theological emphasis that exists among the various rites, is really only a pretext for your rite to be overrun by Rome (I also believe this goes to the very highest segments of your ecclesiastical hierarchy and it is the reason that no Pope would dear speak as boldly as I am even if he shared my beliefs-if I were a bishop I certainly would be much, much more politic in expressing these opinions, and for all we know this is what is actually happened behind closed doors.

So you have some secret knowledge of our hierarchs deepest ‘protestant’ thoughts and inclinations, and are more Catholic than the Pope (in public)?

Obviously publicly any hint of Rome pushing anything on the Eastern Churches would have ramifications for restored communion with the Orthodox Churches–and here my lie some underlying motives of your ecclesiastical hierarchy. My bottom line is that we should all just listen to Jesus. If we did then we could actually restore real unity the among all Bishops). Anyway, I think if that if the above is true then it is tremendous pity and a lost opportunity.

Clearly you are listening to Jesus, while our Bishops, priests, laypersons, even the Pope publicly is just going along because our ‘protestant’ hierarchs are fragile.

Only you know honestly if behind all your protestations that I am factually mistaken about the “differences in private and public revelation” this isn’t the true emotion motivating you.

The ‘emotion’ motivating me is the love of my own Tradition. Would you give your children’s inheritance to your nephew because you say “we’re all family, aren’t we! What’s yours is mine, and what’s mine is mine. C’mon let’s get along, now write me a check!”

I can only say that so far your comments have provided no evidence to disabuse me of the belief that it is.

Of course not, your view on this particular Latin devotion is that it is equal to Divine Revelation given by Jesus directly that only you are publicly unafraid to affirm. Nothing will ‘disabuse’ your belief because it seems to have crossed the line from devotion to litmus test.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The rest of this is not what I am saying at all. You don’t have to accept this practice the way I say, and again as I commented a moment ago my comments go more toward your apparent hostility to something the magisterium of the Church believes Jesus clearly intended for the whole Church (something that would cause you no trouble at all but you resist seemingly out of a sense of spite or ignorance motivated by your refusal to learn anything about it due to spiteful feelings).

Clearly the magisterium doesn’t believe that since it never stated that. The celebration is implemented in the Latin Church universally only. If individual Eastern Bishops add it, that’s up to them, there has never been any universal call for them to do so by anyone.

That’s been my main focus is understand your, again apparent, hostility. This seeming spirit of protest against the Magisterium or a revelation by Jesus is why alleged protestation. Because it seems every bit derived from you desire to make a fetish out of your liturgical culture.

This doesn’t deserve a response except the Orthodox poster is right. Your mentality and statements are why people are weary of Communion with Rome. I will chalk it up to an errant Latin layman misunderstanding his own Tradition, bishops and Pope. The Orthodox may not be so kind.

Yes I am speaking above my pay-grade obviously. However that doesn’t make what I am saying not, in fact, true.

It doesn’t make it true because you assert it with vile accusations and rhetoric either.

Only a cogent rebuttal that demonstrates my blunder in logic would do that–and a cogent argument is not one comprised of merely naked assertions that I am wrong.

Cogent rebuttal.

Private revelation is not equal to Public Revelation. The East has it’s own devotions and Liturgical Calendar. There is no call for the East to adopt wholesale or even a single Latin devotion. Individuals may if they wish celebrate it, if they don’t, no problem.
Divine Mercy, St. Faustina’s visions, Rosary, Latin devotions, etc are all Private even if the Pope accepts it personally and says everyone should pray the Chaplet.

I don’t think anything is benefitted by removing an Eastern Liturgical celebration and replacing it with a Latin private devotion. Unity need not be uniformity. Uniformity would in fact be removing the Catholicity of the Church not emphasizing it.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Let’s try with the words of a Roman theologian:

Is Divine Mercy Devotion Just Based on Private Revelations?
Robert Stackpole Answers Your Divine Mercy Questions
By Dr. Robert Stackpole, STD (Nov 3, 2010)
thedivinemercy.org/library/article.php?NID=2424

Some of our readers encounter clergy on occasion who are not “up-to-speed” with regard to the official response of the Catholic Church to the Divine Mercy message and devotion. Usually, the misunderstanding surrounds the Church’s official stance toward “Divine Mercy Sunday.” For example, a Mr. Siddle wrote to us asking if his bishop and clergy were right in saying that the Feast of The Divine Mercy is based merely on St. Faustina’s “private revelations,” and therefore priests “are under no obligation to celebrate it in their parishes.”

Mr. Siddle, if you have reported to me accurately the viewpoints of your bishop and the clergy in your area, then you can confidently inform them that they are incorrect. “Divine Mercy Sunday” was officially established for the universal Church by a decree of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on May 5, 2000. The Vatican did not create a new feast day for the Church, but it gave a new name for a day that was already a “solemnity” (i.e., a feast of the highest class) in the Church’s liturgical calendar: the octave day of Easter, that is, the Second Sunday of Easter. The document said that from now on this solemnity would be called “Divine Mercy Sunday.”
…
Actually, the English translation of the document said that “in the Roman Missal, after the title ‘Second Sunday of Easter’ shall be added the appellation ‘(or Divine Mercy Sunday).’” However, to be even more precise, the official Latin version of that Vatican decree - and the Latin versions of Vatican decrees always take precedence - phrases it like this: “after the title ‘Second Sunday of Easter’ shall be added the appellation ‘that is [seu] of the Divine Mercy.’” Thus the celebration of Divine Mercy Sunday is not an optional celebration for dioceses and parishes who happen to like that sort of thing! Rather, Divine Mercy Sunday is now the official title for this solemnity in the Roman Missal.

Also, the Vatican did not give this new name to the octave day of Easter merely as a way of commemorating St. Faustina’s special revelations; in fact, the Vatican decree establishing the Feast does not mention St. Faustina at all. Rather, the decree is based on the Church’s historic faith in the merciful love of God, the ancient tradition of focusing the liturgy on the theme of God’s mercy on that Sunday, and the widespread desire of the People of God to celebrate liturgically, and more explicitly, God’s great mercy. Thus, it is true that the celebrant is not required by the Roman Missal to use the devotional forms on that day that come to us from St. Faustina (e.g., the Image, the Chaplet). These things are indeed optional, though highly recommended, since these devotional forms amplify the meaning of that day in the Church calendar (much as the use of the Stations of the Cross on Good Friday, while not required by the Missal, nevertheless reinforce the theme of the day).

…
**While some clergy do not seem to be aware of the official Vatican mandate for the annual, universal celebration of Divine Mercy Sunday, at the same time, some zealous lay people treat St. Faustina’s special revelations, as recorded in her Diary, as the equivalent of infallible Church teaching. For example, David Burke wrote to us: “Wasn’t Sister Faustina’s Diary eventually accredited or approved by the Roman Catholic Church? Didn’t it become one of the Church’s official, sacred documents?”

Well, St. Faustina’s Diary did receive the official approval of the Catholic Church in the sense that it was examined by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and in 1978-79 the Congregation issued statements declaring that the Divine Mercy message and devotion expressed there by Sister Faustina does not violate Catholic doctrine on matters of Faith and Morals.

The Diary has also been published with the nihil obstat (no objection) of the appropriate Church authorities (the copyright page of any authentic translation of the Diary will display this). However, it would not be quite accurate to say that the Diary is now one of the Church’s “official sacred documents.” It is not a proclamation of the Church’s infallible teaching authority, but a fallible record of the private and prophetic revelations given to a saint, and her musings about those revelations.** As such, we are encouraged by the Church to accept it and respect it with the virtue of “prudence,” i.e., as on the whole trustworthy, rather than with the virtue of “divine faith,” i.e., as infallibly revealed by God, and therefore necessary to be believed by all the faithful. Thus, a faithful Catholic could largely disbelieve it and not be guilty of “heresy,” but one who did so would still be guilty of rashness and imprudence. It is overwhelmingly unlikely that a Diary which has been fully examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Church’s highest doctrinal tribunal under the Pope) and by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, and has been praised and quoted repeatedly by popes, and whose author has been canonized as a “saint” (that is, as someone “full-to-overflowing” with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth) would contain serious and unqualified errors and illusions. The Holy Spirit does not abandon the Church when she is making such important acts of discernment (see Jn. 16:13; Acts 15:28). If He did we would be lost indeed!

Robert Stackpole, STD, is director of the John Paul II Institute of Divine Mercy, an apostolate of the Marian Fathers of the Immaculate Conception. Got a question? E-mail him at questions@thedivinemercy.org.

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

This is really irrelevant to any point I’ve made. So you apparently still have not understood anything that I’ve said. I haven’t advocated for any of the things he addresses in his letter. In fact I don’t even have any particular personal attachment to this devotion, so its not like I am blinded by a personal bias and want everyone to worship like me. It is simply that I’ve responded to the message, taken it seriously and understand the logic of the implications therein.

As for my other comments I’ve started to recognize that Protestantism and proto-Protestantism is the perennial problem. Perhaps I may have started to become too quick in assuming it, but then again maybe I’ve just got very good at recognizing the signs. It is relevant to note here the relationship between self-deceit and Protestantism. You seldom have one without the other.

To the extent that we all suffer from it, it is not a problem that I’ve yet fully escaped either. In very significant ways I still lack the fortitude or perhaps its just courage to fully pick-up my own cross much less embrace it.

Really though as for the thread it’s like we are speaking different languages. Perhaps I’ve hit a nerve and these are just your defense mechanisms kicking in I don’t know. Perhaps you just really, sincerely don’t comprehend what I am saying, although it does appear that there is fair amount of projection going here in the way you seem to be distorting what I’ve said suggesting that you have seemingly read it as if I was just an enthusiastic imbecile who wants to latinize your liturgy, and it could also be that maybe you really do get it but just can’t seem respond to it with any cogency. That is a shame because it would have been good if you had been able. In any event there is no denying that you actual responses have largely and continuously been irrelevant to what I understand to have been the real issue in question. About which I, of course, could be wrong, but you certainly haven’t provided me anything but to criticize a straw man version of what I have asserted, and therefore no reason for me to suspect I might be.

The fact is that even if this wouldn’t actually enrich your own understanding of the Syro-Malankara tradition it still is about something bigger than just your tradition anyway. The Divine Mercy message is a bridge throughout the universal Church at this most critical time as we enter a post-Christian world. I am pretty confident that St. John Paul the Great shared this understanding, even if he was either too diplomatic or simply more trusting in Divine providence than I have demonstrated myself to be here. Then of course as I said if I were a Bishop I certainly would change my tone and endeavor to be much more diplomatic.

Since my own conversion and initiation into the Divine Mysteries the whole deposit of faith has became largely transparent. At first I though every Catholic experienced this because after all it is the very promise of conversion, but I am finding that very few Catholics actually seem to have had this experience for themselves. I feel like Paul confronting Peter saying you knew Jesus how do you not get this? Its baffling.

Finally your projection about your fear of reunion of Rome would be hilarious if wasn’t so tragic. You either believe in the primacy of St. Peter or you don’t. I personally would love not to because my favorite Church in my area would be the Antiochian Orthodox Church, but I do and the Latin rite is a convenience for me–not necessarily my most comfortable home. So for you if it is the former your committed to communion with Rome, as we all are,and must trust in Divine providence. If you don’t then be honest with yourself. Cause you can’t be half in and half out thinking I’ll stay if the situation remains favorable. That’s Protestantism. If mankind’s perennial problem is Protestantism it is only because our perennial choice has been since Adam between self-sacrifice and self-indulgence.

Anyway Peace to you.

 

[SyroMalankara]

If that isn’t the Donald Trump of Latin bombast, I don’t know what is. Your bridge building analogy is only worthwhile if your endeavoris really seen as a bridge. Your approach, especially your tone and wording, are more tangent than bridge - a diversion from unity and the true faith. With friends like that, one need no enemies. Now, in true fanatical response, I demand you follow the universal Ethiopian practice and fast 320 days of the year, as the Lord commanded thru his Apostle St. Philip. Fast, as in eat no dairy, oil, wine, meat, fish, nuts - not simply skipping one out of three meals. Also, pray the prayer of St. Ephrem continuously prostrating for mercy as the universal Syriac practice taught thru the first See of the Holy Apostle St. Peter and the See of the Holy Apostle St. Thomas.

When you do these for 30 years, then come back and preach about your insights on the church, Mercy, Divine Revelation and faith. By then you may entertain some credibility and have gained wisdom, through the exercise of self-control. Also, you might have gained in charity to those you address.

 

[wynd]

Really though as for the thread it’s like we are speaking different languages. Perhaps I’ve hit a nerve and these are just your defense mechanisms kicking in I don’t know. Perhaps you just really, sincerely don’t comprehend what I am saying, although it does appear that there is fair amount of projection going here in the way you seem to be distorting what I’ve said suggesting that you have seemingly read it as if I was just an enthusiastic imbecile who wants to latinize your liturgy, and it could also be that maybe you really do get it but just can’t seem respond to it with any cogency. That is a shame because it would have been good if you had been able. In any event there is no denying that you actual responses have largely and continuously been irrelevant to what I understand to have been the real issue in question. About which I, of course, could be wrong, but you certainly haven’t provided me anything but to criticize a straw man version of what I have asserted, and therefore no reason for me to suspect I might be.

You did say earlier in this thread:

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.

The fact is that even if this wouldn’t actually enrich your own understanding of the Syro-Malankara tradition it still is about something bigger than just your tradition anyway. The Divine Mercy message is a bridge throughout the universal Church at this most critical time as we enter a post-Christian world.

Can you clarify for us exactly what the Divine Mercy message is, and also how it would enrich SyroMalankara’s understanding of his own tradition?

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

You did say earlier in this thread:

Can you clarify for us exactly what the Divine Mercy message is, and also how it would enrich SyroMalankara’s understanding of his own tradition?

Perhaps I wrong in how I expressed my original comment, which actually came from a comment someone else had made on another board that I thought made an interesting point containing a fair amount of psychological truth. However by Latinization I meant the fear of it, not that any Latinization was actually occurring. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

I won’t be able to fully answer your question because it would be a book length proposition to do so, but suffice it say that one of the beautiful things about the Catholic, i.e. the Universal, Church is its diversity in theological emphasis.This I would argue benefits us all.

Having said that I would also argue that the Divine Mercy message isn’t saying anything new for any of our distinct theologies–we needn’t fear that it does. After all what is in a name? Would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet to quote Shakespeare (a probable Catholic btw). I believe Thomas Sunday already is, in reality, Divine Mercy Sunday. That is either true or not regardless of what any of us happens to believe.

The Divine Mercy message is an eschatological message. It is not a message necessary for salvation which of course, has been covered in public revelation, but it is a message that can bring an increased sense of unity to our diverse liturgies through the common tether of mercy that could prove to be a great blessing if the Church really is entering a new global situation of hostility–and perhaps an unprecedented hostility.

I also believe the Divine Mercy message is more about moving the Latin Church closer to Eastern Churches, which arguably is why it is a revelation that happened within the Latin Church. It does this re-orienting by bringing the emphasis back on mercy. I don’t know much about the Syro-Malankara rite, but my experience of the west Syrian rite and the Byzantine rite is that the theology of these rites is already implicitly present in the Roman rite. As I came to understand Byzantine theology I realized I had already come to the same comprehension through my participation in the Latin rite. Still just because it is there implicitly doesn’t mean that it is perfectly obvious. The Divine Mercy message helps make it more obvious.

I believe that the Divine Mercy message, in fact, would argue that it is an implicit part of the message that through it the underlying commonality of our rites can be better appreciated. As the above conversation illustrates there is much culturally that still divides us, and this division is a great shame to all of us. There is one Gospel even if there are various liturgical traditions. We are a supernatural family and these differences should lead to richer understanding of that Gospel not strife and division. I believe this is, at least in part, what the Divine Mercy message expresses to us. It is an opportunity for us to come closer together, and that if we dismiss the message out of hand based on fear and bias we are only expressing a lack of trust in the Gospel.

It was St. John Paul the Great’s expressed belief that he became Pope to spread this message. How can one really be in communion with Rome and not take that seriously. Ultimately one may choose to practice this devotion or not, but if you’re Catholic how can you just respond by ignorantly assuming that it is not for you? In other words dismissing it out of hand with an extreme tone of prejudice.

It simply is not a Latin devotion in the same way the Rosary is. I would never, never, never suggest that what I assert about the Divine Mercy devotion is true for any other devotion of the Latin Church. That is one thing that is continually being ignored by my critics here who refuse to consider the devotion specifically but want to treat it as just part of a class of other devotions of the Roman Church.

If one is earnestly in communion with Rome than I don’t understand why they wouldn’t take the Bishop of Rome’s personal beliefs into consideration on this matter as opposed to a de facto hostility and suspicion. Notice I am not claiming that he expressed these beliefs ex cathedra. Still they shouldn’t be ignored either.

Bottom line is if someone had a cogent argument for why they believed it wasn’t good for themselves or even their Church (although it is currently my belief that no cogent argument is possible for the latter) that was based on a deep understanding of the devotion then of course one would have to accept it, but if it is simply a matter of fear and prejudice or because one has made a fetish of their liturgical practice then it is a great shame.

The Divine Mercy is in part a great mercy for us that is supranatural guidance on how to get out in front of what it means to be a Catholic Church, with 24 autonomous Churches spread across 6 different liturgical tradition in an age that is both global and post-Christian.

 

[SyroMalankara]

It simply is not a Latin devotion in the same way the Rosary is. I would never, never, never suggest that what I assert about the Divine Mercy devotion is true for any other devotion of the Latin Church. That is one thing that is continually being ignored by my critics here who refuse to consider the devotion specifically but want to treat it as just part of a class of other devotions of the Roman Church.

Self-made Litmus test.

If one is earnestly in communion with Rome than I don’t understand why they wouldn’t take the Bishop of Rome’s personal beliefs into consideration on this matter as opposed to a de facto hostility and suspicion. Notice I am not claiming that he expressed these beliefs ex cathedra. Still they shouldn’t be ignored either.

I am neither hostile nor suspicious of the Holy Father, only those who invoke his name speciously.

Bottom line is if someone had a cogent argument for why they believed it wasn’t good for themselves or even their Church (although it is currently my belief that no cogent argument is possible for the latter) that was based on a deep understanding of the devotion then of course one would have to accept it, but if it is simply a matter of fear and prejudice or because one has made a fetish of their liturgical practice then it is a great shame.

Is ‘fetish of liturgical practice’ another way of saying ‘devotion to one’s Patristic Tradition, as handed on to them by the Apostles’? If so, yes, every Catholic should have such ‘fetish’ as Vatican 2 expressed in Ecumenical Council, and numerous Popes - including St. JP2 - have repeatedly stated.

The Divine Mercy is in part a great mercy for us that is supranatural guidance on how to get out in front of what it means to be a Catholic Church, with 24 autonomous Churches spread across 6 different liturgical tradition in an age that is both global and post-Christian.

Huh? If nothing changes except the line on the calendar then it would do nothing more for union than is already done. If something demands change and it was only revealed in private revelation and accepted by the Church for the Latin/Roman sui iuris Church, then it has nothing to do with the East - except the East tolerates the Roman use of it. If change is mandatory for everyone through a private revelation, no one has made such a mention and neither has any Divine Revelation come that way since the death of the last Holy Apostle.

Now, when will you promote the universal devotion to Our Lady of Damascus (Soufanieh), which is much more widely known among the East and approved by something like 9 or 10 Churches - Antiochian Orthodox, Melkite Catholic, Syrian Catholic, Maronite Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Armenian Catholic, Chaldean Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic? After all, that is much more ‘universal’ among Church than the one you mention in the Latin Church - even accepted by the Latin Rite bishop of Damascus.