F
floresco
Guest
Not in the context of answering a question about how traditionalists feel. If someone asks my opinion about a practice and I say I approve of it, this does not imply I am claiming to have any authority.
- Status
F
floresco
Guest
Exactly. Cafeteria Catholicism refers to treating obligatory beliefs as if they were optional. There isn’t anything wrong with treating optional beliefs as if they were optional. But what should we call those who treat optional beliefs as if they were obligatory?
P
patrick457
Guest
Yes, mainly because of misunderstandings (oftentimes crucial) generated by a faulty Italian translation of St. Faustina’s diary the Holy See received in the 1950s. The devotion was banned in 1959 (pending further investigation), with Father Michal Sopocko (Faustina’s spiritual director and promoter of the devotion) receiving a severe reprimand. Even so, the archbishop of Kraków allowed the nuns to leave the original picture hanging in their chapel so that those who wished to continue to pray before it could do so.
It was really the efforts of a younger Karol Wojtyla, who opened a new investigation into the matter in 1965, that began the rehabilitation of the Divine Mercy message and St. Faustina.
C
Cider
Guest
See it’s the rabid dedication to it that I don’t get. I mean really it’s not the primary means of salvation, I think using the term “incredibly foolish” ( in caps no less) is over the top. We have 1900 years of saints getting to heaven without it. It’s approved. You can pray it or not. It’s not a sin not to pray it. I’m not against it. As I already posted, I find her diary inspiring. But I personally prefer to pray the rosary. I just don’t understand the level of fanaticism is seems to inspire. Incredibly foolish? come on. It’s not the credo or the pater noster.
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
This thread is good evidence that many trads like the Divine Mercy devotion. I do, I pray the chaplet, and I consider myself a trad (probably more ‘extreme’ than most here).
But I can list a few reasons why some trads are wary of the devotion.
But I can list a few reasons why some trads are wary of the devotion.
- “After Vatican II.” In their defense, it’s not just that, but the fact that it was banned as a devotion back when things were assessed with very clear criteria but leaders trads feel were reliable. Then Bl. John Paul II, who did things that concern trads greatly (like ask St. John the Baptism to “protect Islam” - as far as I know this is still on the Vatican website where his speech is) approved it later - and some trads feel he is more likely to approve something even if problematic, and also he’s not objective since he has a personal Polish connection. I don’t agree with this view completely, but honestly I understand that wariness.
- Changes in the official “novena.” The changes, discussed here in another thread I think, of the words “heretics” and “schismatics.” It’s so PC. I suppose anyone can pray the novena with the older words. The thing that galls me about it is that the footnotes admit that they are changing the words of The Lord to St. Faustina. Such hubris on the part of whoever did that.
- Redundancy. This I really don’t buy, but I’ve heard some trads say that the Sacred Heart devotion is profound and Divine Mercy adds nothing but merely distracts people from it. It’s the same devotion but takes people away from the Novena to the Sacred Heart, the other prayers, the First Fridays, etc. I don’t see why both cannot be seen as complementing each other, but there you are.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,
I don’t know if I qualify as a traditionalist but maybe I do so I’ll give an opinion. I found that post on Rorate to be contrary to my own views of the Divine Mercy devotion. I don’t know why the person thinks there is something penitential about the devotion or something contrary to the Easter season. It is never “out of season” to implore the Mercy of God for ourselves and the whole world. The celebration of the triumph of Christ over sin and death is a great time to reassure ourselves that God’s Mercy is stronger than death and sin. An obvious implementation of this is the Sacrament of Confession, which has roots in the Gospel reading of Sunday.
If people do not want to participate in this particular devotion to the Mercy of God, fine. That is their loss, as far as I’m concerned. But, they should not call the devotion bizzare, Vatican II, insanity. What did St. Faustina, or the devotion as it is related in her diary, have to do with Vatican II? Anyway, we all have to remember that we must acknowledge that it is only through/by/because of God’s Mercy that we can be saved.
Dan
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
True, but when asked the same question and you answer that some third party approves of it then, IMO, you are stating this as you believe that the third party has some authority.
F
floresco
Guest
Saying it about a third party is just like saying it about oneself. It is not a statement about authority. This is something you read into the comment, not something that was actually there. You consistently take the most negative interpretation possible of anything to do with the SSPX. I do not understand how any Catholic loyal to the Pope can oppose himself to the Pope’s clear desire for reconciliation as you do. You are constantly fostering bad feeling by your negative attitude and comments.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I disagree. Saying that one approves of something denotes some sort of belief in some level of authority.
I would find it odd if I asked what you thought of something and you replied that you “approved of it”.
I also disagree with your opinion on any “negative” stand.
It is a fact that the SSPX has no illegitimate ministry within the Catholic Church.
The Pope is clear about that. Alluding to any other such thing is wrong and I call that out when I see it. No where have I opposed the Pope and I expect an apology for that misrepresentation of the truth.
I pray for the SSPX to reconcile with the Church. Until such a time I will state the facts as they are regardless of how those who support them feel.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Byzcath,
I know what you’re saying but that is probably a topic for another thread.
I believe the person who posted this used the SSPX as an example of well-known traditionalists (you don’t get much more traditionalist than the Society), who do not reject Divine mercy. In the same way, someone else posted that the FSSP chapel they know also observe the Divine Mercy devotion.
F
floresco
Guest
I try to model my attitude to the SSPX on that of the Pope. Therefore I am sympathetic to their concerns and try to speak of them with tact. I try to remember at all times that the long-term goal is reconciliation. Making a statement about their lack of authority whenever their name is mentioned is not consistent with this goal. Showing consideration for the feelings of SSPX supporters is.
I do not accuse you of deliberately opposing the Pope, but the way you write acts against his goals. Your posts consistently project hostility and dislike for the SSPX. I am calling out what I see.
C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
I love it, pray it, and with God’s grace, I do my best to live it.
B
barb_finnegan
Guest
I wanted to ‘take apart’ your comment and just have the # 3 (‘Redundancy’), but I don’t know how to do it…but I digress…
I go to a TLM chapel for Mass on Sunday (the priests who serve it come from out of town), and we don’t ‘do’ Divine Mercy Sunday.
The priests who say Mass here feel that Divine Mercy detracts from devotion to the Sacred Heart. And I’ve heard comments that, with the Divine Mercy devotion, God’s mercy is over-emphasized versus His justice. I remember sending an email question about Divine Mercy to the host of an internet radio program that is affiliated with the congregation of traditional priests who run our chapel. And that was the response I heard: that Divine Mercy detracts from the Sacred Heart.
I really want to be able to tell them otherwise-that Our Lord DID mention His Sacred Heart to St. Faustina (‘His Most Compassionate Heart’), that the two rays coming from Our Lord signify the Blood and Water that came from HIS SACRED HEART when His Side was pierced by the lance on Calvary, and that He DOES MENTION HIS JUSTICE. But I’m not overly eloquent, and get confused when stressed.
I do the Chaplet and the Novena privately, and sometimes I might pray the Chaplet when there’s stormy weather outside. But it’s a private devotion, and we are free to take it or leave it.
F
floresco
Guest
When I was a new Catholic with only the vaguest notions about such things, I didn’t know there was a difference between Sacred Heart and Divine Mercy. The first time I saw a Divine Mercy picture my reaction was, “What a cool Sacred Heart picture!” I instinctively understood it just the way you describe it above.
A
Alfonsus
Guest
Nope, not the private revelation thing. It is something I don’t care since I too not into private revelation, and it is a freedom guaranteed by the Church.
I did gave qualifier that what I meant is of broader scope, not about private revelation.
What I think cafetaria is, if you read the blog and comments on Rorate Caeli linked by another poster, the attitude of some which “I ignore and don’t care whatever this pope does, I disregard him at all,” thing.
It is quite cafetaria in term of creating your own kind of Magisterium with acknowledging this pope and freely ignoring other pope you dislike and his teachings and rulings. This include, the sub-naming of the octave of Easter as “Divine Mercy Sunday,” and approving the devotion for the whole Church.
It is one thing you disagree, but you cannot ignore or disregard at will. You still need to respect it and acknowledge it.
We are not asked to believe the private revelation to St. Faustina, the Holy Father anchor the Divine Mercy devotion to the teaching as described in the Encyclical Dives in Misericordia, which mention nothing about private revelation to St. Faustina.
This, cannot be disregarded or ignored at will though.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
The request for Divine Mercy Sunday did not come from Blessed John Paul II, but from Jesus Christ himself:
On one occasion, I heard these words: My daughter, tell the whole world about My Inconceivable mercy. I desire that the Feast of Mercy be a refuge and shelter for all souls, and especially for poor sinners. On that day the very depths of My tender mercy are open. I pour out a whole ocean of graces upon those souls who approach the fount of My mercy. The soul that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion shall obtain complete forgiveness of sins and punishment. On that day all the divine floodgates through which grace flow are opened. Let no soul fear to draw near to Me, even though its sins be as scarlet. My mercy is so great that no mind, be it of man or of angel, will be able to fathom it throughout all eternity. Everything that exists has come forth from the very depths of My most tender mercy. Every soul in its relation to Me will I contemplate My love and mercy throughout eternity. The Feast of Mercy emerged from My very depths of tenderness. **It is My desire that it be solemnly celebrated on the first Sunday after Easter. Mankind will not have peace until it turns to the Fount of My Mercy. **(Diary 699)
Now, as has been stated here, this is private revelation and no Catholic is under obligation to accept this under pain of sin. Personally, I don’t know why anyone would reject it, but I know that some do. But just because some do reject it, we have no right to judge them.
I don’t completely understand the purpose of this thread. Okay, so some guy on some blog says he doesn’t like Divine Mercy Sunday. He attacks the Pope, but if he read St. Faustina’s diary, he would realize that this did not come from JPII but from Christ himself. The writer from the blog represents himself, not all “traditionalists” or any other group of people. Why are “traditionalists” being singled out?
I think we need to be really be careful about quoting from blogs and then applying them to whole groups of people.
On one occasion, I heard these words: My daughter, tell the whole world about My Inconceivable mercy. I desire that the Feast of Mercy be a refuge and shelter for all souls, and especially for poor sinners. On that day the very depths of My tender mercy are open. I pour out a whole ocean of graces upon those souls who approach the fount of My mercy. The soul that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion shall obtain complete forgiveness of sins and punishment. On that day all the divine floodgates through which grace flow are opened. Let no soul fear to draw near to Me, even though its sins be as scarlet. My mercy is so great that no mind, be it of man or of angel, will be able to fathom it throughout all eternity. Everything that exists has come forth from the very depths of My most tender mercy. Every soul in its relation to Me will I contemplate My love and mercy throughout eternity. The Feast of Mercy emerged from My very depths of tenderness. **It is My desire that it be solemnly celebrated on the first Sunday after Easter. Mankind will not have peace until it turns to the Fount of My Mercy. **(Diary 699)
Now, as has been stated here, this is private revelation and no Catholic is under obligation to accept this under pain of sin. Personally, I don’t know why anyone would reject it, but I know that some do. But just because some do reject it, we have no right to judge them.
I don’t completely understand the purpose of this thread. Okay, so some guy on some blog says he doesn’t like Divine Mercy Sunday. He attacks the Pope, but if he read St. Faustina’s diary, he would realize that this did not come from JPII but from Christ himself. The writer from the blog represents himself, not all “traditionalists” or any other group of people. Why are “traditionalists” being singled out?
I think we need to be really be careful about quoting from blogs and then applying them to whole groups of people.
T
TrueLight
Guest
I’m not applying anything to a whole group of people.
As you might know, Rorate Caeli is a blog that is read and respected by many traditionalists.
The purpose of this thread is to ascertain whether a lot of trads ascribe to that belief - in other words, is this a common view among traditionalists, or not?
Hope that helps.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I would also caution that to say that someone who does not believe in some private revelation rejects that message.
Also, it is not that a Catholic not under an obligation to accept a private revelation under pain of sin, it is that private revelations do not need to believed in as they are not part of the deposit of faith and therefore not required for salvation.
T
TrueLight
Guest
ByzCath, if you’d humor me a bit.
In reading the lives of the Saints, are lot of devotions are described almost as if they are indeed part of the deposit of the faith.
Has it always been the Church’s belief that private revelations do not have to be believed?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
First, let me start off that I am biased on this one.
I have a devotion to St Faustina and her message. I used to pray the chaplet on a very regular basis.
Private revelation can not be part of the deposit of faith by definition. How can something that is revealed privately be held as being required for our salvation?
Public revelation is the deposit of faith. It is divinely inspired.
The Church has never required any private revelation to be believed in. It only states that such are “worthy of belief” when it “approves” them.
Now they (in all the cases I am aware of) do nothing but affirm public revelation. So really, they are not necessary as they only serve to point back to it.
- Status