The Chaplet of the Divine Mercy

[JW55]

The Divine Mercy Chaplet is a beautiful prayer that I believe is divinely inspired, as is the Rosary. I try to say the Rosary each morning and am successful about 85% of the time in accomplishing this. The Divine Mercy Chaplet, since it is shorter I find is it easier for me to say completely at various times throughout the day. I often use it when i go to bed at night.

Some folks here seem to be implying that the Divine Mercy Chaplet is promoted as a replacement for the Rosary. I certainly don’t see that as being the case. As a Catholic we can certainly fill our obligations to our faith without the use of either of those prayers. On the other hand I feel that the use of either enhances our faith and we would be missing a great blessing by not saying them on a regular basis.

Within the Church we are given an abundance of daily prayers, novenas and numerous saints to inspire us. Some prayers are generally said in the morning, others at night or for special occasions or requests. We have the prayer of Saint Francis, St. Patrick’s prayer, St. Michael’s prayer and many more. I have never felt by saying one over the other I was being disloyal or unfaithful to another prayer. Regarding saints, most people have one or two they feel are particularily inspiring to them. This may possibly be because they went through similar trails they have faced or we feel a connection with them for an undifined reason. Some are inspired by St. Augustine, others St. Francis, other St. Therese, and another St. Faustina. I am thankful for the variety. The Church has given such an abundance of ways to bring us closer to God

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I am on the archdiocesan cenacle for Divine mercy in my archdiocese. We teach that Divine Mercy is the action of the love of God on his created beings. Divine Mercy is the mission of the Church (among many). If one reads the diary of St. Faustina Kawalska it will prove to be one of those books which can make a profound impact upon you and will change you for the better. I truly feel that it did just that for me.

 

[otjm]

Hi, I am not EnchantedEve, but I also doubt Sr. Faustina’s visions. Personally, I wonder why Mary stressed the importance of the rosary at Fatima, to then have Jesus appear and encourage another devotion (shortly after) also said on rosary beads. Some think her visions were demonic, because the perfect way to get people to stop saying rosaries, was for the devil to give another prayer instead.

The rosary is the best known and best loved private prayer of the Church in terms of personal, private devotion. However, some people elevate the prayer farther than it should be in terms of their reaction to it.

As a point: If you have one person sitting in their room quietly saying the Liturgy of the Hours by themself, and across the street you have a Monsignor leading a church full of people in reciting the rosary, what do you have? You have one person participating the the offical liturgy of the Church, and in the other you have a large room full of people participating in a private prayer.

That does not make private prayer useless, purposeless, of no merit. But one is a private devotion, and the other is the official prayer of the Church.

People who start rumors about Satan trying to get people to not say the rosary are borderline goofballs (and I am trying to be polite). Except for the Dominicans and those who follow their commentary (and I do not sweep all into that group) it is fairly widely accepted that the rosary, rather than being given to St Dominic in a vision, much more likely arose from the laity (at the time uneducated and unable to read) saying 150 Our Fathers in a lay modeling of the monks saying the 150 Psalms (the start of the LOTH), which later turned to the laity saying 150 Hail Mary’s, the rosary as we know it (with the exception of the Luminous Mysteries). Some of the comments that arise about the rosary border on an unhealthy attitude towards a beautiful private prayer that is designed to help us meditate on the life of Christ.

Further, I would suspect anyone doing any sort of serious survey would find that many people who say the Chaplet also say the rosary, hopefully to put the urban myth of the work of the devil to rest.

I don’t know if that is true, but what is true is that some (not all, mind you) are replacing their daily rosaries with a divine mercy chaplet instead. I used to say the chaplet, until I read more about Faustina, and some of her diary. I was left with the impression that she may have been mentally ill, and not seeing Jesus at all. Even the priests and nuns who knew her thought she was unbalanced, I think their opinions are credible given that they knew her personally, saw her daily and observed her behavior. I choose not to say the chaplet until I am convinced the words are truly from Jesus, and besides I am not required to say it, it is from a private revelation. Something in her diary really bothered me she said Jesus had her suffer horrible pain for all the abortions that would happen in the future, I refuse to believe Jesus would have someone suffer for a sin that is not theirs. Also if she took all the punishment for all the abortions, that means if you have one you will not be punished.

No, it does not mean that at all. Suffering souls is not something that just occured to the Church with Sister Faustina.

You are right that it is a private devotion, and no one is required to say it. The same applies to the rosary; both are private devotions.

However, the Church has approved of the prayer, so your concerns are misguided. Her diary and her life have been carrefully scruitinized by the Church and not found wanting; She would not have been declared a saint if it were. But the bottom line is that even if you think she was among the greatest saints that ever lived, and it is the most perfect form of private devotion, you still are not required to say it.

The Liturgy of the Hours is one of the two offical liturgies of the Church and the laity are encouraged (but not required) to say it. The Mass, the other offical liturgy of the Church, however, is required of individuals whether or not they are laity. Pryaer is important. The offical liturgies of the Church are the msot important, and after that, the rest is for perosnal devotion. The rosary is certainly recommended as a means of private prayer, and the Church certainly encourages it. There are however, some few who seem to elevate it almost to the point of magic, as if we did not say it terrible things would happen. Such is not the position of the Church.

And as an aside, if you look at some of the lives of some of the saints of the Church, you will find that other saints also were looked at askance by their contemporaries. She was not the oly saint to be thought of as daft, to say the least.

 

[EnchantedEve]

The rosary is the best known and best loved private prayer of the Church in terms of personal, private devotion. However, some people elevate the prayer farther than it should be in terms of their reaction to it.

As a point: If you have one person sitting in their room quietly saying the Liturgy of the Hours by themself, and across the street you have a Monsignor leading a church full of people in reciting the rosary, what do you have? You have one person participating the the offical liturgy of the Church, and in the other you have a large room full of people participating in a private prayer.

That does not make private prayer useless, purposeless, of no merit. But one is a private devotion, and the other is the official prayer of the Church.

People who start rumors about Satan trying to get people to not say the rosary are borderline goofballs (and I am trying to be polite). Except for the Dominicans and those who follow their commentary (and I do not sweep all into that group) it is fairly widely accepted that the rosary, rather than being given to St Dominic in a vision, much more likely arose from the laity (at the time uneducated and unable to read) saying 150 Our Fathers in a lay modeling of the monks saying the 150 Psalms (the start of the LOTH), which later turned to the laity saying 150 Hail Mary’s, the rosary as we know it (with the exception of the Luminous Mysteries). Some of the comments that arise about the rosary border on an unhealthy attitude towards a beautiful private prayer that is designed to help us meditate on the life of Christ.

Further, I would suspect anyone doing any sort of serious survey would find that many people who say the Chaplet also say the rosary, hopefully to put the urban myth of the work of the devil to rest.No, it does not mean that at all. Suffering souls is not something that just occured to the Church with Sister Faustina.

You are right that it is a private devotion, and no one is required to say it. The same applies to the rosary; both are private devotions.

However, the Church has approved of the prayer, so your concerns are misguided. Her diary and her life have been carrefully scruitinized by the Church and not found wanting; She would not have been declared a saint if it were. But the bottom line is that even if you think she was among the greatest saints that ever lived, and it is the most perfect form of private devotion, you still are not required to say it.

The Liturgy of the Hours is one of the two offical liturgies of the Church and the laity are encouraged (but not required) to say it. The Mass, the other offical liturgy of the Church, however, is required of individuals whether or not they are laity. Pryaer is important. The offical liturgies of the Church are the msot important, and after that, the rest is for perosnal devotion. The rosary is certainly recommended as a means of private prayer, and the Church certainly encourages it. There are however, some few who seem to elevate it almost to the point of magic, as if we did not say it terrible things would happen. Such is not the position of the Church.

And as an aside, if you look at some of the lives of some of the saints of the Church, you will find that other saints also were looked at askance by their contemporaries. She was not the oly saint to be thought of as daft, to say the least.

Just to be Devil’s Advocate here, are you not therefore saying that the Virgin Mary placed too much importance on the rosary? It it was supposedly She who said, “it is by this means the world will be converted” at Fatima. Now, if one does not believe in Fatima, which is no crime, that is one thing. But if one feels these apparitions are real than to make the above statement that, to its most fervent advocates, the rosary is a “magical” item which is over-emphasized, than blame must in many ways be placed on Mary if the statement from Fatima is indeed true. The popes, also, have placed much emphasis on the rosary, with more than one encyclical devoted to this prayer. Indeed, Pope Leo XIII himself wrote 12 encyclicals on the subject. This would appear to make the rosary more elevated than a mere private prayer. If Catholics can be said to emphasize the Holy Rosary too greatly, then the Church, Her popes, and the purported Virgin Mary, as well as numerous saints, including St. Louis de Montfort, St. John Vianney, etc. share the blame in overemphasizing this as well, since it was under their influence Catholics embraced this devotion in the first place.

That being said, Catholics should always remember that any devotion, including the Holy Rosary, are only means of obtaining grace and grwoing closer to Our Lord, not ends in themselves, which I observe some Catholics seem to forget from time to time.

I also wish to again reemphasize that we should not forget that the Divine Mercy devotion was banned, the diary of St. Faustina was on the Index, and the prayer prohibited from being recited in public for sometime. This is not insignificant. It should definitely be considered by Catholics when saying the prayer, and it should also prompt us to be diligent in watching these private revelations, regardless of whom the apparitions say they are.

 

[Jacafamala]

I also wish to again reemphasize that we should not forget that the Divine Mercy devotion was banned, the diary of St. Faustina was on the Index, and the prayer prohibited from being recited in public for sometime. This is not insignificant. It should definitely be considered by Catholics when saying the prayer, and it should also prompt us to be diligent in watching these private revelations, regardless of whom the apparitions say they are.

The ban was lifted and Faustina is now a canonized saint. I don’t think we need to second guess that. The Church needed to investigate these things, she did and found no contradictions to the Faith.

 

[EnchantedEve]

The ban was lifted and Faustina is now a canonized saint. I don’t think we need to second guess that. The Church needed to investigate these things, she did and found no contradictions to the Faith.

Not trying to argue that St. Faustina was not a saint. However, simply because she led a life of holiness does not mean she could not have false visions or be misunderstood. To say the Church needed to investigate is not completely accurate, since the move was actually a complete about-face and changing of mind from the previous position. Books banned on the Index did not fly there by chance. Thorough investigations by the Holy Office found things un-palatable, and this was approved by the then popes.

I am not trying to say one should not say the Chaplet, since I there appears to be nothing unorthodox in it. Even if St. Faustina made it up it would not be harmful to say it. However, the context of her diary and message is where there are concerns. Other saintly people have been commended by the Church only to have their works condemned.
Luisa Piccarreta of southern Italy is on her way to beatification even though her entire collection of writings is still suppressed and condemned. Their personal saintliness did not assure their good theology. St. Faustina made spurious theological statements in her diary, which did not make her any less holy, only somewhat heterdox in her perspective.

Long and short, be cautious regarding these apparitions. Sometimes the Devil has you do something good to distract you from doing something better. This may be one.

 

[otjm]

Just to be Devil’s Advocate here, are you not therefore saying that the Virgin Mary placed too much importance on the rosary?

No, I am not saying that. Read what I actually said - it is the widest know, best beloved form of private prayer.

But if one feels these apparitions are real than to make the above statement that, to its most fervent advocates, the rosary is a “magical” item which is over-emphasized, than blame must in many ways be placed on Mary if the statement from Fatima is indeed true.

No, the blame goes to the people who overemphasize it. Let me put it another way - when someone asks “If I am saying the Rosary at night and fall asleep, have I committed a sin?”, then something seriously wrong has gone on - or not gone on. No one should ever be asking such a question (and I have heard it way more often than I care to count - or variations of it). It is not magic; we cannot control God by the number of rosaries we say (or any other prayer, for that matter); but too often comments are made that border on that idea.

The popes, also, have placed much emphasis on the rosary, with more than one encyclical devoted to this prayer. Indeed, Pope Leo XIII himself wrote 12 encyclicals on the subject. This would appear to make the rosary more elevated than a mere private prayer.

“mere” is a word you choose to use. I did not use that word, nor imply it. The value of one Mass far outweighs all the rosaries that can be said; but not all people would agree with that.
EnchantedEve;5962047:

If Catholics can be said to emphasize the Holy Rosary too greatly, then the Church, Her popes, and the purported Virgin Mary, as well as numerous saints, including St. Louis de Montfort, St. John Vianney, etc. share the blame in overemphasizing this as well, since it was under their influence Catholics embraced this devotion in the first place.

No, far from it. People who do not know as much of their faith as they should can have a hard time putting the rosary in context. It is when it is out of context that we get people saying things like the Divine Mercy prayers might be the work of the devil to get people to not say the rosary. There is no - none, not any - command from the Church that the rosary must be said, or that it must be said before other prayers are said, or that it is more efficacious than other prayer formats (e.g. LOTH, which is one of the two official liturgies of the Church). It is a very great form of meditative prayer; it is designed to focus us on the life of Jesus and draw us closer to Him. It is not, however, anything approaching a required prayer format - the Mass is the only one that is.

People have distorted what Popes have said throughout the centuries. That is nothing new; they also have over-emphasized what one or another Pope has said and mimimzed or ignored what else he has said. That, too is nothing new. The do the same thing to what Christ taught us; tehy focus on one and ignroe another.

That being said, Catholics should always remember that any devotion, including the Holy Rosary, are only means of obtaining grace and grwoing closer to Our Lord, not ends in themselves, which I observe some Catholics seem to forget from time to time.

Exactly.

I also wish to again reemphasize that we should not forget that the Divine Mercy devotion was banned, the diary of St. Faustina was on the Index, and the prayer prohibited from being recited in public for sometime. This is not insignificant. It should definitely be considered by Catholics when saying the prayer, and it should also prompt us to be diligent in watching these private revelations, regardless of whom the apparitions say they are.

And given that it is now approved, and her life has been examined far more carefully than what laity are capable of, by people who are far more educated in the Magisterial teaching than laity are, should lead us to get over the fact that it was banned - so also was Padre Pio silenced for a period of time and very tightly restricted. In short, it is absolutely insignificant, because the Church has rescinded this. The banning was in place to protect the faithful when there was too little evidence understood at the moment and their appeared to be valid questions. All of that has been resolved.

Dragging up the banning, as if what happend previoulsy casts doubt on what happenes subsequently shows a lack of understanding of our Faith and the work that those in the Magisterium are charged to do, and actually do. There was a lack of understanding and a failure to thoroughly investigate St. Faustina at the time of the banning. The banning was done because there were questions and at the time there were not adequate answers. That time has passed and the answers have been found. Bringing that up constantly and using it to instill fear in people is far closer to the work of the devil than is the introduction of the Divine Mysteries the work of the devil to get people to stop praying the rosary.

NOTE: I did not say that bringing up the banning is the work of the devil. I said it was far closer. Instilling doubt in people about something the Magisterium has given its ok to is working contrary to the Magisterium. That should be enough said.

No one has to believe in Sister Faustina’s visions. No one has to believe in the Fatima visions. No one has to say either prayer. They are both recommended, and the rosary is far more popular, and has far more recommendations behind it, than the Divine Mercies. And some people will like one over the other, and the Church entirely permits that. And some will not like either, and the Church also permits that.

 

[EnchantedEve]

No, I am not saying that. Read what I actually said - it is the widest know, best beloved form of private prayer. No, the blame goes to the people who overemphasize it. Let me put it another way - when someone asks “If I am saying the Rosary at night and fall asleep, have I committed a sin?”, then something seriously wrong has gone on - or not gone on. No one should ever be asking such a question (and I have heard it way more often than I care to count - or variations of it). It is not magic; we cannot control God by the number of rosaries we say (or any other prayer, for that matter); but too often comments are made that border on that idea. mere" is a word you choose to use. I did not use that word, nor imply it. The value of one Mass far outweighs all the rosaries that can be said; but not all people would agree with that.
People have distorted what Popes have said throughout the centuries. That is nothing new; they also have over-emphasized what one or another Pope has said and mimimzed or ignored what else he has said. That, too is nothing new. The do the same thing to what Christ taught us; tehy focus on one and ignroe another.

And given that it is now approved, and her life has been examined far more carefully than what laity are capable of, by people who are far more educated in the Magisterial teaching than laity are, should lead us to get over the fact that it was banned - so also was Padre Pio silenced for a period of time and very tightly restricted. In short, it is absolutely insignificant, because the Church has rescinded this. The banning was in place to protect the faithful when there was too little evidence understood at the moment and their appeared to be valid questions. All of that has been resolved.

Dragging up the banning, as if what happend previoulsy casts doubt on what happenes subsequently shows a lack of understanding of our Faith and the work that those in the Magisterium are charged to do, and actually do. There was a lack of understanding and a failure to thoroughly investigate St. Faustina at the time of the banning. The banning was done because there were questions and at the time there were not adequate answers. That time has passed and the answers have been found. Bringing that up constantly and using it to instill fear in people is far closer to the work of the devil than is the introduction of the Divine Mysteries the work of the devil to get people to stop praying the rosary.

NOTE: I did not say that bringing up the banning is the work of the devil. I said it was far closer. Instilling doubt in people about something the Magisterium has given its ok to is working contrary to the Magisterium. That should be enough said.

Now reworded, I agree with you on the Holy Rosary. I was not trying to compare it to the Breviary, or the Holy Mass, since these are not private devotions, and therefore are not in the same category. It has appeared at times that the Popes and others (St. Louis de Montfort, especially) have exalted the Rosary above all other private devotions.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

This is my reply to the conversation going on in the last several posts.

1. No one has said not to pray the rosary. It is most powerful and is encouraged. .
2. Jesus himself encouraged praying the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. This is evidenced in the diary of St. Faustina, approved by the Church. The promises he himself gave because of praying this are evidence of the magnitude of Divine Mercy.
3. The Church, under the guidance of Pope John Paul II (the great, my opinion) has established the Sunday after Easter as an official feast in the Church, to be celebrated throughout the universal Church. (that in itself says volumes)
4. All prayer has a place in the Church.

Lets not forget that the most powerful prayer possible is the sacrifice of the mass. One mass has more efficacious value than all the combined sacrifices of the Old Testament. All prayer, outside the mass, leads us as Catholics to a grerater love of the mass and Eucharist. This is as it should be.

For each of us, Divine Mercy should be a way of life. Remember, as we forgive, so we are forgiven.

 

[EnchantedEve]

This is my reply to the conversation going on in the last several posts.

1. No one has said not to pray the rosary. It is most powerful and is encouraged. .
2. Jesus himself encouraged praying the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. This is evidenced in the diary of St. Faustina, approved by the Church. The promises he himself gave because of praying this are evidence of the magnitude of Divine Mercy.
3. The Church, under the guidance of Pope John Paul II (the great, my opinion) has established the Sunday after Easter as an official feast in the Church, to be celebrated throughout the universal Church. (that in itself says volumes)
4. All prayer has a place in the Church.

Lets not forget that the most powerful prayer possible is the sacrifice of the mass. One mass has more efficacious value than all the combined sacrifices of the Old Testament. All prayer, outside the mass, leads us as Catholics to a grerater love of the mass and Eucharist. This is as it should be.

For each of us, Divine Mercy should be a way of life. Remember, as we forgive, so we are forgiven.

This only true if you believe it was truly Our Lord who appeared to St. Faustina.

 

[jeanannemarie]

Enchanted Eve, do you not trust the Church to make the decisions?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Indeed. Many people pray both the Rosary and Divine Mercy. The horror!

 

[DOShea]

Good points, Deacon Ed B, especially #3.

To that list I would ad two things;
Where are the other incorruptibles to whom Jesus was supposed to have appeared, but really didn’t?
If you doubt the power or legitimacy of this prayer, go pray it with someone who is dying and watch what happens.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

. Let me put it another way - when someone asks “If I am saying the Rosary at night and fall asleep, have I committed a sin?”, then something seriously wrong has gone on - or not gone on. No one should ever be asking such a question (and I have heard it way more often than I care to count - or variations of it). .

It is a perfectly legitimate question and points out how poorly catechized we ALL are, myself included.

I literally do not know what’s expected of me, and I doubt the same could be said of Catholics even 20 years ago.

 

[John92]

Best priest I ever knew told me to pray it and that’s good enough for me

I haven’t started yet, but I’m-a start memorizing the prayers today I think.

I don’t think I’ll ever find a prayer I like better than the rosary, but we will see. The combination of meditation and verbal prayer that we do in the rosary . . . I dunno, it’s just very nice. A lot of the time I’ll think “This isn’t going to do any good I’m way too stressed to meditate on the mysteries!” but a couple of decades in and I’m able to focus just fine (well usually). I always feel very at peace and close to Mary when I finish . . . I don’t think it’s too bad for you to say that the Rosary is a very powerful prayer that Mary especially loves.

 

[AliciaCL]

. . . Something in her [Faustina’s] diary really bothered me she said Jesus had her suffer horrible pain for all the abortions that would happen in the future, I refuse to believe Jesus would have someone suffer for a sin that is not theirs. Also if she took all the punishment for all the abortions, that means if you have one you will not be punished. To me that is a dangerous claim. Please, I am not trying to offend anyone, continue to say the chaplet, if that is your choice. I am writing this because you wondered why someone might doubt the chaplet’s validity. I think the words of it are beautiful, but because of it’s source I find saying it too troubling.

I think you misunderstand some very fundamental doctrine. We as part of the whole church pray for sinners in this life and in purgatory. We pray for sinners to revert to holiness and I think for expiation of their sins. We pray for those in purgatory for the expiation of their sins. That is what the church calls the temporal punishment which must be paid for sins, distinct from the fundamental forgiveness. Standard illustration is kid throws baseball through a window when he was not supposed to play near the house. The house owner forgives but the window is still broken and must be restored. As Catholics we believe in redemptive suffering, that we can “offer up” our suffering for the expiation of others’ sins. [Pope John Paul II has a detailed Apostolic Letter on this; easy to find online.] So, Faustina’s suffering on behalf of sins others performed is not outside our doctrine at all. She becomes a suffering servant for God and mankind, timeless, even into the future as Christ’s was/is/will be (like the Mass itself). Secondly, the church which Christ himself vested with leadership authority, considered Faustina’s writings for many years. In its judgment – her private revelations were genuine, as least as far as the message of Jesus’ eternall pouring out of his divine mercy to mankind; all they need do is ask for forgiveness — Faustina delivered a message from God. The church began Divine Mercy Sunday the week after Easter. Some of this is fairly deep theologically but if you do a little reading I think it will come together. With the church members praying for all souls as humanity, it can help save a large part of humanity. God lets us do some of the work, pay the punishment for each other. It doesn’t mean that people who have abortions won’t “suffer” as we know it in our human lives. This is a spiritual suffering/payment that is being paid. We aren’t letting people off of their sins. Hope this helps. Faustina is a powerful, profound, intense message and not easy to understand.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

This only true if you believe it was truly Our Lord who appeared to St. Faustina.

Since these apparitions have been approved by the Church, and the Church is under the guidance of the Holy spirit on faith and morals, which this involves, I do totally and completely believe it was none other than Jesus.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Hi, I am not EnchantedEve, but I also doubt Sr. Faustina’s visions. Personally, I wonder why Mary stressed the importance of the rosary at Fatima, to then have Jesus appear and encourage another devotion (shortly after) also said on rosary beads. Some think her visions were demonic, because the perfect way to get people to stop saying rosaries, was for the devil to give another prayer instead. I don’t know if that is true, but what is true is that some (not all, mind you) are replacing their daily rosaries with a divine mercy chaplet instead. I used to say the chaplet, until I read more about Faustina, and some of her diary. I was left with the impression that she may have been mentally ill, and not seeing Jesus at all. Even the priests and nuns who knew her thought she was unbalanced, I think their opinions are credible given that they knew her personally, saw her daily and observed her behavior. I choose not to say the chaplet until I am convinced the words are truly from Jesus, and besides I am not required to say it, it is from a private revelation. Something in her diary really bothered me she said Jesus had her suffer horrible pain for all the abortions that would happen in the future, I refuse to believe Jesus would have someone suffer for a sin that is not theirs. Also if she took all the punishment for all the abortions, that means if you have one you will not be punished. To me that is a dangerous claim. Please, I am not trying to offend anyone, continue to say the chaplet, if that is your choice. I am writing this because you wondered why someone might doubt the chaplet’s validity. I think the words of it are beautiful, but because of it’s source I find saying it too troubling.

Have you never heard of a suffering soul. There are many in this world, and I know several. They accept this pain with joy and gratitude and join it to the suffering of Christ on the Cross. The crown they will have in heaven is great, as they endure much not only for their own sins, but also for the sins of others.

To say or believe that this suffering has no merit would be to deny the efficacious value of Christ’s suffering on the cross for each of us.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Enchanted Eve, do you not trust the Church to make the decisions?

I believe the Church is made up of humans with human limitations, and yes, the venerable hierarchy of the Church can and does err. We do not believe the pastors of the Church are free from error in all things, nor would it be reasonable if we did. In response to another poster, I believe as it is defined in Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, 1870, that the Holy Father can be infallible, but is not always, and the Holy Ghost protects the Church insofar as She is free from proclaiming doctrinal error as eternal Truth. The protection of the Holy Ghost does not necessarily extend to areas of personal devotion, and the Church can say a practice is approved and we may not agree. The Church acknowledges that this is an area that She is not infallible, as Canon Law and the Catechism state explicitly:

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations.”

Commentary:
"Another way of saying this is that private revelations may not be believed with divine and Catholic Faith. They rest on the credibility of the evidence in favor of a supernatural origin. In the case of private revelations approved by the highest authority in the Church we can say with Pope Benedict XIV,

Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]

The Pope is saying that a Catholic, seeing that the Church (and here the Holy See is meant, as only it’s acts can be of universal effect) has investigated and approved certain revelations, is being prudent to give them human assent. That acceptance does not rest on the guarantee of Faith, or the charism of infallibility, but on the credibility of the evidence as it appeals to reason. The assent involved is not supernatural but the natural assent that the intellect gives to facts which it judges to be true. Approved private revelations are thus worthy of our acceptance and can be of great benefit to the faithful, for as the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes,

Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. [CCC 67]

**However, on the other hand, they do not demand acceptance by Catholics. As Pope Benedict states in the aforementioned text, **

it is possible to refuse to accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of setting himself up as a superior. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.] Pope Benedict XIV"

Holy Mother Church is the deposit of Faith and font of Wisdom, but does not claim powers for Herself she does not posess, and She can indeed err, though not really in a harmful way, and approve apparitions which one may have something of a doubt, without losing ones standing as a good Catholic.