To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.
Are all the Divine Mercy Devotion devotees out there suffering from cognitive dissonance? Or do they not know their Catholic faith? Or that 'Divine Mercy' was condemned by two popes? Pius XII put it on the Index of Prohibited Books and even the Modernist John XXIII (twice), speaking through the Holy Office which safeguards the purity of the faith, declared that “There is no evidence of the supernatural origin of these revelations."
There was no such evidence during their pontificate and there was none under John Paul II, either - unless you count the fol-de-rol about 'faulty translations' which attempts to excuse Sr Faustina's flights of fancy.
A reader of this blog confesses she still has a framed pic on her wall of John Paul II, who canonised his fellow Pole, Sr Faustina, and instituted Divine Mercy Sunday. So infatuated was she with JPII that she led the Divine Mercy service for her Novus Ordo (N O) parish. The PP stayed away, but lent his tape player and Divine Mercy poster, meaning his approval. She credits her subsequent wake-up call to a conversion to the traditional Latin Mass.
Our reader fell out of love with John Paul II at Assisi when he kissed the Q'ran. Or maybe it was the way he promoted the principles of the French revolution. Or because he excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, basically for preaching the Gospel Christ preached rather than the one imposed by most of his peers at and after Vatican II. Or because JP II gave permission to bishops to administer Communion in the hand, thereby desecrating the Holy Eucharist.
As a fruit of the Vatican II N O, 'Divine Mercy' betrays not a few of its fatal flaws. In particular, pride, which places priest and people in the public eye by celebrating Mass versus populum instead of ad orientem (towards the East, or Christ) and admits female 'ministers' to the sanctuary but fails to admit of our need to make reparation for sin. But Divine Mercy betrays its conciliar origins above all in its promotion of mercy at the expense of justice.
A cultish devotion, born of foolish presumption, Divine Mercy militates against the only solution to the horrors of the 21st century - the restoration of the social reign of Our Sovereign and King, Jesus Christ.
 |
| Monsignor Patrick Perez RIP, promoter of Our Lady of Fatima, with Fr Gruner |
Transcribed by the website Tradition in Action from a sermon by Monsignor Patrick Perez:
The Divine Mercy devotion was re-launched by John Paul II. During his long pontificate he established a feast day in honor of this devotion. During his homily at the canonization of Sr. Faustina on April 30, 2000, he declared that the Second Sunday of Easter would henceforth be called Divine Mercy Sunday.
Consequently, every year on the Sunday following Easter, which is called Low Sunday - in Latin it is called Dominica in Albis, Sunday in White - I am asked this question, “Father, why don't we celebrate the Divine Mercy Sunday?”Now, the easy answer would be, “We don't do it because it's not in the traditional calendar.” But, then, the feast of Padre Pio also is not in the traditional calendar, but we celebrate it. We do it as prescribed in the Common of the Missal, which allows us to honor recently canonized saints. So, the question returns: Why don’t we celebrate the Divine Mercy Sunday?
I have analyzed the prayers of the Divine Mercy devotion and found nothing wrong with them. But there is something wrong with what surrounds this new devotion.
 |
| Cultish - and creepy |
Let me acknowledge that there are persons who have received graces from doing the Divine Mercy devotion. That is not an indication that the devotion itself is necessarily from Heaven.
Remember God always answers our prayers. You always receive some grace by your prayers. For example, let’s imagine you made a pilgrimage to visit the burial place of a saint. You made the pilgrimage and thought you were kneeling at the correct grave venerating that saint. In fact, however, he was not buried in that cemetery, but in a church nearby. Nonetheless, God gives you graces because of your effort and your desire to please Him and make reparation for your sins.
You made that pilgrimage; you will not leave it without grace. God does not take a position like, “Well, you're at the wrong grave. Sorry, you travelled 6,000 miles for nothing and now you receive nothing.” No, God will always answer your prayers. So, please, remember when you hear people say, “Well, I have received graces from this devotion.”
This in itself is not an indication that the devotion is from Heaven. Certainly the graces are always from Heaven. But the devotion may not be.
Condemnations of this devotion
What is wrong with the Divine Mercy devotion?
'I demand' is hardly characteristic of Jesus Christ, meek and humble of heart
First, when this devotion fell under the attention of Pius XII, he was concerned not with the prayers of the devotion, but with the circumstances of the so-called apparitions to Sr. Faustina and their content. That is, he was concerned with what Our Lord supposedly told Sr. Faustina and what he told her to make public.
Pius XII, then, placed this devotion, including the apparitions and the writings of Sr. Faustina on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books). That list no longer exists, since it was formally abolished on June 14, 1966, by Paul VI. On the one hand, it is unfortunate that it no longer exists.
But, on the other hand, if that list were to exist today it would be so vast that it would fill this room. Practically everything that is written today has something objectionable to the Catholic Faith.
JPII supported the thrice-condemned devotion
So, Pius XII put the writings of Sr. Faustina on the Index of Prohibited Books. That meant that he considered that their content would lead Catholics astray or in the wrong direction.
Next, came other prohibitions made by Pope John XXIII. Twice in his pontificate, the Holy Office issued condemnations of the Divine Mercy writings.
Today the Holy Office is called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But before it was called the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Its name has changed over several years.
This Office - placed under the direct control of the Pope - is responsible for maintaining the purity of the doctrine and, therefore, it watches over the dissemination of different documents in the Church. If the Pope wants to correct the faithful on a particular topic, he usually does this through the Holy Office. So, the proclamations, declarations and documents issued by the Holy Office may be seen as coming from the Pope himself.
Not once, but twice under Pope John XXIII, this particular devotion was condemned through the Holy Office. The first condemnation was in a plenary meeting held on November 19, 1958. The declaration from the Holy Office issued these three statements about this devotion:
1. There is no evidence of the supernatural origin of these revelations. This means that the members of the Holy Office examined the content and decided that there was nothing there to indicate the apparitions were supernatural. In an authentic apparition - Our Lady of Lourdes or Our Lady of Fatima, for example - you can look at the content and affirm it can not be definitively said they are of divine origin, but there is enough evidence to say that it is possibly so. On the other hand, in the Divine Mercy apparitions, they said definitively that there is no evidence whatsoever that they are supernatural. This translates, “We do not think that these apparitions come from God.”
2. No feast of Divine Mercy should be instituted. Why? Because if it is based on apparitions that are not clearly coming from God, then it would be rash and temerarious to institute a feast in the Church based on something that is a false apparition.
3. It is forbidden to disseminate writings propagating this devotion under the form received by Sr. Faustina, as well as the image typical of it. So, it was forbidden to even publish the image of Our Lord as Divine Mercy.
Now, you have all seen this image (below), even if in passing, and you would know and recognize it. It shows a strange picture of Jesus that makes me uneasy. I cannot really tell you why. I do not like it. I don't like the face, I don't like the gesture, I don't like the posture, I don't like anything. This was my first impression of this image. I don't want it around because it is, for lack of a better term, creepy to me when I look at it.
The image shows multicolored rays, I think they are red, white and blue, coming from His chest region - no heart, just these rays. You have all seen this. Well, that was the image that was forbidden to be published or spread.
On March 6, 1959, the Holy Office issued a second decree on the order of Pope John XXIII. It forbade, once again, spreading the images of Divine Mercy and the writings of Sr. Faustina propagating this devotion. It also stated that it was up to the bishops to decide how they were going to remove the images that had already been displayed for public honor.
I do not need to say much more about these declarations. Two Popes strongly warned the faithful of a danger in this devotion. Pius XII put it on the Index; John XXIII issued two condemnations through the Holy Office about the spiritual danger this devotion presented to the faithful. Not much more needs to be said on that.
Principal error: It presents an unconditional mercy
Let me present you with a parallel thought.
A majestic Jesus with the halo of divinity and a well-defined Sacred Heart gives a clear blessing
Consider the true image of Christ Our Savior. Probably the most symbolically rich and accurate representation of Him, besides the Crucifix, is the image of the Sacred Heart, because the image of Our Lord with the Sacred Heart summarizes the whole theology of Redemption.
They pierced His Hands, His Feet and His Sacred Heart; the crown of thorns encircles the Heart, which burns with love for man. This was the price He paid, the sacrifice He made for our redemption. He offered Himself because of His burning love for us despite the fact we are ungrateful creatures who rebelled against our Creator. Think about it. He created us and then we nailed Him to a cross even though He was God and completely innocent of any guilt. So, the Sacred Heart encapsulates all this.
In the images of the Sacred Heart, He points to this symbolic font of love and mercy for us. The devotions to the Sacred Heart always suppose reparation for our sins. We are sinners, we must make reparation. Despite the promises from Our Lord and the fact that He paid an infinite price for our Redemption, we must make reparation. We should always do penance for our sins and make various kinds of reparation.
 |
Now, consider the image of Our Lord representing the Divine Mercy. It is an imitation of the Sacred Heart without the heart. When you pay attention, you notice that in the image there is no heart. There are simply rays coming out of a point above His waist. This symbolizes the error of the Divine Mercy devotion. It preaches that we can expect an unconditional mercy with no price to be paid whatsoever, with no obligations whatsoever. This is not the message of Christ.
Christ is merciful. Time and time again, His mercy pardons our repeated sins in the Sacrament of Penance, always taking us back no matter how bad our sins are. And what happens in the Sacrament of Penance? The very name of the Sacrament tells us exactly what happens: to be effective the Sacrament supposes penance. Not only are you there at the Sacrament recognizing your full submission to the Church and your dependence on the Sacraments for forgiveness, but you walk out of the confessional with an imposed penance.
You are also often reminded from this pulpit that you must not only fulfill that penance, but you must continually do penance, your own penance. You don't just say a decade of the Rosary and say, “Well, I've done my penance. Now, I can go merrily on my way.” You must always have the spirit of penance for your past sins; you must live with it.
The central error of the Divine Mercy is that it promises lots of spiritual rewards with no requirement of penance, no mention of reparation, no mention of any condition.
In 1986, with due permission of John Paul II, a Buddha (top photo) was placed above the tabernacle in the church of St Peter in Assisi
Unfortunately, this corresponds very much with what Pope John Paul II wrote in the Encyclical Dives in misericordia. I do not recommend reading it to any of you, except the most prepared, because it has many misleading things. It re-echoes this mercy with no price, gifts from heaven with no requirements, God's mercy with no mention of penance or reparation for sin whatsoever.
Anticipating that encyclical Pope John Paul II already in 1978, the very first year of his pontificate, set in motion the canonization of Sr. Faustina and the institution of a Divine Mercy Sunday feast. As I said before, both Sr. Faustina’s writings and the very idea of having a Divine Mercy feast day had been prohibited and condemned by two previous Popes.
Presumption in Sr. Faustina’s writings
The writings of the Polish Sr. Faustina herself, published in English in 2007, pose cause for concern. The work has 640 pages and transcribes frequent supposed apparitions and messages from Our Lord.
A new "save-yourself-without-effort" devotion
This long thread of statements supposedly from Our Lord to Sr. Faustina has some things that would make a correct-thinking Catholic very uneasy, to say the least. I will exemplify by taking a few quotes from her writings.
On October 2, 1936, she states that the “Lord Jesus” appeared to her and said, “Now, I know that it is not for the graces or gifts that you love Me, but because My Will is dearer to you than life. That is why I am uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.” (Divine Mercy in My Soul, The Diary of Sr. Faustina, Stockbridge, MA: Marian Press, 1987, p. 288).
How can we believe that Our Lord has united Himself more intimately with Sr. Faustina than with the Blessed Virgin Mary? At first, we might read this and think, “Oh, that's beautiful.“ But later it may hit you, “Wait a minute, Our Lord united Himself more intimately with Sr. Faustina than with any other creature? Our Lady was the Immaculate Conception, but she was also His creature, she was created by Him as the rest of us were, albeit with the greatest exalted position free from original sin from the very beginning.
And now are we expected to believe that Our Lord told Sr. Faustina that He is more united to her than anybody else, even the Blessed Virgin Mary, and certainly more than all the other Saints? This affirmation smacks of pride in itself, let alone the assertion that it came from Heaven.
This type of presumption is present in many other cases.
Our Lord supposedly addressed Sr. Faustina on May 23, 1937, with these words: “Beloved pearl of My Heart.” What bothers me about this is that it is pure saccharine. Look how Our Lady speaks to Sr. Lucia or to St. Bernadette. It is not as “beloved pearl of My Heart.” It is impossible to imagine Our Lord stooping to saccharine language. Our Lord is Christ the King, Creator of the universe, and ruler of all that is. He does not say things like “beloved pearl of My Heart.”
Let me continue. Then, He said: “I see your love so pure; purer than that of the angels, and all the more so because you keep fighting. For your sake, I bless the world.” (ibid., p. 400) First of all, except for the Blessed Virgin Mary, we are not free from original sin and, therefore, we are not capable of a love purer than the angels.
As for blessing the world, that might be fine. If we had one real saint in the world, then the Lord will give us blessings for that one real saint. This is not my objection.
My objection is that this revelation was in 1937; the world was on the verge of World War II, which Sr. Lucy had already been forewarned of by Our Lady at Fatima: if Russia is not consecrated, and man does not convert, then this big disaster will befall mankind for their evil ways and their sins.
 |
| Nazi soldiers invaded Poland after Sr. Faustina announced a blessed world - above, they are marching on Warsaw |
At that moment, we were about to see that disaster descend from Heaven, yet Our Lord tells Sr. Faustina, “For your sake, I am going to bless the world.” Was World War II a blessing on the world? Since her native Poland did not go unscathed by the German invasion, it does not seem likely that He actually blessed the world.
Another example: Sr. Faustina claimed that Our Lord told her that she was exempt from judgment, every judgment - particular judgment and the general judgment. On February 4, 1935, she already claimed to hear this voice in her soul, “From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.” (ibid., p. 168)
Now, nobody but the Blessed Virgin, as far as I know, is free from the general and particular judgment. St. Thomas Aquinas, according to the pious story, had to genuflect in Purgatory before going to Heaven. I don’t know if this is fact, but it is a lesson for us that nobody is exempt from any kind of judgment.
And add to these examples the preposterous affirmation that the Host jumped out of the Tabernacle three times and placed itself in her hands, so that she had to open up the Tabernacle and place it back herself: “And the host came out of the Tabernacle and came to rest in my hands and I, with joy, placed it back in the Tabernacle. This was repeated a second time, and I did the same thing. Despite this, it happened a third time.” (ibid., p. 23)
It makes it sound like a hamster that has gotten out of its cage. “Oh, no, here it is again. I have to go put this back now.”
How many times has the Church declared that the hands of a priest are consecrated to handle the Sacred Species, and what kind of lesson would you be giving to the world by this example of the Host leaping into her hands so that she had to place it back in the Tabernacle herself?
Our Lord does not contradict His Church by word or by gesture. And this would be a little bit by both. She related what happened, but the gesture itself would be Our Lord contradicting the Real Presence and everything it represents.
A lack of Catholic spirit
In short, the whole Divine Mercy devotion does not represent a Catholic spirit. The Catholic spirit is one of making constant reparation in penance for our sins, of praying for the graces of God, for the mercy of God in this life.
Let me close by saying that it is the background of this devotion that is questionable. You do not just institute a particular devotion with its own feast day based on something that has been condemned for very good reasons in the recent past.
When you look at the prayers of the Divine Mercy devotions, they are perfectly orthodox. There is nothing heretical or presumptuous in these prayers. But just remember the reason why it has been condemned and why we do not recognize Divine Mercy Sunday is because of its past, not because of the content of the prayers.
It is very important to know this, because it is one of many things that were brought back in modern times that were condemned in the past. And this is not a case of the Church changing her mind. It is a case of a representative of the Church doing something he should not be doing.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm
Our Lady of Fatima, please pray for the Church
ReplyDeleteSo. You’re wrong
So. Two popes were wrong?
DeleteJessica Lyn Dugger
ReplyDelete
DeleteJessica Lyn Dugger she is right
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong. Those bans were lifted, after the completion of the analysis of St. Faustinia writings. This is not unusual, many writings of saints were once under ban until completed investigations by the Church.
DeleteMary Frantz You are correct.
ReplyDeleteJesus Christ Himself appeared to st Faustina and gave us the devotion through her. That's good enough for me. Mankind falls many times. Jesus Christ does not. I will follow Him 🙏🙏
ReplyDeleteI believe in Gods divine mercy, without it no one would be saved.
DeleteAllan Weishar you're right, of course. But what's in dispute here is the authenticity of a particular devotion to 'Divine Mercy', not the mercy of Almighty God itself.
ReplyDeleteI look for the fruits of the devotion like Jesus himself stated that's how I discern if something is from God
ReplyDeletePlease shred all your copies of the “Divine Mercy Diary of Sister Faustina”. It’s fabricated modernist fictional propaganda. It’s not worth it to keep or read.
ReplyDeletePlease watch this:
Modernists expose’
https://youtu.be/IQuJF70AX3I?si=noqIMvBmG4Qa4UaU
Doreen Yoder Mueller trust the Society of St Pius X to come up with the truth!
Delete
ReplyDeleteI follow Jesus
ReplyDeleteYou are a heretic
DeleteMaryrose Mangan no, Julia duFresne is not. But the Diary of Sister Faustina is full of heretical errors
DeleteDoreen Yoder Mueller I will pray for your soul for sure
DeleteMaryrose Mangan Catholics are not obliged to believe in private revelations such as Divine Mercy. Not even in Fatima.
DeleteFrom her blog:
“
1. There is no evidence of the supernatural origin of these revelations. This means that the members of the Holy Office examined the content and decided that there was nothing there to indicate the apparitions were supernatural. In an authentic apparition - Our Lady of Lourdes or Our Lady of Fatima, for example - you can look at the content and affirm it can not be definitively said they are of divine origin, but there is enough evidence to say that it is possibly so. On the other hand, in the Divine Mercy apparitions, they said definitively that there is no evidence whatsoever that they are supernatural. This translates, “We do not think that these apparitions come from God.”
2. No feast of Divine Mercy should be instituted. Why? Because if it is based on apparitions that are not clearly coming from God, then it would be rash and temerarious to institute a feast in the Church based on something that is a false apparition.
3. It is forbidden to disseminate writings propagating this devotion under the form received by Sr. Faustina, as well as the image typical of it. So, it was forbidden to even publish the image of Our Lord as Divine Mercy.
Now, you have all seen this image (below), even if in passing, and you would know and recognize it. It shows a strange picture of Jesus that makes me uneasy. I cannot really tell you why. I do not like it. I don't like the face, I don't like the gesture, I don't like the posture, I don't like anything. This was my first impression of this image. I don't want it around because it is, for lack of a better term, creepy to me when I look at it.
The image shows multicolored rays, I think they are red, white and blue, coming from His chest region - no heart, just these rays. You have all seen this. Well, that was the image that was forbidden to be published or spread.
On March 6, 1959, the Holy Office issued a second decree on the order of Pope John XXIII. It forbade, once again, spreading the images of Divine Mercy and the writings of Sr. Faustina propagating this devotion. It also stated that it was up to the bishops to decide how they were going to remove the images that had already been displayed for public honor.
I do not need to say much more about these declarations. Two Popes strongly warned the faithful of a danger in this devotion. Pius XII put it on the Index; John XXIII issued two condemnations through the Holy Office about the spiritual danger this devotion presented to the faithful. Not much more needs to be said on that.”
DeleteDoreen Yoder Mueller please state them
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/live/lnuYbnJr6Dc?si=QlkPzKnEVr80d8ad
ReplyDeleteSt Padre Pio was likewise censured before he was in time verified and validated and approved by the ecclesiastical authority.
DeleteDante Duran how many popes condemned Padre Pio?
DeleteDoreen Yoder Mueller are you one of those hyperpapalists that thinks everything the pope says or does is infallible? If not then you can understand and accept that even the pole could censure someone pending further investigation, investigate, and then reverse the censure with affirmative approval.
DeleteDante Duran argumentum ad hominem is the resort of those who have no real argument to sustain. No true pope, and certainly not 'the pole' (sic) could reverse a censure by a previous pope which was right and just.
Dante Duran no Catholic in their right mind could find anything objectionable in St Padre Pio. Any Catholic in their right mind should find plenty that's objectionable in the Diary of Sr Faustina.
Delete
ReplyDeleteWho ever told you that multiple papal condemnations can never be permanently reversed by a future Pope? That's simply not true. It has never been true. Not ever.
DeleteKevin Rice please specify instances of multiple papal condemnations reversed by a later pope.
Riche Robert Relampagos Panuela
ReplyDeleteThat devotion is condemned by the Church. If it's not consistent doctrinally then it's not from God.
DeleteThat devotion detracts from the Sacred Heart. In fact the apparition Image is the Sacred Heart without the heart.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want to practice, that's your choice. If others go to hell because of it, that's not on you. St. Bernadette said her obligation is to inform, not convince. Move on.
DeleteAnonymous participant 961 I'm obviously not convincing you but I leave the convincing to the Holy Spirit. My obligation, like St Bernadette's, is to inform and that is what I try, as a Catholic journalist, to do.
Riche Robert Relampagos Panuela
DeleteWhat's with being Anonymous...
Greg Ryan
ReplyDelete“do they not know …that 'Divine Mercy' was condemned by two popes, and what two popes condemn cannot later be approved?”
—-Completely incorrect. Anything except irreformable teachings can be reversed. Basic Catholic teaching.
“The Holy Office declared that “There is no evidence of the supernatural origin of these revelations."
—-That’s wonderful. JP2 clearly declared there was evidence. Case closed. Another case of both can be right, especially in completely different time periods…i.e. once evidence is presented…which can happen over time, especially because that’s the exact explanation given for the change of the prudential decision.
“Pius XII and even the Modernist John XXIII were speaking 'ex cathedra', i.e. infallibly, which means they spoke the truth - and the very nature of truth is that it does not change.”
Greg Ryan "He has qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6). Let's consider the spirit of the law rather than the letter, in regard to the condemnation of 'Divine Mercy' by Pius XII and John XXIII and its rehabilitation by John Paul II.
DeletePius XII is widely held to have been the last pope to adhere to Church doctrine and dogma (truth) as taught for centuries and the fact that his ban of 'Divine Mercy' was upheld even by the Modernist John XXIII tells any Catholic possessing the 'sensus fidei' all they need to know.
The Holy Office simply stated a fact. There is no evidence that 'Divine Mercy' is supernatural. Its rehabilitation by JPII, far from closing the case, simply invites scrutiny of his record as pontiff and in regard to the heresy of indifferentism and false ecumenism it is lamentable. Join that to his instinct for headlines and popularity and his natural partiality, as a Pole, to Sr Faustina, and his judgment is clearly faulty.
In speaking of different time periods you're on the button. Pius XII was pre-Vatican II and JPII post-, and it shows. It's the Novus Ordo effect.
—-Wow…several problems…1. Not ExCathedra, 2. Absolutely no quotes to even hint at backing up your claim, 3. The “Holy Office” doesn’t speak ex cathedra, much less for 2 different popes who never gave ex cathedra pronouncements on this (or any other) private revelation that I ever heard of, 4. If you give John XXIII ex cathedra powers, then you must admit he is a valid pope (not saying you didn’t, but certainly hinting that way), thus legitimizing the V2 council. Either way, it clearly backfires on you.
ReplyDelete“Our reader fell out of love with JP II at Assisi when he kissed the Q'ran. Or maybe it was the way he promoted the principles of the French revolution.”
—-That’s wonderful, means nothing, but you must think it proves a point. We don’t have to like everything the popes do, and I don’t, but we do have to be obedient and not slander them and create public opposition to them.
“Or because he excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, basically for preaching the Gospel Christ preached, rather than the one imposed by most of his peers at and after Vatican II.”
—-Yeah, that’s not why he excommunicated him. Have you never heard why, or just being purposely obtuse?
“Or because JP II gave permission to bishops to administer Communion in the hand and thereby desecrate the Holy Eucharist.”
—-His authority, his power to bind, his power as the head of the Church, his power as the chief of the dispenser of the mysteries of God (1Cor 4:1). Your claim of “desecration” is nonsense. I don’t like it either, but that’s only prudential, and no pope will answer to you for it or any other decision.
As far as I know, John XXIII was validly elected pope but that gives no grounds for legitimizing VatII.
DeleteWe do not have to obey a pope whose judgment our reason, our common sense, conscience, Scripture and Tradition tells us is faulty. St. Paul said to St. Peter that he was "Not walking according to the truth of the Gospel" (Gal. 2:14). St. Paul encouraged the faithful not to obey him, St. Paul, if he happened to preach any other gospel than the Gospel that he had already taught them (Gal. 1:8).
Please specify the 'slander' to which you refer. And 'public opposition' to popes since Pius XII is a matter of fact. I must modestly deny having created it.
Do tell why you think JPII excommunicated +Lefebvre.
And do tell why you think the theft of Sacred Hosts and/or their fragmentation and falling to the floor to be trodden underfoot by communicants who may well already be in a state of sacrilege, is not desecration.
And the fact that no pope - or phony pope - will answer to me for anything is not keeping me awake at night.
“As a fruit of the Vatican II NO, 'Divine Mercy' exhibits a few of its fatal flaws. In particular, pride, which places priest and people in the public eye by celebrating Mass 'versus populum' instead of 'ad orientem' (towards the East, Christ) and admits female 'ministers' to the sanctuary but fails to admit of our need to make reparation for sin. Divine Mercy betrays its conciliar origins above all in its promotion of mercy at the expense of justice. “
ReplyDelete—-It does none of that. Conciliar origins?!? What are you talking about? It’s a private revelations that was given a feast in the Church. What conciliar origins?
“A cultish devotion, born of foolish presumption…”
—-Word salad and bad facebook opinion
“Divine Mercy militates against the only solution to the horrors of the 21st century - the restoration of the social reign of Our Sovereign and King, Jesus Christ.”
—-No it doesn’t. We have devotions to both. Nice try.
Yep. Nice try.
DeleteJulia du Fresne
DeleteGreg Ryan did you CLICK ON THE LINK and read the post? Did you see the evidence of John Paul II's heretical errors of indifferentism and false ecumenism? Papal infallibility is a gift of the Holy Spirit whereby popes cannot err when definitively proclaiming doctrine on matters of faith and morals. Which just goes to show that John Paul II was an antipope.
DeleteJulia du Fresne Yes. The author is completely disjointed, making their own personal pseudo-infallible declarations of the truth of matters WAY above his own head, while at the same time decrying the judgement of the pontiffs on the same matters, while backing all of the magisterium into his own carefully designed corners to pit them against the faithful. It's always the same story. it's what you're doing right now - putting your judgement above the Church and the pontiffs and telling everyone they need to agree with you and your personal interpretations on these matters WAY above your head, which is absolutely antithetical to Catholicism, the gospel, and the explicit commands of Jesus Christ. I can quote your post and respond line by line if you'd like (assuming you want to know the errors of the author)
Proclaiming "lack of evidence" against the initial reports of a personal revelation is OBVIOUSLY not a matter of faith or morals. Again, like I told you, its a matter of prudential decision. This is BASIC stuff. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and you are slandering a saint in the process.
From Donum Veritatis...read Paragraph 24 especially:
Delete"When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)
When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.
24. Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.
The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(24)
When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.
Delete25. Even when collaboration takes place under the best conditions, the possibility cannot be excluded that tensions may arise between the theologian and the Magisterium. The meaning attributed to such tensions and the spirit with which they are faced are not matters of indifference. If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill their respective roles while practicing dialogue.
26. In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.
Delete27. Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them."
https://www.vatican.va/.../rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524...
ReplyDeleteJohn Paul II, I remember that we were visiting Europe particularly my parents homeland the former Jugoslavia , within a small fishing village Jezera.
They were besotted with the new pope...
DeleteLiliana Bracanov yeah I was a bit besotted myself there for a while.
ReplyDeleteMy sister in Christ, these temporary bans were the result of poor and inaccurate translations of sr. Faustina’s diaries, the reason they were approved was because the orthodoxy of the devotion only became more evident once this was cleared up.
https://mattfradd.substack.com/p/no-the-divine-mercy-devotion-is-not
My brother in Christ, I've heard this story before. Did you CLICK ON THE LINK and read the post, where 'the orthodoxy of the devotion' is completely contradicted?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDivine Mercy is as old as Jesus' Passion, Death and Resurrection. The readings in my Latin Missal on Good Friday and the Easter Vigil show this. The Easter Vigil even had "Holy God, holy mighty One, holy immortal One (which is said at the end of the Divine Mercy Chaplet), and I had not recalled seeing that before and I am a revert to the Catholic faith (NO to traditional Latin Rite only). How anyone can denounce this devotion by a Catholic nun, when it was buried, much like St. Louis de Montfort on the Rosary devotion (which also got suppressed by wolves in the Vatican and beyond during my NO only childhood, where I barely knew what a Rosary was), and the Holy Face devotion (because again, the rot in the church hiding in shepherd's clothing were burying the Holy Face of Jesus), but now that as Jesus told St. Faustina that before He came with His Justice, He would come first with His Divine Mercy. That prophecy is fulfilling now, and Fr. Chad Ripperger is now saying that the time of grace is now retracting because God's own people STILL reject what is God and thrive on pride and evil. The chastisements are coming and it will NOT be pretty. Maria Divine Mercy, the end time prophet prophesied since 2010 that the Freemasons would oust Jesus' Last True Vicar on earth Pope Benedict XVI (per Jesus Himself April 12, 2012) to install the false prophet Bergoglio, and now Prevost, to crucify His Church from within and instill a One World Religion and Order under the end time AntiChrist, who Jesus said would not speak one word of Latin, but he will speak many languages, broker a peace plan in the Middle East, and would rise in Jerusalem, bear a stigmata and then gain control over banking, charities, and other global organizations, implement the 666 chip in the form of a vaxx... But our Mama Mary said, the time is near for her to crush the serpent's head. So pray, hope and don't worry.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you Julia.
I was at the Eucharistic Convention in Auckland when the Divine Mercy was first sung by Fr Rory Morissy and I think the music was composed by ? Loretz.
Absolutely loved singing it, until like you, I learnt of it's roots.
It is a counterfeit of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which is no longer taught or mentioned in the NO but is in the TLM.
ReplyDeleteSorry Julia ,I cannot go along with you on this .Saint John Paul 11 was a beautiful prayerful Pope loving his rosary ,as that is the way I remember him with his rosary always in his hand..He made the Sunday after Easter Mercy Sunday in honour of Saint Faustina.The Chaplet of Mercy is a beautiful prayer which I am privileged to pray with other dedicated faithful parishioners here in Taupo every Friday and Sunday at 3pm and have been doing so for about 10 years.I love my Faith ,as I know you do too and will continue praying the Chaplet of Mercy.
DeleteTeresa Coles yes, I was and am truly sorry that good Catholics and good friends devoted to Our Lord and His Blessed Mother who are also wedded by now to 'Divine Mercy' would find this post distressing. But knowing what I know, I had no option but to write it.
Neither Pope Pius XII nor Pope John 23rd made any ex cathedra pronouncement on the Divine Mercy devotion. I see others have asked you for proof of that. You can give none because there were no such pronouncements. In fact the article quoted here from a Fr Perez, now deceased, has been completely debunked on the Divine Mercy site: "Saint John Paul II and St. Faustina were two of the greatest saints of the 20th century. But the ecclesiastical ideology of Fr. Perez and other radical traditionalists just blinds them from seeing the truth here, and finding joy and refreshment in what God gave to us through these saints of His merciful Heart." https://www.thedivinemercy.org/articles/answering-radical-traditionalist-critiques-divine-mercy-message-and-devotion
DeleteThe following comment from Robert Stackpole, STD, in the web article, “How One Divine Mercy Critic Misses the Mark” applies equally to Julia du Fresne:
Delete"I am grieved that you are spreading misinformation about the Divine Mercy theology of Pope John Paul II. I trust you are only doing so because such misinformation was previously pandered to you. It is surely nonsense to claim that Pope John Paul II “pushed aside all consideration of the gravity of sin, and the need for penance, for satisfaction to Divine Justice, and hence of the Mass as an expiatory sacrifice, and likewise the need to gain indulgences and to do works of penance.” I trust you will concede that all of these things you mention are taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church [promulgated by Pope John Paul II] (e.g. on the gravity of sin, entries 1854-1876; on the need for works of penance, entries 1430 and 1459-1460; on indulgences, entries 1471-1479; and on the Mass as an expiatory sacrifice, 1365-1372) .... Right at the heart of Pope John Paul II’s theology of the Paschal Mystery, in the very encyclical Dives in Misericordia itself, we find his clear teaching that Jesus showed us His merciful love for us by making satisfaction to divine Justice for our sins on the Cross (section 7) .... Finally, here are the words that Pope John Paul II spoke while in Poland in 1999 on the feast of the Sacred Heart:
Let us make acts of reparation to the Divine Heart for the sins committed by us and by our fellow men. Let us make reparation for rejecting God’s love and goodness. (p. 313)". Julia du Fresne you are committing serious offences against the Church with this blog and deceiving good Catholics. Hopefully, it is just that you have lost your ability to reason soundly, as happens to some people as they age, rather than you are printing this blog with malicious intention.
Janet Curran
DeleteIngrid Turner I have to disagree with my dear friend Ingrid. The Sacred Heart is a major feastday in the Church. The solemnity of the Sacred Heart is celebrated this year on Friday, 12 June. All of us who follow the Divine Mercy devotion have pictures of the Sacred Heart in our homes and practice that devotion as well. They are two entirely separate devotions, just as the scapular of Our Lady and the Micraculous Medal are separate devotions and do not detract from each other. In fact, the Church devotes the month of June to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
DeleteJanet Curran 'They are two entirely separate devotions'. You can say that again. Devotion to 'Divine Mercy, which promises eternal life and comes with a string of promises without any call to penance, is a parody of St Margaret Mary's revelation of the Sacred Heart, Who always asks for reparation for our sins. We are sinners, we must make reparation. God's mercy can never be unconditional.
Divine Mercy' (note the quote marks) exhibits the presumptuous underpinning of Vat II's promotion of universal salvation. No, we're NOT all going to heaven. We must work out our salvation "in fear and trembling".
DeleteTeresa Coles I agree with you, Teresa. I have had many prayers answered through the intercession of St John Paul II The Great. There were a number of miracles worked through his intercession during his lifetime. He was a great prolife Pope who was totally devoted to Our Lady. He told us "Be not afraid".
Prayers answered are no guarantee of the authenticity of 'Divine Mercy'. As the post states, God always answers our prayers. "God gives you graces because of your effort and your desire to please Him and make reparation for your sins." John Paul II was canonised for his personal holiness, not for his pontificate which was in many respects a colossal scandal - Oxford historian, Dr John Rao, referred to it as “the worst in history”.
DeleteOr course it looks better in hindsight by comparison with Bergoglio's, but in JPII's time the liturgical revolution went on steroids - with altar girls, for instance. And his continual apologising greatly diminished the world's respect for the Church, and her moral voice - with disastrous effect.
ReplyDeleteWell said Terese
Fr Meuli had a huge picture of the Divine Mercy in his church at Titirangi, which I think is still there. If the Divine Mercy devotion was acceptable to the saintly Fr Meuli it is acceptable to me. Only those with a mindset similar to Jansenism, which was condemned by the Church as a heresy, go against this devotion to Divine Mercy. The Divine Mercy is recognised by the Church and no Catholic worth their salt is going to listen to the opion of sedes like Tradition in Action.
ReplyDeleteTradition in Action recognises the validity of all Popes since Vatican II, explicitly rejects sedevacantism and the antipope stance, critiques it and explains why they reject it. However, they claim Pius XII opened the door to modernism and the new Mass. So, really, their opinions are as mixed up as yours, one foot in the grave and another on a banana skin. One day you will be in need of God's Divine Mercy and hopefully you will get the grace not to reject it as you are doing now with your pitiful blog.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteOne of the many things I’m not entirely comfortable with.
ReplyDeleteA 1959 announcement of its ban (screenshot of newspaper article).
DeleteCal L Nguyen The binding of indulgences to the devotion by Rome…
https://www.vatican.va/.../rc_trib_appen_doc_20020629...
DeleteGreg Ryan so you follow heretics changing the rules?
DeleteCal L Nguyen Here’s Romes decree on the Inscription in to Roman Calendar…
https://www.vatican.va/.../rc_con_ccdds_doc_20200518....
DeleteGreg Ryan further evidence of the false, new, Novus Ordo religion.
DeleteGreg Ryan John Paul II is thoroughly compromised by his indifferentism and false ecumenism, exhibited principally at Assisi where he kissed the Q'ran and authorised the placement of a statue of Buddha on the altar at the church of St Peter. Compromised also by his promotion of a devotion which promises unconditional mercy without reparation, which is utterly alien to Church teaching; and his promotion of universal salvation, also contradicting Church doctrine and dogma..
In short, John Paul II was canonised as a poster boy for the conciliar cult and the heresies and blasphemies it espouses, including Communion in the hand.
(How can any Catholic believe that the Sacred Host 'flew' out of the tabernacle and landed in the unconsecrated hands of a nun? If the implications weren't so serious, this would be laughable. Its acceptance by Catholics is grim evidence of the erosion of faith since Vatican II.)
ReplyDeleteGreg Ryan the more evidence you produce the more damning it is.
ReplyDeleteWho ever told you that multiple papal condemnations can never be permanently reversed by a future Pope? That's simply not true. It has never been true. Not ever.
DeleteKevin Rice please specify instances of multiple papal condemnations reversed by a later pope.
DeleteJulia du Fresne "please specify instances of multiple papal condemnations reversed by a later pope."
If I do, what then? Will you change your mind, or will you cling to your view and simply decide that Peter's chair was vacant for many more and longer periods than you thought? I'm willing to do the legwork if something is at stake but just the fact that you are unwilling to do the research yourself to check against the arbitrary rule that some trad simply made up tells me that the truth is less of a priority for you than preserving your prejudices intact. What's at stake in this? What will you do if I prove you wrong? Make some sort of commitment. Make it worthwhile for me. I'll do the same right now. If I can't find any instances of two or more papal condemnations by different Popes being reversed by a still later Pope, I'll condemn the Divine Mercy devotion and stop doing it. What about you? Ante up.
DeleteGreg Ryan Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a dogmatic teaching but its interpretation is indeed reformable and has changed. Now it's more of a tautology: if you are saved then you are part of the Mystical Body of Christ regardless of your public religious identity and what you erroneously THINK you aren't in terms of Catholicism.
ReplyDeleteKevin Rice 100%. Good clarification. All of those I listed have dogmatic teachings underlying them with are clearly irreformable. Prudential application of specific non-doctrinal aspects of those teachings that apply to different time periods and different understandings in the life of the Church can and often do change (if I'm saying that clearly).
DeleteGreg Ryan, Kevin Rice, you are exemplary Novus Ordo-ites. You believe the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ can change, and has been changed, by conciliar popes (or antipopes) and prefer their teaching to the truth of Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium. "But as for me and my house we will serve the Lord" (Josh 24:15).
DeleteWe will pray for you, Greg.🙏
ReplyDeleteKevin Rice 'Who ever told you that multiple papal condemnations can never be permanently reversed by a future Pope? That's simply not true. It has never been true. Not ever.'
Is this your statement? It makes no sense to argue or discuss with you.
DeleteKevin Rice Review St. Vincent Lerins, Vatican I and Encyclical Qui Pluribus of Pope Pius IX.
ReplyDeleteRiche Robert Relampagos Panuela it's not condemned. All judgments against it were provisional and reversed decades ago. The Church now recommends what it once proscribed. She can do that. She has always had that privilege and She has a long history of exercising it.
ReplyDeleteJulia du Fresne well said.
ReplyDeleteThis post is evidence that trads, with their heterodox ultramontane belief in the heretical superstition of selective creeping infallibility, are bad Catholics and ruinous to listen to and be around.
DeleteKevin Rice 'bad and ruinous to be around'. Of course, to portray traditional Catholics as such is in the interests of the conciliar, Novus Ordo, synodal new religion, to whom true Catholics are a stumbling block. If you were logical you'd steer clear of this blog. But lack of logic is probably common to all Novus Ordo Massgoers.
ReplyDeleteKevin Rice It is only a small group of trads that believe this way. The vast majority who attend the Traditional Latin Mass practice the Divine Mercy Devotion, accept the legitimacy of the Popes and the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass. Fr Denzil Meuli for example
DeleteJanet Curran I'm amazed that any Latin Massgoer could support 'Divine Mercy' which is not even to be found in the traditional calendar and was placed on the List of Prohibited Books by not just one but two popes. Pius XII considered it would lead Catholics astray and the state of the Church today, where 'the vast majority who attend the Traditional Latin Mass practice the Divine Mercy Devotion' proves him to have been wise and diligent in protecting his flock.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
DeleteJanet Curran i'm afraid the FSSP were somewhat compromised when forced to agree that their priests could be bi-ritual with the NO. Even 20+ years ago, priests who left the SSPX for the FSSP had to sign a docuмent agreeing to the "valitudinem" (health, wellness) of the NO.
You must have missed my scorn quotes around 'Divine Mercy'. Divine Mercy is God Himself in one of His chief attributes, while 'Divine Mercy' is a private revelation which emphasises mercy over justice - as the conciliar Church does, too.
It was Paul VI (architect of the NO) _ who lifted the prohibitions and restrictions on April 15, 1978 and John Paul II, ardent fan of Polish Catholicism, who introduced Divine Mercy into the NO calendar as part and parcel of the conciliar pattern of overturning pre-Vat II safeguards of the Faith.
DeleteThe SSPX need to be called out and condemned for their falsehoods. Enough is enough. This group foments trouble wherever they go.
Janet Curran
DeleteThe Fraternity of St Peter support it and all my friends who attend the TLM also support this devotion - as did Fr Meuli. I am shocked at you, Julia, for trying to put people off divine mercy! See the excerpt below from the FSSP Auckland's newsletter today. Plus there is no evidence that Pope Pius condemned it and also Pope John 23rd refused to disclose the Third Secret of Fatima, so no wonder he was against divine mercy if he was at all. No evidence to support the claims made by the late Mons Perez at all and his claims have been debunked.
DeleteJulia du Fresne The FSSP have not agreed to be bi-ritual. That's fake. I'm afraid that your views have been coloured by attending the SSPX. Also, you don't seem to critique any of the people you quote and are therefore misleading people. "Distinction from Other Groups: Unlike some other traditionalist communities, the FSSP has always recognized the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, but they are not required to celebrate it themselves.
Pastoral Reality: While they accept the legitimacy of the reformed liturgy, FSSP priests are dedicated solely to the traditional rites, fulfilling their mission through the 1962 liturgical books. In short, the FSSP has secured the right to remain exclusively dedicated to the Traditional Latin Mass rather than adopting a bi-ritual status."
DeleteJanet Curran "the FSSP is compromised according to the rubrics set for its establishment by the Holy See. They are required to train priests for, and ordain priests for, and allow, the Novus Ordo Mass."https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B556_FSSP.html
To be clear, if there were an FSSP Mass were within driving distance I would very gladly attend. I don't have that luxury. My closest Latin Mass is diocesan and over two hours away.
I hardly need to 'critique' Pope Pius XII, do I? I value his judgment far more highly than that of JP II, for reasons stated in the post.
DeleteJulia du Fresne False. You link to a comment by someone calling themselves M.L. - as stated by the TIA "The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA". Julia, surely you can do better than this.
DeleteJanet Curran you do 'someone calling themselves M.L.' a disservice by characterising their opinion on the TIA website as 'false'. It's M.L.'s opinion, to which they are entitled. As I am entitled to mine, which coincides with the opinion of Pope Pius XII.
Please do cite your evidence that the Society of St Pius X 'is spreading falsehoods against the Divine Mercy Devotion and against St John Paul II.' That sounds very much like slander, as does your accusation. I know of no such evidence whatsoever, and to spread 'falsehoods' is, in my personal experience of their ministry, utterly foreign to these holy priests.
Janet Curran
DeleteAs a friend pointed out to me today, it is the SSPX that is spreading falsehoods against the Divine Mercy Devotion and against St John Paul II The Great because they hold it against him that they were automatically excommunicated under Canon Law for disobedience to the Holy Father. Unfortunately, Julia has succumbed to their falsehoods.
DeleteJanet Curran you do 'someone calling themselves M.L.' a disservice by characterising their opinion on the TIA website as 'false'. It's M.L.'s opinion, to which they are entitled. As I am entitled to mine, which coincides with the opinion of Pope Pius XII.
Please do cite your evidence that the Society of St Pius X 'is spreading falsehoods against the Divine Mercy Devotion and against St John Paul II.' That sounds very much like slander, as does your accusation. I know of no such evidence whatsoever, and to spread 'falsehoods' is, in my personal experience of their ministry, utterly foreign to these holy priests.
ReplyDeleteWho or what gave you the authority to denounce Divine Mercy? Just interested. You will not succeed in turning anyone who believes in it. Good job we have a Merciful God. He will forgive you if you turn to Him
DeleteMary Walker please stop attending the dangerous Novus Ordo novelty masses. It’s dangerous to your spiritual health. I’ll pray for you today Mary.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTo.../f072_DivMercy.htm
DeleteCharlotte Pettit "Father Patrick Perez acknowledges at the beginning of his article the debt he owes to the writings of Fr. Peter Scott, a priest of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X. We have previously answered Fr. Scott’s criticisms of Divine Mercy in the web article “How One Divine Mercy Critic Misses the Mark.” "Saint John Paul II and St. Faustina were two of the greatest saints of the 20th century. But the ecclesiastical ideology of Fr. Perez and other radical traditionalists just blinds them from seeing the truth here, and finding joy and refreshment in what God gave to us through these saints of His merciful Heart." https://www.thedivinemercy.org/.../answering-radical...