By Fr. Peter Scott, FSSPX
Table of contents
Note: click section title below to visit the section: click the section title in the text to return to the table of contents.
Mercy in Tradition
Mercy Sunday Graces
Catholic Teaching on Divine Mercy
Together with Justice
The Redemption
New Notion of Sin
New Concept of the Redemption
Paschal Mystery
Consequence for Divine Mercy Devotion
Dependence on divine mercy has always been central to the practice of the Catholic Faith. We find it constantly invoked, praised and honored in the Old Testament, in the New Testament and in the traditional Liturgy of the Church. Our absolute need for God’s mercy is summarized in these words of St. Paul: “But God, who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins . . .” (Eph 2:4,5). Yet the so-called revelations claimed by Sr. Faustina claim that there is something new, so new indeed that a new feast in honor of Divine Mercy must be established. Why this novelty? Does this devotion presuppose a different notion of mercy than that which is expressed by the teaching of the Catholic Church?
It was Canon Ignacy Rozyzki, who became, under Pope John Paul II, the theologian and the theoretician who defended the new devotion to Divine Mercy. It will be helpful for us to see if he considers the notion of mercy that underlies this devotion as being in some way different from the traditional teaching of the Church. Allow me to present a few passages from his writings. “Unfortunately, in the history of the Church, the awareness of God’s mercy was lost, but it still existed. In the common understanding of God by theologians and the faithful, there has been an overemphasis on divine justice, understood strictly juridically.” This unacceptable criticism of the Church presupposes that he knows better, and has found a new awareness that the Church did not have before hand, and that this understanding of mercy excludes justice. Otherwise, he would not have condemned the Church for overemphasizing justice.
He has this also to say: “With the exception of the sacrament of the anointing of the sick, the Tridentine rites of the Holy Sacraments do not emphasize reference to God’s mercy”. However, it is manifest to anybody who has the slightest familiarity with the traditional rites that this is not true. Take, for example, these prayers that are always pronounced in the traditional rite before giving absolution in the confessional or Holy Communion during Mass: “May Almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you your sins, and bring you to life everlasting. Amen. May the Almighty and Merciful Lord grant you pardon, absolution and remission of your sins. Amen.” Likewise, the triple prayer before Holy Communion: “Domine non sum dignus . . .” Examples of the profession of our unworthiness and dependence on God’s mercy abound in practically every prayer of the Missal. Consequently, it is not reference to God’s mercy which is lacking in the traditional rites of the Church.
There must consequently be something else that the Canon perceives to be missing – it is the new understanding of mercy, which in some way excludes justice, and which was introduced into the reformed liturgy after Vatican II. Hence he writes: “Prior to the revelations received by St. Faustina, there was no separate orderly worship of Divine Mercy in the Church . . . St. Faustina’s prophetism is of great pastoral importance, since its effect is to introduce into the life of the Church the devotion to divine mercy”. But what about devotion to the Sacred Passion of Christ, to His Sacred Heart, to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to her Immaculate Heart, all treasures of mercy long honored in the Church? Clearly, for the Canon there is something radically new and different about the devotion to Divine Mercy promoted by Sr. Faustina. If it has introduced devotion to divine mercy, then these other devotions, long cherished by Catholics, are not devotion to divine mercy as he understands it.
Furthermore, he makes frequent reference to the encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Dives in misericordia. However, this encyclical was written to develop a new notion of divine mercy following the Second Vatican Council, and is summarized by this quote, given by Canon Rozyzki, “The Paschal Mystery is the culmination of this revealing and effecting of mercy, which is able to justify man.” (§7). As we shall see, the Paschal Mystery theology is a novelty, which has changed the whole notion of mercy. Yet Canon Rozyzki does not hesitate to affirm that there is “a strict connection between the paschal mystery of our redemption and this feast (of Mercy)”.
However, most astonishing is the credulity with which he accepts the promises supposedly made in the 13th and 33rd revelation to Sr. Faustina, namely of the extraordinary graces attached to receiving Holy Communion on the first Sunday after Easter, which consists in the complete remission of the guilt and of the punishment due to sins. Now, even presuming that the Holy Communion is received in the state of grace and preceded by Confession some time before, the curious affirmation is that such a Communion automatically brings about the remission of all sins and of all the punishment due to sin. For if it is certainly true that Holy Communion can remit venial sins, this depends on the depth of our contrition for them and the fervor of our love of God. It would be more than presumptuous to think that all our venial sins are certainly remitted by a sacrament which was not principally instituted for the forgiveness of sins. Who fully perceives and regrets all his venial sins? Who loves God as he ought? Moreover, it is certain that contrition for venial sins is necessary for them to be forgiven. If there is no reminder of this (as is the case with the reception of a plenary indulgence), how can the soul be expected to have the correct disposition for this Holy Communion to remit them?
However, more astonishing yet is the affirmation that all the temporal punishment due to sin is remitted by this Holy Communion, and this without the conditions required by the Church, when she applies to our souls a plenary indulgence for the remission of the punishment due to our sins – namely the completion of the work, prayers for the intentions of the Sovereign Pontiff, and detachment from all venial sin. In order to justify this, he affirms that this Holy Communion on the Sunday after Easter is a second baptism, and gives a grace equal to baptism. It is certainly true that the soul who is correctly disposed receives through baptism the full remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. But this is only once in a lifetime, and no longer applies when we fall back into sin after baptism.
How could a private devotion be considered equivalent in efficacy to a divinely instituted sacrament? Canon Rozyzki has no other response to this question than: “If God can grant it through the sacrament of baptism, why could he not grant it – if He so desires – through the Eucharist, which is the greatest sacrament?”. Of course God can give graces as He wills and cannot be limited in His holy dispositions – but to make an act of personal devotion a regular and infallible means of obtaining this extraordinary grace and to make it equivalent to a sacrament, ultimately implies a different notion of mercy than that which the Church teaches.
Alas, it is not by a pious communion that we can make up to God for all our offenses against the divine majesty. Note that no heroic act of charity, such as could make up for punishment due to sins, is required. There is not even the requirement of reparation in receiving the Holy Communion, as is necessary for the Nine First Fridays and Five First Saturdays. Yet the promise given to these Holy Communions of reparation is that after many months of practicing the devotion of reparation, and fulfilling the demanding requirements, we receive the promise of receiving the grace of finally going to heaven (final perseverance) after being purified from the temporal punishment due to our sins in the fires of Purgatory.
Yet Canon Rozyzki does not hesitate to affirm the universality of this grace for all who receive this Communion: “All people, even those who hitherto never had devotion to the Divine Mercy (even sinners who repent on the day of the feast itself) can participate to the fullest extent in all the graces which Jesus prepared for this feast”. The incredibility of this affirmation is confirmed by the decision of the Apostolic Penitentiary of June 29, 2002, namely to grant a plenary indulgence under the usual conditions “to the faithful who, on the second Sunday of Easter, or Divine Mercy, in any church or chapel, with a heart completely free from any attachment to any sin, even venial sin, will take part in pious practices performed in honor of the Divine Mercy”. Now if Sr Faustina’s promise of this extraordinary grace were truly credible, then there would be no need at all for the plenary indulgence. The very fact of granting the plenary indulgence means that this unbelievable promise is not taken seriously. Likewise for he who gains it. Note that the very traditional conditions of the indulgence denote a different concept of mercy than the devotion itself.
CATHOLIC TEACHING ON DIVINE MERCY
Let us take a look at the traditional teaching of the Church on divine attribute of mercy. St. Thomas Aquinas considers it together with the attribute of justice, so closely are they bound up with another (Ia, Q 21). It is of Faith that mercy is properly speaking an attribute of God, although there has not been a need for a formal definition of it, since Sacred Scripture repeatedly speaks of it (Garrigou-Lagrange, De Deo Uno, p. 480). There is, however, a difference between man’s mercy and God’s. We feel sorrow at the suffering and defects of others and thus have compassion and mercy on them. God has no feelings, but as the source of all Goodness, he remedies the defects of creatures by bestowing perfections on them. By analogy, therefore, He is all merciful by remedying defects. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that this communication of God’s perfections belongs at the same time to divine Goodness, Justice, Liberality and Mercy, yet under different aspects.“The communication of perfections absolutely speaking belongs to Goodness . . . in so far as perfections are given to things in proportion, the bestowal of them belongs to Justice . . . in so far as God does not bestow them for His own use, but only on account of His goodness, it belongs to Liberality; in so far as perfections given to things by God expel defects, it belongs to Mercy” (21,3). These four attributes are consequently inseparable in God.
However, this leaves a problem. In the common conception of people mercy contradicts justice, so that if a debt is not paid, justice is not accomplished. St. Thomas answers the objection with respect to God’s justice, showing that these two attributes do not contradict one another. “God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against His justice, but by doing something more than justice” (Ad 2). For example, if a man decides to pay back the double of what he owes, he does not act against justice, but with liberality and mercy and goodness. Likewise, when Christ asks us to pardon and forgive one another, he does not ask us to go against justice, but to bestow a gift, to go beyond what is owed in justice. The forgiveness of a debt is consequently not unjust. Likewise, if a regular judge cannot in justice exempt a criminal from the punishment he deserves by law, nevertheless, the supreme legislator can grant a forgiveness of the punishment for the common good, which act of mercy is a special gift, not opposed to justice, but going beyond it. Thus St. Thomas concludes: “Mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fullness thereof. And thus it is said: ‘Mercy exalteth itself above judgment’ (James 2:13)”.
It remains to be seen how God’s justice and mercy towards creatures can be reconciled in practice, since whenever He shows mercy he seems to be unjust, and whenever He is just He seems to be lacking in mercy. Justice in God flows from His wisdom and goodness, and means that “whatever is done by Him in created things, is done according to proper order and proportion” (a.4). But God does not owe anything to creatures, and He can only be said to be just inasmuch as He has given them the remedies to their defects or sins, which is mercy. Thus it is that mercy comes first before justice. “The work of justice always presupposes the work of mercy and is founded thereupon” (Ib.) Mercy is consequently the primary source of every work of God. “For this reason does God out of the abundance of His goodness bestow upon creatures more bountifully that is proportionate to their deserts”. (Ib.) The love of God is consequently the root of all His works, such that “mercy and justice presuppose the goodness and the love of God, but mercy is the first manifestation of this love, while justice is as a second manifestation.” (G-L, Ib. p.484).
This is beautifully expressed by the Collect of the tenth Sunday after Pentecost, which teaches us that God’s mercy is the chief manifestation of His omnipotence:“O God, who dost manifest Thy almighty power chiefly in showing mercy and pity; increase Thy mercy towards us, that we, seeking the way of Thy promises, may be made partakers of Thy heavenly treasures.” This is particularly the case for the forgiveness of our sins, which is so undeserved, and yet the fruit of mercy not opposed to justice, for it manifests most clearly the Goodness and the Omnipotence of God. That mercy goes way beyond justice is also clear from the very existence of sanctifying grace, of final perseverance, of the graces of the sacraments, none of which we can merit or deserve in justice. But there is nothing unjust in this goodness of God, just as when Our Lord promises an eternal reward for giving a cup of cold water (Mt 10:42) or performing the works of mercy towards the least of the brethren (Mt 25:40). Such is the infinite mercy of God, foundation of our hope.
Yet this mercy is never separated from God’s justice, that is the proper order and proportion between grace and man’s free will. Thus mercy is intimately united to justice in a way that we cannot fully understand on this earth. Such as in the case of the eternal condemnation of those who die without God’s grace. However, we will one day adore this most eminent conciliation in heaven, as Pope Pius IX, in his encyclical condemning Indifferentism, taught in 1854: “In truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ (I Jn 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine justice and mercy are united” (Db 1647). We will see how “God . . . because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin” (Pius IX, Db 1977).
This union of mercy and justice is particularly clear in the mystery of the Redemption, as revealed in Sacred Scripture. Allow me to simply quote the apostle of divine love himself: “In this is charity; not as thou we had loved God, but because he hath first loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins” (I Jn 4:10) and “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just; and He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (I Jn 2:2). The word ‘propitiation’ explicitly means making up for something offensive, in this case making up to the justice of God for our sins. The Council of Trent likewise teaches that the meritorious cause of our justification is Jesus Christ, who “merited justification for us by His most holy passion on the wood of the Cross, and made satisfaction for us to God the Father” (Sess vi,7 Db 799).
Consequently, the teaching of the Church is very clear. The mystery of our Redemption is first and foremost an act of merciful love, but at the same time also an act of reparation to the justice of God offended so gravely by our sins, so that in fact mercy and justice cannot be separated. It is by paying for our sins that Our Divine Saviour merited and obtained for us the grace to be redeemed and bought back from our sins.
St Thomas Aquinas points out that theoretically God could have saved us from our sins without requiring satisfaction, and that by doing so would not have acted against justice, for He is the supreme Good and nobody would have been injured (IIIa, Q 46, 2 Ad 3). However, the fact that He chose to do so by sending His Son to make satisfaction for our sins on the Cross is clearly for our great advantage, for the alliance of the payment of justice with the gift of mercy expresses perfectly the goodness of His love. Indeed, it shows us how great is His love for us; gives us the perfect example of the virtues of obedience, humility, constancy and justice which are necessary for our salvation; merits and earns for us sanctifying grace and life everlasting; shows us by the great price that He paid that we must always avoid sin; and vanquishes the devil in our human nature, that man might overcome death (46,3). Hence this conclusion of the Angelic Doctor: “That man could be delivered by Christ’s Passion was in keeping with both His mercy and His justice, With His justice because by His Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sins of the human race, and so man was set free by Christ’s justice; and with His mercy, for since man could not of himself satisfy for the sin of all human nature, God gave him His Son to satisfy for him”. (46, 1 Ad 3)
This constant teaching of the Church on the marvelous union between mercy and justice in the work of our Redemption is beautifully summarized by Pope Pius XII in his 1956 encyclical on the Sacred Heart. “The mystery of the divine Redemption is primarily and by its very nature a mystery of love, that is, of the perfect love of Christ for His heavenly Father to Whom the sacrifice of the Cross, offered in a spirit of love and obedience, presents the most abundant and infinite satisfaction due for the sins of the human race . . . Since our divine Redeemer as our lawful and perfect Mediator, out of His ardent love for us, restored complete harmony between the duties and obligations of the human race and the rights of God, He is therefore responsible for the existence of that wonderful reconciliation of divine justice and divine mercy which constitutes the sublime mystery of our salvation” (§35,36).
Fr Garrigou-Lagrange points out that there is a “clear-obscure” in this supernatural mystery of our Redemption, uniting justice and mercy together. What is clear is the greatness of the mercy of our Divine Saviour, longing to deliver us from our sins. What is clear is that the justice of God, that imposes such sufferings on His Son in reparation for man’s sins, is a proclamation of the rights of God Himself, of the Sovereign Good, that we have all refused. “But what is obscure is the intimate reconciliation of this most tender mercy with the exigencies of infinite justice. We firmly believe both are united in God and in the bruised heart of Jesus, a voluntary victim dying through love of us. We believe this, but we do not see it; and to our superficial gaze it seems that such rigorous justice places limits upon infinite mercy. We do not yet see how they are two forms or two virtues of uncreated love, which are identified in it without any real distinction”. (Our Savior and His Love for Us p. 201). It is precisely this supernatural obscurity of the mystery that the new concept of mercy empties out, by excluding justice.
We cannot understand the new concept of the Redemption, without probing the new understanding of sin. The definition found in every pre-Vatican II Catechism is very simple: mortal sin is a grievous offense against the law of God and venial sin a lesser offense against it. But an offense incurs a debt in justice. Consequently sin, although it cannot harm God in Himself in any way, nevertheless creates a disorder that must be repaired in justice. It does not just harm the sinner. It takes away from God that honor and the glory that are His due in justice. It does not just make man unhappy, but deserves God’s wrath and punishment. Amongst the many texts from St. Paul that prove this, is Rm 1:18: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice”. It is interesting that the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, although it admits secondarily that sin is an offense against God, defines it primarily as “an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love of God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity” (§1849).
Consequently, it is man that sin harms, and not God. Satisfaction in justice for the offense against God is, therefore, no longer necessary or appropriate. Man simply has to be corrected, by reestablishing his relationships with God and with his neighbor. It is this that the above mentioned CCC means by saying that the sinner must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. Note that these terms are placed in quotation marks in the CCC to indicate that this is not the same literal sense as in the past, when these terms meant making up to the justice of God for the offense of our sins (§ 1459).
Paschal Mystery Theology, developed in the second half of the 20th century, saw itself as replacing the traditional notion of the Redemption. Instead of a propitiatory offering to divine justice offended by sin, it considers it as a pure manifestation of God’s love, and gives it the name of Paschal Mystery. The Passion and the Resurrection of Christ reveal, they affirm, the infinite charity with which God pursues man, even when he sins. The traditional notion of satisfaction is considered too negative. If sin were not an offense against God they would be correct. Consequently, the Paschal Mystery, showing God’s love, does not mean to give anything back to God, but instead to give God back to man, without any need for a reparation or restoration of order. It is this concept which, after Vatican II, eliminated from the Novus Ordo Mass all reference to the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, but instead considered it as a banquet or celebration of the love of God and of the community. For if the Cross is not a sacrifice, properly speaking, neither is the Mass. In 1994 the International Theological Commission made this very explicit: “The death of Jesus is not the act of a merciless God glorifying supreme sacrifice; it is not the ‘price of redemption’ paid to some repressive alien power. It is the time and place where a God who is love and who loves us, is made visible.” (Quoted in The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, p. 48).
It is likewise this concept of the Paschal Mystery which is behind the new notion of mercy promoted by Pope John Paul II’s encyclicalDives in misericordia. “The messianic message of Christ and His activity among people end with the cross and resurrection. We have to penetrate deeply into this final event – which especially in the language of the Council is defined as the Mysterium Paschale – if we wish to express in depth the truth about mercy, as it has been revealed in depth in the history of our salvation.” (§7). In the following paragraphs, he deduces the consequences of this new notion. The first is that there is only one covenant between God and man, which has never been broken by sin. The second is that mercy is attributed principally to God the Father, and not to Christ, and the third is that the principal act in the Paschal Mystery is no longer to be considered the Passion and Death of Christ, but rather His resurrection and ascension, for they fully manifest His love.
Allow me to quote a few passages from this encyclical. Note that the Pope speaks about the Passion and death of Christ, but as a manifestation of God’s love rather than a satisfaction to divine justice. It is the beginning manifestation of his merciful love, which is only finally complete in the Resurrection. Consequently, the Redemption, now called the Paschal Mystery, is no longer complete with the death of Christ, as in Catholic theology, but now is principally manifest in the Resurrection and ascension. Moreover, for the adepts of the Paschal Mystery, the death of Christ on the Cross does not establish a new covenant. To the contrary there is only one covenant that God made with man at creation, a covenant of love, which is continued in the Paschal Mystery.
Here is what this encyclical affirms: Christ “came to give the final witness to the wonderful covenant of God with humanity, of God with man – every human being. This covenant, as old as man – it goes back to the very mystery of creation” (§7). Now this is in direct contradiction with the words of Our Lord contained in the consecration of the Precious Blood, “the new testament in my Blood, which shall be shed for you” (Lk 22:20). St. Paul affirms the same: “This chalice is the new testament in my Blood” (I Cor 11:25) and even more clearly in his letter to the Hebrews: “He is the mediator of the new testament: that by means of His death, for the redemption of those transgressions, which were under the former testament, they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (9:15). Note also that not only does our Faith teach us that there is a new testament or covenant, that has taken the place of the old, but that it was promulgated at Christ’s death (Heb 9:17), and has taken the place of the old covenant, now valueless. It is entirely false to affirm that we are now under the same covenant as Adam and Moses, for the Son of God shed His blood precisely to pay the price to establish a new covenant.
Note also that St. Paul affirms that this new covenant is only for those who are called, that is who have the Faith. It is not for all mankind, as John Paul II false affirms – “every human being”. According to the Paschal Mystery theology all mankind is “redeemed” by the love that God had from the creation. There is no need, then, for Faith, baptism, penance, the sacraments and the Church. This is the basis of modern day ecumenism. In fact, it is the application of one of the most scandalous texts of Vatican II, which is quoted in the CCC (§432) and frequently by John Paul II: “By His Incarnation Christ is a certain way united himself with every man” (G&S, §22). Addressing the pagan peoples of Asia on February 21, 1981, he affirmed: “In the Holy Spirit, every individual and all people have become, through the Cross and Resurrection of Christ, children of God, partakers of the divine nature and heirs to eternal life” (Quoted by De La Roque, Pope John Paul II, p.3). This is naturalism, meaning that man by his very nature experiences the love of God. Grace is contained in nature, and so by nature he is redeemed and has dignity and freedom of religion.
Speaking of the love of the Cross, Dives in misericordia proceeds to attribute mercy to God the Father, and not to Christ Himself. Passing from those who have faith to humanity (which presumably, then, also has faith) he affirms that mercy is the same thing as the love of God the Father, rather than the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Thus it is, like the covenant, for all time and for all mankind, not just the elect. The cross “speaks and never ceases to speak of God the Father, who is absolutely faithful to His eternal love for man, since He ‘so loved the world’ – therefore man in the world – that ‘he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.’ Believing in the crucified Son means ‘seeing the Father,’ means believing that love is present in the world and that this love is more powerful than any kind of evil in which individuals, humanity, or the world are involved. Believing in this love means believing in mercy. For mercy is an indispensable dimension of love; it is as it were love’s second name and, at the same time, the specific manner in which love is revealed and effected vis-a-vis the reality of the evil that is in the world, affecting and besieging man, insinuating itself even into his heart and capable of causing him to “perish in Gehenna.” (§7).
You will note that John Paul II admits the possibility of hell, but not as a punishment for sin. How could he affirm that love causes a soul to perish in hell? Because the soul refuses the gift of love, but not because God in His justice sends him there for a due punishment. Yet this is in direct opposition with Sacred Scripture: “and these shall go into everlasting punishment” (Mt 25:46) and with the Magisterium: “that they may receiving according to their works, whether their works have been good or evil, the latter everlasting punishment with the devil” (Lat IV in 1215; Db 429). Moreover Pope Benedict XII taught very explicitly: “the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin immediately after their death descend into hell where they are tortured by infernal punishments” (Db 531). Hell is not just a self-exclusion from love. It is a punishment inflicted by the justice of God. These are not pleasant, but they are truths of our Faith that are implicitly contradicted by the Paschal Mystery theology when it excludes all justice from God’s dealings with men.
Pope John Paul II continues to explain the other aspect of the Paschal Mystery theology, namely that it is principally accomplished by the resurrection, which fully reveals God’s love, rather than by the death of Christ on the Cross. It is, indeed, entirely logical, once justice is emptied out of all God’s works. Here is what he writes: “Christ, whom the Father ‘did not spare’ for the sake of man and who in His passion and in the torment of the cross did not obtain human mercy, (sic!) has revealed in His resurrection the fullness of the love that the Father has for Him and, in Him, for all people.” (§8) And again: “Here is the Son of God, who in His resurrection experienced in a radical way mercy shown to Himself, that is to say the love of the Father which is more powerful than death. And it is also the same Christ, the Son of God, who at the end of His messianic mission – and, in a certain sense, even beyond the end – reveals Himself as the inexhaustible source of mercy, of the same love that, in a subsequent perspective of the history of salvation in the Church, is to be everlastingly confirmed as more powerful than sin. The paschal Christ (note, but not Christ crucified) is the definitive incarnation of mercy” (§8). Such is the new concept of mercy that Canon Rozyzki so admires and finds in the Diary of Sr. Faustina.
CONSEQUENCE FOR DIVINE MERCY DEVOTION
Now we can begin to understand the new way in which the proponents of Sr Faustina’s revelations think about divine mercy. It is a mercy which is considered “unconditional”. This does not mean infinite, for it has always been the teaching of the Church that God’s mercy, like all his attributes, is infinite, that is without limit. Our divine Savior made reparation for the sins of the whole world without exception, without limit. However, when they affirm that God’s mercy is unconditional, they mean that it is entirely free from any other consideration, namely that of justice. For according to their way of thinking, if God is just, then he is not all-merciful. This is entirely false, for it is by paying the debt of our sins on the Cross, by the practice of justice, that Our Divine Savior obtains for us mercy and the forgiveness of our sins.
God’s mercy is indeed conditional – on condition that we have contrition for our sins, admit them and beg for forgiveness, and on condition that we, united to the Passion of Our Lord, are willing to do something, as little as it might be, to make reparation. It is this new way of thinking about mercy that causes Canon Rozyzki to affirm that the pre-Vatican II teachings showed “an overemphasis on divine justice” and that the “awareness of God’s mercy” had been lost. Nothing could be further from the truth, since the Church has always made the conversion of sinners its great focus of attention, and that is always and in every case a work of divine mercy.
Next comes the curious affirmation that Holy Communion on the Sunday after Easter brings with it the remission of all sins and of all the punishment due to sin – unconditionally. This affirmation undermines the gravity of mortal and venial sin, by omitting to mention the very important dispositions in our own soul, without which sin cannot be forgiven – such as perfect contrition and an unusually fervent love of God for the remission of venial sins, for which we have lost all attachment! It is as if God does everything, without our need to cooperate with grace in any serious way. It is based upon the belief that sin is not really an offense against God, but just a disorder in the person. Hence the punishment due to sin is considered as of no consequence. There is no need to do penance for our sins or to apply the merits of Christ, Our Lady and the saints. It is as if all temporal punishment is automatically extinguished.
The affirmation that this devotion could be equivalent to a second baptism derives from the same source. Whereas baptism is a full cleansing of the soul from guilt and punishment by the perfect application of the merits of Christ, neither is confession nor communion. The Council of Trent, reiterating the Fathers of the Church, teaches that the sacrament of Penance so differs from baptism as to be“a second plank after the shipwreck of lost grace” (vi, 14 Db 807). It goes on to explain what this means: “Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a cessation from sins, a detestation of them . . . but also sacramental confession . . . as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers and other devout exercises of the spiritual life . . . for the temporal punishment, which is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism” . (Ib.)
The affirmation that this Communion alone on Mercy Sunday is identical to a second baptism is a practical denial of this teaching of the Faith and the affirmation that the mercy of God is such that there is no need for a reparation for the offense made to God by our sins. It is highly scandalous and of great harm to souls, for it turns them away from doing penance for their sins. How different are the promises of the First Friday and First Saturday devotions, which promise not freedom from Purgatory but life everlasting to those who persevere in reparation to the Sacred and Immaculate Heart for their sins and those of others.
There is another consequence of this new concept of unconditional mercy. It is that it is open to all mankind without distinction. Although requirements of the Church for Holy Communion are understood, the so-called revelations express the same universality as the Paschal Mystery. Thus Sr Faustina did not hesitate to affirm: “I give mankind a last resort – that is, an escape to My mercy” (Diary, §998), whereas she should have said that it is for Catholics or for the Church. Likewise Our Lord would supposedly have said: “Let no soul be afraid to approach me” (§699), again without any distinction. Canon Rozyzcki explains that the consequence of this is a trust that has no limits, that has no conditions attached to it, which does not require anything of us. He affirms: “there is only one rational response to Mercy’s unlimited generosity, namely unlimited trust”. This trust is quite different from our unshakable confidence, inspired by the virtue of hope, by which we have the assurance that God will give us grace, eternal life, and all the means necessary to obtain it – namely the sacraments and the prayers of the Church. It is an unconditional trust, which has taken the place of the Faith. Unconditional trust in this promise is really no different from the false presumptuous confidence of the protestants that was so clearly condemned by the Council of Trent: “If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone by which we are justified: let him be anathema” (vi, Cn 12 Db 822).
If, therefore, the so-called apparitions to Sr. Faustina are dangerous for the Faith on account of their ambiguity, and the truths of our Faith that are not clearly expressed, more frightening yet is the interpretation given to them in the light of the false notion of mercy that is the fruit of the Paschal Mystery theology. The Divine Mercy devotion and the accompanying literature are consequently a grave danger to souls, on account of the modernism that is inherent in them.