Q & A about the Divine Mercy Devotion

Note: To view a footnote, click the number in the text. To return to the text, click the number at the left of the footnote. To view a specific question click the Table of Contents above. To return to the Table of Contents click the question in the text.

In 1958 the Holy Office decreed, and the next year reiterated in the Holy See’s gazette, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, a strict and complete prohibition of the Divine Mercy devotion of Sr. Faustina Kowalska, a nun of Poland. Sr. Faustina wrote in her diary, the only document on the topic, of the myriad visions and locutions of beings she took to be Jesus Christ with angels, devils and Saints. The diary, now published at 700 or more printed pages, includes 1828 numbered entries recording possibly 1000 individual visions, ecstasies or locutions.

The Polish episcopate in its stated opinions found the visions to be non-credible and on this basis the Holy Office issued its edicts. The principal message of the private revelation was one of ultimatum to the world, that it focus on and worship one isolated characteristic of God, that is His mercy, and that the mercy of God be especially and uniquely extolled as it hadn’t before in Church history. “Mercy is my greatest attribute,” said the supposed Christ to the Polish nun, and in service of this revelation to modern man in his dire condition a package of devotions was insisted upon: a painting, a chaplet, a novena, a holy hour at 3 o’clock and a feast day. Worship of the Divine Mercy according to these forms, dictated to Sr. Faustina, could alone save the world from destruction and was its last possible hope.

Fr. Karol Wojtyla, later Pope John Paul II, was asked to answer on behalf of one of the bishops a questionnaire sent from the Holy Office to inform its inquiry into the devotion. His opinion took a line unlike the other responses and voiced positive approval. The episcopate was otherwise uniformly skeptical or negative, and the Ordinary of Sr. Faustina’s diocese, Abp. Romuald Jałbrzykowski, was decidedly negative, as was the Polish primate, Card. Stefan Wyszyński. The devotion would require extraordinary circumstances to be allowable by Church authorities, and this is exactly what came to pass with the rising star of Karol Wojtyla, who as Cardinal initiated the process of lifting the ban and extolling the Divine Mercy devotion. The timing of this initial request in 1964 coincided immediately with the Second Vatican Council, “the spirit of Vatican II” allowing laxity in the processes leading up to the 1978 lifting of the ban by the CDF (previously the Holy Office) and the 1993 canonization ceremony of Sr. Faustina Kowalska, which facilitated the 2000 pronouncement of Divine Mercy Sunday (though it made no mention of her or the Divine Mercy devotion). Yet, these would all seem to give great approval to the private revelation. However, they are all lacking in sense, as is the 1978 Acta Apostolicae Sedis announcement lifting the ban:

From various quarters, especially from Poland, and even authoritatively, the question has been asked whether the prohibitions contained in the Notification of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, published in the AAS, year 1959, p. 271, concerning devotion to Divine Mercy in the forms promoted by Sister Faustina Kowalska, should be considered still in force.

This Sacred Congregation, keeping in mind the many original documents not known in 1959; considering the profoundly changed circumstances, and taking into account the opinion of many Polish Ordinaries, declares that the prohibitions contained in the aforementioned Notification are no longer binding.”

The “many original documents” cited likely refers largely to a revised copy of the diary, considered a corrected version, as this, along with interviews from the informative process of beatification and a theological study of the diary, completes the informational package sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) by Cardinal Wojtyla for review. The second point listed in the notification is “profoundly changed circumstances,” which while vague seems to indicate the state of the Church in the post-Vatican II era, indeed profoundly changed. Lastly, “the opinion of many Polish Ordinaries” is in reference mainly to the opinion of Cardinal Wojtyla, as the devotion did not have popular support in the Polish episcopate. “We are walking on ice,” 1 said the Cardinal of his delicate, diplomatic mission to reinstate the Divine Mercy devotion in a time when only a tiny cadre of loyalists had any remembrance of it or interest in its reinstatement. 2

The Divine Mercy devotion in the forms proposed by Sr. Faustina Kowalska has always been propagandized and promoted with great enthusiasm by its advocates, and it is this information which today circulates about it in Catholic circles, often without due criticism.

This article proposes to clarify the correct information about the devotion.

In my life, the Divine Mercy devotion has provided consolation, especially in difficult times. Doesn’t this show it is valid?

The more seductive or convincing a counterfeit, the more dangerous it is. This private revelation must be treated with strict critical objectivity precisely because it is attractive. An obvious question arises: is the popularity of the Divine Mercy (DM) devotion, then and now, based on emotionalism, a seductive and false consolation, instead of its authenticity?

Let us continue this line of objective questioning, according to Catholic principle, and consider the examination and conclusion of the Polish episcopate, the Ordinary of Sr. Faustina, and the Holy Office at the time of the origin of the devotion.

I’ve heard Sr. Faustina was personally holy, a good model of Christian virtue, and also a very good religious. If she is a good nun, does it help to confirm the validity of her visions?

Indeed, the testimonies of religious sisters and superiors of Sr. Faustina show a variety of good and likable qualities, including a bright and cheerful demeanor, enthusiastic and loving conversations about God, an edifying influence on sisters and in a special way upon the problematic or sinful, patience and long-suffering in illness, active devotion, and other marks of piety and good character. However, it is the positive side of the descriptions and a less positive side is open to critical study.

The claim of Sr. Faustina as an exemplary religious sister and of her life having no problematic questions is simply false. According to both her diary and to records of her superiors and sisters she displayed eccentric and problematic tendencies.

At one point she was thought by superiors and sisters to be possessed by the devil and her rooms surveilled. 3 One religious sister talked directly to the superior to request Sr. Faustina be expelled, on the eve of her taking perpetual vows. 4 She was sarcastically called “castellan,” that is the aristocratic governess of a medieval castle, 5 and her emphatic zeal could irritate others 6 as could the special privileges granted to her. 7 Some issues relate to eccentricity arising from the apparitions and locutions she experienced including odd, banal, and inappropriate messages to superiors at the orders of “Jesus Christ,” 8 Also, the secret sins of others in the convent, including priests, were revealed to her in locutions and she was often ordered by “Jesus” to report these to superiors. 9 Concerning her revelations, the Mother General was wary of “Sister Faustina’s wild imagination or hysteria because what she had forecast did not always come to pass.” 10

Additional issues with her character include “too boldly” (says a superior) admonishing those sisters of higher rank in the convent; 11 being given to crying spells, which sometimes required superiors being called in to intervene; 12 a diagnosis of hysteria from the convent infirmary; 13 episodes of psychologically induced catatonia, collapsing and being unable to move; 14 excessive, self-instituted fasting and penance which led her physical health into ruin and fatal tuberculosis; 15 lack of obedience, to wit, according to a superior, “as regards matters pertaining to the Divine Mercy, it was very difficult for her to renounce her self-will;” 16 driving superiors to angry tirades against her; 17 provoking religious sisters to anger with incisive observations of their interior faults; 18 “having a weakness for considering herself a ‘spiritual director,’” according to one superior, 19 and so taking upon herself intimate, improper counsel of other religious sisters; “having a temper, which quite often came out,” according to a superior; 20 obtaining permission to dispense with rules of silence to carry on theological conversations with sisters; 21 public and demonstrative acts of mysticism, including those which spoke openly of the sins of priests, by name; 22 admonishing priests (in private) 23 and superiors; refusing assigned work and leaving others to do it for her (in one period of time); 24 unwillingness to change behavior she was aware sisters found offensive, due to self-certainty of having special favor of Jesus Christ, 25 as she was told in visions; seeking new confessors upon being tested about her visions; 26 staying generally unlearned in catechism and religion, 27 instead using her time to keep a diary; and other examples.

Sr. Faustina was transferred 14 times in 13 years of religious life, to the various houses in the congregation. It was highly unusual to relocate a sister so often. She settled in Krakow only due to poor health preventing additional transfer. A biographer, Maria Tarnawska, while an admirer of hers, cites problematic attitudes and behavior as the cause of transfers. 28

I understand Sr. Faustina was discreet, that she was not known by others to be special, outside of her confessor and a few superiors. Also, she wrote her diary only under obedience and wasn’t interested in doing so.  

Indeed, at least one sister in her recollections says Sr. Faustina was secretive of the visions and she herself knew nothing of them, despite being a close friend. 29 Others say the same. However, the source documents illustrate it was not always the case.

The diary and records of interviews with the sisters of the congregation show common knowledge of the presence of mystical occurrences in the life of Sr. Faustina and it disturbed the life of the convent. 30 She openly demonstrated her locutions and occult knowledge, that is to say, information of which she could not naturally be aware. 31 Some specific revelations in the Divine Mercy devotion became publicly known, for example, the painting. 32 Others she attempted to introduce into daily prayer of the convent, for example, the chaplet. 33

There is every indication Sr. Faustina did wish to write the diary. According to a superior, Sr. Faustina “spent all her free time making her notes, in which she gladly occupied herself.” 34

Fr. Sopocko only ordered his confessant to keep a diary to allow himself to study her experiences, which she introduced to him at their first meeting and was soon forbidden to talk of in the confessional. Additionally, keeping a diary became the unusual penance for the disobedient act of burning a previous copy, the one originally ordered by Fr Sopocko. She burned the first copy, according to the priest, on the direction of an “angel,” but later he concluded it was a devil. 35 However, the rewriting of the diary introduces confusion into its chronology and casts its credibility into doubt, as the memories of events contained in the early version would be uncertain.

The content of the diary is embellished far beyond the mystical experiences, as a reading of it indicates. The intention of Sr. Faustina to write the diary “for the use of pious souls,” in her words, was a departure from the orders of her confessor. The diary comes across often as a textbook of the spiritual life. This she did according to self-will and the desire to demonstrate her exceptional spirituality to the public. According to classical sources of the discernment of spirits, desire to write and publish one’s experiences, unless under obedience indicates false revelation. 36

Concerning the diary she wrote, I’ve heard it was the only reason the devotion was banned by The Holy Office in 1958, because it was poorly transcribed and translated. Once the errors were corrected and an updated translation was prepared, the ban was lifted. Is it so?

It is doubtful the transcription errors in the diary led even partially to the 1958 condemnation of the Holy Office. First, the changes were insignificant. In the introduction to the diary’s first edition of 1981, the author compares the original “bad” translations to the corrected ones in several passages, and the change is superficial. 37 Secondly, the opinion of the Polish bishops was sent to the Holy Office in the form of written questionnaires, and became the basis of the condemnation. 38 The bishops were almost uniformly dubious of the revelations of Sr. Faustina. This included the Ordinary. “Archbishop Jalbrzykowski had a decidedly critical attitude to the revelations of Sr. Faustina from the very beginning, when the news reached him,” according to a Polish article. 39 The archbishop met Sr. Faustina personally, twice. Says Ewa Czaczkowska, Sr. Faustina’s biographer, “The fact that the development of the Divine Mercy cult in the forms given by Sr. Faustina was opposed by the majority of the Polish episcopate at the time was first stated publicly in 2008 by Cardinal Dziwisz.” 40 Moreover, Archbishop Gawlina wrote a letter in answer to an inquiry, stating he learned from Primate Wyszynski, “a commission of Polish bishops investigated the matter and found Sister Faustyna’s revelations not to be supernatural. It may be that the Holy Office based its ruling on this research.” 41

Is Sr. Faustina not continuing in a line of mystics, approved by the Church, of the 21st century? For example the messages contained in her diary look similar to those given to Sr. Josefina Menendez and Sr. Benigna Consolata, among several others, extolling the love of God.

As compared to the above list of visionaries, Sr. Faustina’s private revelation is an exaggerated version with some superficial similarities. Importantly, none speak of the Divine Mercy devotion in the forms proposed by her, with apocalyptic ultimatum, or insist on mercy as the greatest attribute of God, or call for feast days on Low Sunday, with accompanying novenas which overlap the Easter Triduum and subtract from it.

The message of Jesus Christ contained in the sequence of approved 20^th century female mystics is often an appeal to souls, especially those indifferent or in sin, to have recourse to His mercy and love, to have confidence in His forgiveness and clemency, and form an intimate relationship.

The Divine Mercy devotion is the exaggeration of the above, in a seeming continuation of it, but demanding of the Church novel and unindicated devotional practice. It also changes fundamentally the understanding of “mercy,” from the alleviation of misery, after repentance, to a carte blanche salvation based on the vague and undefined “trust” in God’s mercy. It is indicated in the insistence, by the supposed Jesus Christ, in “trust,” without instructing in repentance or penance. Trust is mentioned in the diary about 150 times, and repentance less than five. It is also, more concretely, indicated in the outrageous promise of remission of all temporal punishment due to sin, described by the Vatican censor commissioned by John Paul II to study the theology of the diary, as a “second baptism,” 42 attached to the Divine Mercy Sunday and available on this day only. 43

The presumption encouraged by this devotion is taught to Sr. Faustina herself, as she says in this passage of the diary: “The moment I knelt down to cross out my own will, as the Lord had bid me to do, I heard this voice in my soul: From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.” 44

Both the promise of Divine Mercy Sunday and this assertion to Sr. Faustina are clear examples of errant theology, of which others are included in the diary.

Notably, Sr. Faustina received a copy of the book of Sr. Maria Consolata Betrone, and a superior said it was her “favorite reading.” 45 Sr. Consolata is called by Jesus Christ, “My secretary,” and various terms of endearment. It is identical in the writing of Sr. Faustina. It is possible the imagination of Sr. Faustina was influenced by the book of Sr. Consolata, since as Fr. Sopocko says, Sr. Faustina imagined a large amount of her diary, and one’s imagination takes inspiration from existing sources.

Certain singular characteristics of the revelations of Sr. Faustina are missing from the mystics listed above: they were not flattered or given grandiose compliments and praise; they were not described as “unstable” or “tremendously sensitive” by superiors; they did not have constant, often banal and occasionally bizarre visions; they were not described by their confessors as fantasists; nor by superiors as a “queer hysterical visionary;” 46 they were not thought to be possessed by the devil; they were not opposed by their Ordinary and other bishops of the country; their revelations were not condemned by the Holy Office; etc.

If Sr. Faustina’s revelations do not continue a known sequence of true messages of Jesus Christ, do they have some precedent?

The mystic most closely related to the visions of Sr. Faustina is an infamous one. She was excommunicated by Pius X in 1906. 47 She founded a group in Poland called the Mariavites, who hailed her as divine. The priests in her group, she led to disgrace and excommunication. Her name was Sr. Maria Kozlowska, called “The Little Mother.” The group turned to depraved sexual practices, 48 blasphemously pretends to have women bishops, and early on had contact with the Satanist Abbe Boullan. 49 Its building is called The Temple of Love and Mercy, and its book is The Work of Great Mercy. Its location is the city of Plock, Poland. In Plock, Sr. Faustina had her first revelations from the supposed Jesus Christ concerning the Divine Mercy.

Sr. Faustina lived in close walking distance of their “Temple of Love and Mercy,” a large and impressive cathedral. 50 The number of Mariavites in Plock would have been in the tens of thousands, since the sect had, at its height, close to one million members. 51 Sr. Faustina worked in a nearby bakery owned by her convent, 52 and talked with the public. It is not known if she heard or was intrigued by their ideas, or of the visions received by Sr. Kozlowska. The visions and messages given to her are similar to those of Sr. Faustina. 53

Today’s Mariavites credit the Divine Mercy devotion as the continuation of revelations to Sr. Kozlowska. 54

In an ecumenical Catholic journal, the interviewer asks Konrad Rudnicki, a modern Mariavite priest, this question, 55 “Could it be that, in fact, Faustina Kowalska had a repeated message given earlier to the Mother, Mary Francis?”

Professor Rudnicki says, “The similarity of the two apparitions is a very interesting ‘coincidence.’ I have spoken more extensively on this subject in a paper included in the Collection ‘The Theology of Divine Mercy.’ Indeed, the matter of the identity of the apparitions of St. Mary Francis and St. Mary Faustina requires a longer explanation. To put it briefly, and therefore necessarily simplifying the details, in my—and not only my—opinion, we are dealing here with a repetition of the same revelation—with the difference that the revelation given to our Foundress seems more basic. For it contains general principles for putting into practice the Work of Mercy. Therefore, if someone wants to carry out this work in his or her life, no matter who he or she is or what his or her specific vocation is, he or she has all the basic data in this revelation on how to carry out God’s call. Sister Maria Faustina, meanwhile, received revelations of a more personal nature. In relation to the primary revelation given to Mother Kozlowska, Maria Faustina’s revelations are exemplary.”

The interviewer asks, “So did Sr. Faustina receive the revelation given earlier to Mateczka Kozlowska, only that in a more personal version?” Professor Rudnicki says, “I don’t know if you know that she was not the only one. After her, a number of other people perceived in post-sensory cognition the Work of Mercy. All of these revelations are in the same line of revelations that began in 1893, and with the exception of Maria Faustina’s revelations, these are very small fragments of this Work of God, very personal, individual aspects of the Work.”

Incidentally, Sr. Faustina calls her efforts “the work of Mercy” in her letters. 56

The life’s work of Sr. Maria Kozlowska, based on visions and locutions, she called The Work of the Great Mercy, and it was continued by her acolytes, the Mariavites, and held to be both divinely revealed and apocalyptic. Prof. Rudnicki alludes in his answer to previous visionaries and their revelations of “The Work of Mercy.” When he says 1893, he likely means to say 1839, the origin of this occult phenomenon.

Eugene Vintras was an occultist, operating under the influence of voices and visions, who performed prodigies and led even some Catholic clergy to see himself as divinely inspired. In 1839 Vintras, in the course of revelations, received the “Work of Mercy,” or l’Oeuvre de la Misericorde. “He became a visionary. . . . Many believed him a prophet and followed him, among them several priests, who alleged that they partook of his occult vision. . . . While his enemies referred these miracles to the devil, a small band regarded Vintras as a new Christ. . . . But one follower named Gozzoli published scandalous accounts of his activities, alleging that horrible obscenities and sacrilegious masses took place in their private chapel at Tilly sur-seules. The unspeakable abominations alluded to were contained in a pamphlet . . . The sect was formally condemned by the pope . . .” 57

The Work of Mercy was continued by a disciple of Vintras, Abbe Boullan, excommunicated priest and infamous Satanist, and according to Catholic priest Leon Cristiani, Boullan was in “close contact” with the two principal Mariavite leaders. 58

So, according to Professor Konrad Rudnicki, of the Mariavite sect in Poland, and writer of a treatise on the Divine Mercy, the revelations to Sr. Faustina Kowalski are the continuation of revelations to a list of excommunicated Satanists, all linked by close contact, including Sr. Faustina by physical location. This information casts the Divine Mercy revelations as likely diabolical in origin. It appears this diabolical deception was long in preparation, starting about 100 years prior to 1931.

Is it not true her confessor, Fr. Michael Sopocko, was an excellent priest, learned and orthodox? Did he not provide her with close direction and discern the spiritual goodness and authenticity of her visions?

Fr. Sopocko’s theology in this case is open to criticism. He is not a competent judge of the diary’s contents. For example, while he at first, correctly, determined the alleged message of Jesus Christ, “mercy is my greatest attribute,” to be theologically flawed, he later applied false interpretations of the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and others to come to a rash, erroneous acceptance of it. The article of St. Thomas treats of mercy the human virtue, not the divine, and although it signifies in mercy, “His omnipotence is to be chiefly manifested,” it does not go as far as to say it is God’s greatest attribute. 59 Theologically, speaking of God who is unified in perfect simplicity, no one virtue is isolated and exalted above others. 60

Fr. Sopocko provided no actual direction to Sr. Faustina concerning the discernment of her visions. Tested by him at their early conversation in the confessional, she left to seek a new confessor, and when she came back they agreed, within a little time, to not speak of the matter, instead she was ordered to keep a diary to give to him to study. 61 (Even so, letters written between the two indicate the distinct possibility Fr. Sopocko didn’t receive the diaries in her lifetime and after her death it is certain he was given only copies.) 62 The instruction to keep a diary, without comment on his part, is a tacit acceptance of the visions, and gross dereliction of his duty to provide discernment; and this is all not to mention that he should have seen her rejection of his test, and her conviction of the certain truth of her visions—prior to his becoming her confessor—as obvious red flags, according to any Catholic text.

Fr. Sopocko says he received a favorable report from the superiors of Sr. Faustina. This is unaccountable because of her eccentricities. Sr. Faustina had many conflicts with the will of superiors. For an extended period, she was told to reject her experiences, ignore them, and consider them as illusions. 63 This was told to her by confessors and superiors regularly, according to her diary, yet she provides no indication she listened seriously and obeyed their will committedly. “As regards matters pertaining to the Divine Mercy, it was very difficult for her to renounce her self-will,” 64 according to her Mother Superior in Krakow. When she encountered this resistance, which was often, she says her superiors had, in her own words, “sown doubt” in the revelations. 65 Likewise, the opposition of the bishop to her leaving the congregation, to found a new one, was not sufficient for her to abandon the project. Only once she was given permission, this after a period of sullenness, mental imbalance, and persistence, did she stop her plans. 66

Oddly, it was Fr. Sopocko, not locution, introducing the idea of the congregation she came to be certain of which she was to be foundress. He did this in the course of spiritual direction, in such way Sr. Faustina took it as the word of God, as she says, “I understood that the Lord was speaking through him.” 67

It is stated by Fr. Sopocko, importantly: Sr. Faustina fantasized many sections of her diary. He required her to underline only the sections she was certain were not imagined. Then, he writes, “she left out a lot of her past memories.” 68 One important example is the recollection of Sr. Faustina of her first interview with Mother Michaela of the Warsaw house. 69 Sr. Faustina’s version is completely different from the one of Mthr. Michaela. 70 It includes words Mthr. Michaela did not say, and words of “Jesus Christ.” It illustrates the fantastic nature of many diary episodes.

We have evidence of emotional and psychological instability. The lack of support from superiors in acknowledging and accepting her visions led to internal pressure, as did the demands of “Jesus” to execute the various particulars of the Divine Mercy devotion. A superior, Mthr. Irena, states, “I frequently noted that she was upset because the Feast and worship of the Divine Mercy progressed slowly. For that reason it could be seen that that her disposition was frequently unbalanced: she was sometimes very joyful and then she was sadder, which had not been the case previously.” 71 She often had crying fits, as told by the sisters, and sadness, irritability, along with a “persecution complex” where she played the mistreated heroine, as is commonly indicated in the diary. Of her personality, one superior describes “the ease of pupil dilation inherent in nervous and excitable people,” 72 finding this detail memorable. “Sister Faustina was tremendously sensitive,” says Mthr. Michaela. 73

One other issue is the excessive fasting which ended up ruining Sister’s health. She began it in youth, previously to entering the convent, outside the guidance of a director. 74 It continued into convent life, even after she was sent to a special location to regain health and to the infirmary. She seemingly paid no attention to the state of her health or nutrition, even if her illness had become a clear inconvenience to the convent. 75 One additional consideration is the emotional and mental imbalance caused by excessive fasting, depriving the body of sustenance.

Additionally, the public nature and imprudence of her fasting speaks to the possibility of religiosity and self-seeking desire for public praise.

Fr. Sopocko did nothing to allay the self-certainty of Sr. Faustina concerning her visions. In their first conversation she told him he was to play a part in “some of God’s plans” that she would dictate to him. 76 Acting as her own director she was now convinced of the veracity of the visions, and Fr. Sopocko accepted this, though he knew in the terms of due caution towards the discerning the spirit attaching itself to her, Sr. Faustina showed little, if any wisdom.

Sr. Faustina showed a distinct lack of this cardinal virtue of prudence in the unserious, occasional tests she applied to the spirit appearing to her. 77 Also, she carelessly and easily accepted the most ridiculous compliments, flattery, and praise from the alleged Jesus Christ. 78

The academic work of Fr. Sopocko concerning the Divine Mercy devotion is concerning. The books of misericordiology, some of which were published for popular reading, essentially extol the mercy of God as found in Scripture and are orthodox enough in themselves, although to the extent they seek to prove the assertion of the alleged Jesus Christ, “mercy is my greatest attribute,” they are indeed theologically flawed in premise. However, more troubling is the fact that before the ban was placed on the DM devotion he was promoting it in published pamphlets: one, in violation of canon law on the publication of unapproved private revelations, and two, in violation of a 1937 decree of the Holy Office (AAS 29-304), titled New Forms of Worship or Devotion Not to Be Introduced, which repeated in the strongest terms the canon law forbidding the publication and dissemination of unapproved revelations. 79 To circumvent Church law, Fr. Sopocko simply left out the name of Sr. Faustina and promoted her message. He is very open and clear about his actions and seems to have no consciousness of their opposition to Church law, or no scruple of it. This shows a deep level of delusion or of willful malice.

Fr. Sopocko in 1958 was issued a serious admonition, a gravissimum monitum, by the Holy Office to stop promoting the DM devotion. He did so in the letter of the law, no longer naming the devotion or Sr. Faustina, yet continued to promote the forms of the DM devotion by writing theological justification of it. It’s this that makes up his body of misericordiology theology. At no point did he suspend his efforts to advance it.

Fr. Sopocko always denied the source of his activities. He openly and candidly admits his position, for example in letters to collaborators, “he explains that, knowing that ‘in Rome they refer to private revelations with great reserve,’ he wanted to spread the cult of Divine Mercy only ‘on the basis of Scripture, Tradition and the Liturgy, without revealing the revelations of S. F[austyna]. It was only then that a couple of priests persuaded me to reveal the origin of the image, and thus of S. F[austyna’s] revelations, something I regret today. In 1953 I backtracked, but it didn’t help anymore.’” 80 To promote the painting, for example, he says, “Sister Faustyna’s experiences cannot be called a private revelation until the Church allows it. Therefore, it is true that ‘the image of the Most Holy Savior has nothing to do with private revelation,’ as I pointed out in the previous letter. . . It may be an artistic vision, which, as such, Mr. Kazimirovsky transferred onto canvas according to S. F[austyna’s] instructions.” 81 And he summarizes his position, “. . . I have never based my activities on the experiences of Sr. F., and I do not base them, but only mentioned them, and for twelve years now, and I do not mention them. I see no other way of framing this worship than on the basis of Scripture, Tradition and liturgy . . . .” 82

Outside of his involvement with Sr. Faustina and the propagation of the Divine Mercy devotion, Fr. Sopocko’s life includes notable controversies. “Witnesses who testified during his trial said that he was the type of person who was quiet and humble, shying away from arguments and brawls. Meanwhile, in many places where he appeared, there were scandalous scenes, accusations and scandals,” according to a Polish article. 83 One, he was accused of embezzling funds for a reconstruction project of a Jesuit church in Vilnius; he was cleared by an audit committee of the charges but some suspicions continued. Two, his involvement in a rebuilding project for Bernardine Sisters ended in their denying his claim of a verbal deal that was the basis of an expensive expansion of their property, and without a written agreement the verdict was against him. As it was a case of lying on one side or the other, his reputation suffered greatly; in his diary he says the curia’s envoy “wanted to cover up the matter by declaring me a lunatic.” 84 Three, based on what is stated as the lost trust and good opinion of his superior, Archbishop Jalbrzykowski, Fr. Sopocko lost an application for position as professor at a university for which he’d previously been highly promoted. 85 In Church circles, public opinion of Fr. Sopocko, despite his academic achievements soured to the point as he says in his diary, “almost all friends stood against me, did not recognize me in the street . . .” 86

Is it true the Sacred Heart devotion is compatible with, if not complemented by, the Divine Mercy devotion of Sr. Faustina?

It isn’t so, indeed devotion to the Divine Mercy is openly opposed to the Sacred Heart, as much as to say, “Trust in God’s mercy, without recourse to repentance,” is opposed to it. The iconography of the Divine Mercy, if compared to the Sacred Heart, alone shows the difference. One, wounded by sin, appeals to correction; the other pours out mercy. Fr. Sopocko initially did not hang the painting because, as he says, he was aware it contained novel imagery. It needed the approval of the bishop to be publicly shown. 87

The Sacred Heart devotion, unlike the DM, was not in itself novel, since it was introduced to various mystics in a series of apparitions, all approved, from St. Mechtilde to St. Gertrude, spanning about 500 years until it was officially proclaimed by St. M. M. Alacoque. This demonstrates the patient methods of Jesus Christ in His Church. It was then criticized and tested, something that has not happened with the DM devotion since its introduction by John Paul II in 1978. We are currently in the process of determining the authenticity, or lack of authenticity, of the Divine Mercy devotion, whereas the Sacred Heart is tried and true.
Ewa Czaczkowska, Polish author and biographer of Sr. Faustina, says positively the Sacred Heart was overshadowed by the DM “The bishops also feared that the cult of the Merciful Jesus would weaken the cult of the Sacred Heart, which is what happened.” 88

Is it not correct that the Chaplet of the Divine Mercy devotion, along with the other parts of the devotion are perfectly orthodox, and the devotion itself has no theological problems, nor does the diary?

Extravagant promises may be one aspect of the popularity of the devotion. Also they cast suspicion on, or completely contradict, its authenticity and orthodoxy.

The chaplet is believed, based on the diary, to save souls at the hour of death, in lieu of extreme unction. This is independent of the disposition of the soul.[89] The promise of the 3 o’clock hour prayer is the granting of absolutely any wish, material or spiritual. 90 The painting, contradicting the Council of Trent’s forbidding of the superstitious use of images amounting to idolatry, 91 is said in the diary to possess efficacious grace in itself. Says an article, “Throughout the Diary of Saint Faustina, Jesus reveals to her that the Image is much more than just a painting or religious Icon. It is a ‘vessel of graces’ to which everyone could come seeking graces and mercy. (Diary 327)” 92 The Divine Mercy Sunday promises total remission of all sins, unlike with a plenary indulgence independently of the person’s attachment to sin, in a “second baptism” (and presumably, third, fourth, fifth etc. each consecutive year) according to Fr. Ignacy Rozycki who wrote on the theology of Sr. Faustina’s revelations: an impossible claim in terms of orthodox Catholic theology.

On the painting: while several versions currently exist, only one was the original. The authentic painting is necessarily the one of Eugeniusz Kazimirowski, since it is this one Sr. Faustina personally directed and approved. The first concern of the image is likely the lack of holes in the hands of the Christ. Examination of the painting shows either hands without wounds, or wounds so slight as to be almost invisible. 93 This is, obviously, the sign of a false vision, since Christ carried open wounds after his Resurrection. The vision explicitly is of Christ coming out of the tomb, and this explains the dark background. The lack of clear wounds is theologically false and an important point in the discernment of the spirit appearing to Sr. Faustina. Sr. Faustina closely oversaw the painting, and no detail escaped her, so the image is exactly as it was shown to her, and by locutions, she heard the approval of it by “Christ” himself. 94

On the chaplet: while supporters of the devotion speak of the similar chaplets found in prayer books at the time as a proof of its orthodoxy, this instead speaks to the redundancy of the Divine Mercy devotion: intended to be interdicted by the 1937 decree from the Holy Office, to quote, “these new forms of worship and devotion, often enough ridiculous, usually useless imitations or corruptions of similar ones which are already legitimately established . . .” 95

Also, a theological controversy exists around the words, “Eternal Father, I offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your Dearly Beloved Son . . .” Is the human being capable to offer Divinity to God?

This complex theological controversy is open to argumentation and discussion. The prominent Polish theologian, and Servant of God, Fr. Wincenty Granat wrote in opposition to the idea of Divinity being offered to the Deity. He says, “In the Divine Mercy chaplet, we encounter the following prayer: ‘Eternal Father, I offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of your most beloved Son, and our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world.’ The above prayer contains significant theological errors; first, the Divinity of the Son is the same as that of God the Father, and therefore cannot be offered to the Eternal Father; second, the Deity must not be offered as a sacrifice at all; third, it cannot be a propitiation for sins, since the Deity, specifically God, forgives sins, but is not a propitiatory sacrifice; it is in the human nature that the Savior is the propitiation for our sins.’” 96

Polish priest Fr. Joseph Olewinski writes a comprehensive critique of the study of Fr. Rozycki on the topic. It soundly contradicts his thesis. 97

While the angel of Fatima gave the prayer, “I offer Thee the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world . . . ,” the prayer refers to the Divinity as contained in the Eucharist, and so is unlike the prayer in the Chaplet, theologically.

On the novena: its timing trespasses on the Easter Triduum itself. It begins on Good Friday. It is incredibly offensive to the Catholic faith.

On the Hour, or the 3 o’clock prayer: it is a time to consider the Passion of Christ, and ask graces for sinners. It is, of course, laudatory, but it also contains extravagant promises. It says in the diary, in the supposed words of Jesus Christ, “At three o’clock, implore My mercy, especially for sinners; and, if only for a brief moment, immerse yourself in My Passion, particularly in My abandonment at the moment of agony. This is the hour of great mercy. In this hour, I will refuse nothing to the soul that makes a request of Me in virtue of My Passion.” 98 Also, “As often as you hear the clock strike the third hour, immerse yourself completely in My mercy, adoring and glorifying it; invoke its omnipotence for the whole world, and particularly for poor sinners; for at that moment mercy was opened wide for every soul. In this hour you can obtain everything for yourself and for others for the asking; it was the hour of grace for the whole world — mercy triumphed over justice. 99

On the litany: according to Fr. Wincenty Granat, contains the grave theological error of stating the work of Creation is a work of mercy, when it is a work of love, according to dogmatic Catholic teaching. 100

These above were common objections to the Divine Mercy devotion by Polish churchmen of its time and contributed, no doubt, to its 1958 condemnation. 101

The Church currently approves the devotion, and has instituted a Divine Mercy Sunday to reverence it. Isn’t this the end of the story? The Church itself approves and promotes it, and it is on the calendars.

Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, later Pope John Paul II, was alone instrumental in the lifting of the 1958 ban and the promotion of the Divine Mercy devotion. It was his personal project from the beginning to the end.

In 1964 Karol Wojtyla approached Cardinal Ottaviani to request the opening of the beatification cause for Sr. Faustina Kowalska, which preceded a request to lift the ban on her devotions, according to his strategy and that of his collaborator Fr. Andrzej Deskur, 102 a functionary of the Vatican curia in Rome, uniquely situated to provide Wojtyla access to the heads of the Holy Office (later, the CDF). Ottaviani agreed to the inquiry on the assumption that the Church would investigate and come to a truthful conclusion.

Wojtyla’s argument in favor of rehabilitating the revelations of the nun is that only a poor translation of the diary had led to the initial ban, which had been Fr. Sopocko’s claim, one ignoring completely the opinions of the Ordinary, the episcopate of Poland and all criticism of the revelations, the person of Faustina Kowalska and the theology. 103

The CDF in 1977 received a package containing: one, interviews with those associated with Sr. Faustina; two, the theological study of Fr. Ignacy Rozycki based on the diary; and three, the updated, “corrected” version of the diary. 104 Previous opinions of bishops, including the Ordinary, were not consulted. The censor Fr. Rozycki focused his opinion on the question of theology, glossing over the critical process of discernment, outlined only two months later in a document from the CDF authored by its prefect Card. Francis Seper. 105 The CDF was asked by Card. Wojtyla to lift the ban, and five months later Card. Seper agreed. 106

Fr. Rozycki was commissioned by Fr. Antoni Mruk, commissioned by Cardinal Karol Wojtyla months before becoming pope, to prepare a report on the theology contained in the diary of Sr. Faustina. The content of the writing of Fr. Rozycki is erroneous and shows all indications of bias, including the outlandish assertion the Divine Mercy Sunday promises contain the grace of a “second Baptism.” 107 The theology is apparently written around the devotion.

While the Vatican in 2000 officially declared the Low Sunday, or the Sunday after Easter to be called Divine Mercy Sunday and include some corresponding devotions, it in no way cites the revelations or the promises told to Sr. Faustina. 108 It is simply a day devoted to the mercy of God and official decrees offer a plenary indulgence and no more. 109 If any church in the world suggests the promises in the diary are offered on this day, and the graces of a baptism given, it is their own belief in the private revelation prompting it. On the surface, the Divine Mercy Sunday confirms the validity of the revelations, yet according to its authors is coincidental and unrelated. It is a subtle type of deceit to confirm something apparently, without actual confirmation, but the John Paul II pontificate couldn’t have declared the feast day on the weak pretext of a diary of one Polish nun. As had Fr. Sopocko before this, promoters of the Divine Mercy devotion used a general, albeit doubtful justification and failed to mention the true source.
Karol Wojtyla apparently had a long-standing interest in the “new mercy” and in the Divine Mercy devotion as a priest, and as pope extolled the Paschal Mystery Theology and its idea of universal salvation by the sacrifice of Christ alone and without the conversion or effort of any person, contrary to many basic Catholic dogmas. 110 He was known as “The Mercy Pope.”

Sr. Elizabeth Siepak, one of the principal authors and authorities on the DM devotion, says, “St. Faustina’s mission finds deep justification in Holy Scripture and documents of the Church; it superbly corresponds especially with the encyclical Dives in misericordia (Rich in mercy) of the Holy Father, John Paul II.” 111 Archbishop Andrew Deskur says, “A comprehensive study in order to indicate the affinity of ideas found in the Diary of [Saint] Maria Faustina and this encyclical (not to mention their probable interdependence) would be most welcome. These salient points certainly are numerous . . . .” 112

The Vatican itself, in its 2000 apostolic decree, Indulgences attached to devotions in honour of Divine Mercy, in the section “Duty of honouring Divine Mercy,” cites both the “paschal mystery” and the encyclical of John Paul II in its justification. It states, “The faithful with deep spiritual affection are drawn to commemorate the mysteries of divine pardon and to celebrate them devoutly. . . ‘The paschal mystery is the culmination of this revealing and effecting of mercy, which is able to justify man, to restore justice in the sense of that salvific order which God willed from the beginning in man, and through man, in the world’ (Encyclical Letter Dives in misericordia, n. 7).” 113

The bishops of Poland in 1957 were issued a questionnaire by the Primate, Cardinal Wyszynski, initiated by the Holy Office. All but one “referred to the Divine Mercy devotion with caution, reserve or without approval,” 114 according to Ewa Czaczkowska. This one positive opinion was authored by Fr. Karol Wojtyla at the behest of Bp. Eugeniusz Baziak. 115 Fr. Wojtyla alone voiced positive approval of the Divine Mercy devotion at a time all other bishops were against it, or in one case cautiously agreeable. His opinion was the outlier.

Card. Wyszynski was, according to Card. Stanislaw Dziwisz, one of the principal bishops opposed to the DM. “The second reason, equally important and perhaps even decisive for the Holy Office, was the position of the majority of the Polish bishops. This information for devotees of the Divine Mercy, especially in Poland, may be shocking, but such are the facts. ‘Those interested in such a position of the Holy Office were mainly Primate Stefan Wyszynski and Archbishop Antoni Baraniak,’ says Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz.” 116 This is according to Ewa Czaczkowska in the book cited above.

Archbishop Jalbrzykowski, Ordinary to Sr. Faustina, thus the competent authority of the Church to decide on the devotion, said this, addressed to the Chief Commission of the Polish Episcopate: “‘I love the Divine Mercy and always ask God for it, yet I have a decisively negative approach to the devotion to Divine Mercy as proposed according to the revelations of Sister Faustina, and it is so for various reasons.’” 117 As summarized by Bp. Pawel Socha:

1. due to the regulations of the Canon Law, clause 1259 and 1279, which impose great care on a bishop as concerns approval of prayers and religious practices, and especially ‘insolitas’ images;
2. due to the decree of the Holy Office of May, 26 1936 concerning the ban on introduction of new forms of worship;
3. due to the improper way of propagating the devotion, which stands in opposition to the spirit of the Church. 118

Ewa Czaczkowska says, “he considered it ‘incompatible with the spirit of the Holy Church to promote this devotion.’” 119

Is the Divine Mercy devotion of Sr. Faustina Kowalska compatible with or complementary to the Fatima revelations and devotions, with its many miracles to its credit and which has truly have received “the lion’s share” of approbation from Roman pontiffs and Church authorities?

No, it isn’t really compatible. The Fatima message is an ultimatum to the world to do good, or to perish. The messages to Sr. Faustina are likewise ultimatum, of a different nature. The Divine Mercy messages completely ignore the content and devotions of Fatima, and one would have to assume Jesus Christ abandoned and nullified the Fatima messages in coming to the Polish nun since it completely changes tack. Also, unlike Fatima, the Divine Mercy has no theological precedent and is a novel presentation of the mercy of God, essentially redefining it, which is of course highly suspicious, if not unallowable.

We find a certain irony in the historical context of the early popularity of the Divine Mercy devotion in Poland. While it was ipso facto disapproved by the Church (according to canon law and to the decree of 1937, since it was not yet vetted and approved by competent authority) and actively rejected by the Ordinary of its Polish diocese, it was strongly preached by Fr. Sopocko in his church and promoted with a variety of printed materials. As well, the painting was publicly venerated, or more than venerated, as superstitious powers were attributed to it. The public, unaware or indifferent concerning Church law and decree, in some places in Poland came to take the devotion seriously, as did the occasional theologian. It was the consolations provided in the distressing times of Poland, as it was besieged by Naziism and Communism, which gave appeal to the message of strong, unconditional mercy implicit in the devotion.

However, the irony comes of the fact related by Our Lady in the approved visitation of Fatima, to wit, if men did not improve their lives and follow the devotions she outlined, a war worse than World War One would come upon Europe, and also, more significantly, “the errors of Russia,” in other words Communism, would flood the world and destroy nations.

So, the Divine Mercy devotion was accepted as a palliative to the chastisements upon Europe, which were clearly predicted by Our Lady, along with a warning of the necessity of penance. The Divine Mercy devotion asks for no penance, only “trust” in the mercy of God.

If Catholics wish an end to the evils of our time, they will turn to the truthful message of Fatima. If a pain-killer, they may turn to the false Divine Mercy devotion, make no changes in life, and follow presumption in God’s mercy where it leads, which is of course not to Heaven.

Back to top

Author: N. Vaughan

Notes:

This project originated with an article critical of the Divine Mercy devotion in the forms proposed by Sr. Faustina Kowalska written by Fr. Peter Scott, FSSPX. The author contacted Fr. Scott to ask he expand on the topic and offered to publish an extended critique. Fr. Scott suggested instead he oversee the project as editor and director and so it has continued. This booklet represents the combined information of several hundred pieces of material from English and Polish sources. The information presented here is by no means exhaustive and is preparatory to a longer work.

Footnotes:

[1] Pawel Socha, “Development of the Worship of Divine Mercy in Poland and Abroad,” Peregrinus Cracoviensis 11, 2001: 111-42.
[2] Robert Alvis, “The Tenacity of Popular Devotions in the Age of Vatican II: Learning From the Divine Mercy.” Religions 12, no. 1 (2021): 76, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12010065.
[3] 123. Faustina Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, (Stockbridge: Marian Press, 2005), 60.
[4] 165. Kowalska, 73.
[5] Tomasz Jaklewicz, “Po prostu Kowalska,” Instytut Gość Media, April 29, 2019. 
https://www.gosc.pl/doc/1507267.Poprostu-Kowalska.
[6] Andrzej Witko, “Święta Faustyna,” Folia Historica Cracoviensia 15 (2010): 146, https://doi.org/10.15633/fhc.1168.
[7] Jaklewicz, “Po Prostu Kowalska.”
[8] 42. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 35.
[9] 43. Kowalska, 35.
[10] Michael Moraczewska, “Memoirs of Mother Michael Moraczewska,”1948,https://www.saint-faustina.org/superior-general-mother-michaela-moraczewska
[11] Jaklewicz. “Po prostu Kowalska.”
[12] Placyda Putyra, “Ze Wspomnień o Św. Siostrze Faustynie,” Orędzie Miłosierdzia. no. 86 (2013): 18.
[13] Antonina Grejwul, “Ze Wspomnień o Św. Siostrze Faustynie,” Orędzie Miłosierdzia. no. 89 (2014): 18.
[14] 24. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 30.
[15] Elizabeth Siepak, introduction to Divine Mercy in My Soul, 7.
[16] Irena Krzyżanowska, “The Memoirs of Mother Irene Krzyżanowska,” 
https://www.saint-faustina.org/superior-mother-irena-krzyzanowska
[17] 128. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 61.
[18] Placyda Putyra, “Ze Wspomnień o Św. Siostrze Faustynie,” Orędzie Miłosierdzia. no. 92 (2014): 18.
[19] Jaklewicz, “Po prostu Kowalska.”
[20] Jaklewicz.
[21] Damiana Ziolek, “Ze Wspomnień o Św. Siostrze Faustynie,” Orędzie Miłosierdzia. no. 83 (2012): 18.
[22] Justina Golophit, “Ze Wspomnień o Św. Siostrze Faustynie,” Orędzie Miłosierdzia. no. 74 (2010): 18.
[23] Golophit.
[24] Susanna Tokarska, “Ze Wspomnień o Św. Siostrze Faustynie,” Orędzie Miłosierdzia. no. 87 (2013): 18.
[25] Jaklewicz, “Po prostu Kowalska.”
[26] Michael Sopocko, “My Memoirs of the Late Sister Faustina,” 1948,
https://www.saint-faustina.org/blessed-fr-michal-sopocko
[27] Sopocko.
[28] Maria Tarnawska, Sister Faustina Kowalska: Her Life and Mission (London, England: Veritas Foundation Press, 1989), 102.
[29] Ludwina Gadzina, “Ze Wspomnień o Św. Siostrze Faustynie,” Orędzie Miłosierdzia. no. 81 (2012): 18.
[30] 128. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 60-61.
[31] Antonina Grejwul, “Ze Wspomnień o Św. Siostrze Faustynie,” Orędzie Miłosierdzia. no. 89 (2014): 18.
[32] 125. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 60.
[33] Moraczewska, “Memoirs of Mother Michael Moraczewska.”
[34] Jaklewicz. “Po prostu Kowalska.”
[35] Sopocko. “My Memoirs of the Late Sister Faustina.”
[36] Benedict XIV, Heroic Virtue, vol. 3 (London: Thomas Richardson and Son, 1852), 24.
[37] Jerzy Mrowczynski, introduction to Divine Mercy in My Soul, by Faustina Kowalski(Stockbridge, Massachusetts: Marian Press, 1987).
[38] Alvis, “The Tenacity of Popular Devotions in the Age of Vatican II: Learning From the Divine Mercy,” 74.
[39] Alwida Bajor. “Czarny Bór na skrzyżowaniu ludzkich losów.” Magazyn Wileński, n.d., https://jozefmackiewicz.com/bajor-alwida-antonina-czarny-bor-na-skrzyzowaniu-ludzkich-losow (translated from the Polish by DeepL).
[40] Ewa Czaczkowska. “Jan Paweł II I Miłosierdzie Boże.” Fundacja Opoka, March 3, 2016, https://opoka.org.pl/biblioteka/P/PR/echo201607-jp2 (translated from the Polish by DeepL).
[41] Ewa Czaczkowska. 2018. “Kłopoty Z Kultem Bożego Miłosierdzia W Korespondencji Marii Winowskiej W Latach 1958–1975.” Polonia Sacra 22, no. 3, 5, https://doi.org/10.15633/ps.2518 (my underlines. Translated from the Polish by DeepL).
[42] Ignacy Rozycki, Essential Features of the Devotion to the Divine Mercy, trans. Katherine Stackpole (Stockbridge: Marian Press, 2000), 23.
[43] 1109. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 258.
[44] 374. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 116.
[45] Czaczkowska, “Kłopoty Z Kultem Bożego Miłosierdzia W Korespondencji Marii Winowskiej W Latach 1958–1975,” 18.
[46] 128. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 61.
[47] D. Dunford, ed., Roman Documents and Decrees (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1907), 131-32.
[48] Stephen A. Kent, “Religious Justifications for Child Sexual Abuse in Cults and Alternative Religions,” International Journal of Cultic Studies 3 (2012): 49, https://skent.ualberta.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Religious-Justifications-for-Child-Sexual-Abuse-in-Cults-and-Alternative-Religions.pdf
[49] Léon Cristiani, Evidence of Satan in the Modern World (Rockford: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974), 185.
[50] Google Maps. “Directions for Walking from the Congregation of the Sisters of Our Lady of Mercy to the Temple of Mercy and Charity in Plock, Poland.” Accessed July 29, 2024. https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Congregation+of+the+Sisters+of+Our+Lady+of+Mercy,+Stary+Rynek,+Płock,+Poland/Temple+of+Mercy+and+Charity+(Mariavite),+Kazimierza+Wielkiego+27,+09-402+Płock,+Poland/@52.5459796,19.6779798,16z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x471c7a750dd005eb:0xd850833e476b32b3!2m2!1d19.6857125!2d52.5441146!1m5!1m1!1s0x471c7a73e6ed58c5:0x10076679b8aadfc5!2m2!1d19.6805728!2d52.5478537?entry=ttu
[51] Cristiani, Evidence of Satan in the Modern World, 187.
[52] Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 15.
[53] Kirk Hansen, “The Same Thing. Faustina’s Diary and Mariavite Heresy,” YouTube, July 20, 2024, educational video, 0:10 to 20:47, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXuyN2ABzno.
[54] Jan Pawel Skupinski, “Mariawityzm — rzymski katolicyzm. To, co łączy — to, co dzieli. Rozmowa z ks. prof. Konradem M. Rudnickim,” Ekumenizm, November 6, 2004, https://www.ekumenizm.pl/spoleczenstwo/kobiety-w-kosciele/mariawityzm-rzymski-katolicyzm-to-co-laczy-to-co-dzieli-rozmowa-z-ks-prof-konradem-m-rudnickim/ (translated from the Polish by DeepL).
[55] Skupinski (my underlines).
[56] Faustina Kowalska, The Letters of Saint Faustina, trans. Piotr Mizia (Cracow: “Misericordia” Publications, 2007), 101.
[57] Encyclopedia.com, s.v. “Vintras, Eugene (1807-1875),” accessed July 29, 2024, https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/vintras-eugene-1807-1875. The papal condemnation Ubi Novam was issued November 8, 1843 by Pope Gregory XVI.
[58] Cristiani, Evidence of Satan in the Modern World, 187.
[59] Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1920-1922), IIa-IIae, q. 30, art 4.
[60] James Fox, “Divine Attributes,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2 (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907), http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02062e.htm.
[61] Sopocko. “My Memoirs of the Late Sister Faustina.”
[62] Kowalska, The Letters of Saint Faustina, 61-62.
[63] 122. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 59.
[64] Krzyżanowska, “The Memoirs of Mother Irene Krzyżanowska,” 
[65] 121. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 59.
[66] Moraczewska, “Memoirs of Mother Michael Moraczewska.”
[67] 131. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 436.
[68] Sopocko. “My Memoirs of the Late Sister Faustina” (my italics).
[69] Moraczewska, “Memoirs of Mother Michael Moraczewska.”
[70] 14. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 27.
[71] Krzyżanowska, “The Memoirs of Mother Irene Krzyżanowska,”
[72] Jaklewicz. “Po prostu Kowalska.”
[73] Moraczewska, “Memoirs of Mother Michael Moraczewska.”
[74] Siepak, introduction to Divine Mercy in My Soul, 7.
[75] Tokarska, “Ze Wspomnień o Św. Siostrze Faustynie.”
[76] Sopocko. “My Memoirs of the Late Sister Faustina.”
[77] 29. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 31-32. This is one several examples: “In one of my morning talks with Him I said, ‘Jesus, are You not an illusion?’ Jesus answered me, My love deceives no one.”
[78] 393. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 121. Of the dozens of examples in the diary, this is one: “During one conference, Jesus said to me, You are a sweet grape in a chosen cluster; I want others to have a share in the juice that is flowing within you.”
[79] Pope Pius XII, Decree on the Introduction of New Forms of Worship Iam olim Sacrosancta (26 May 1937), sec. 1, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 24 (1937), 304, Vatican.va (translated from the Latin by OpenL).
[80] Czaczkowska, “Kłopoty Z Kultem Bożego Miłosierdzia W Korespondencji Marii Winowskiej W Latach 1958–1975.”
[81] Czaczkowska.
[82] Czaczkowska.
[83] Grzegorz Górny, “Oszust? Błogosławiony Michał Sopoćko” Miesięcznik Egzorcysta no. 5 (January 2013): 30-33, http://swfaustyna.blogspot.com/2013/01/grzegorz-gorny-oszust-bogosawiony-micha.html (translated from the Polish by DeepL).
[84] Górny.
[85] Górny.
[86] Górny.
[87] Bajor, “Czarny Bór na skrzyżowaniu ludzkich losów.”
[88] “Siostra Faustyna podkreślała, że pierwszeństwo do Bożego miłosierdzia mają grzesznicy,” interview by Anna Rasińska, eKAI, April 30, 2020, https://www.ekai.pl/siostra-faustyna-podkreslala-ze-pierwszenstwo-do-bozego-milosierdzia-maja-grzesznicy (translated from the Polish by DeepL).
[89] Ursula Grzegorczyk, Jesus, I Trust in You. Love and Mercy (Lodz: Gift of Mercy, 2019), 35, http://www.faustina-message.com/files/LoveandMercy-freepdf6.pdf.
[90] 1320. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 296.
[91] Council of Trent, Session 25, On the Invocation, Veneration, and Relics, of Saints, and on Sacred Images (4 December 1548), in The canons and decrees of the sacred and œcumenical Council of Trent, ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848), 234-35.
[92] “Divine Mercy Image Introduction,” Divine Mercy Apostolate, Maryville, Skerries, Co. Dublin, Ireland, accessed July 31, 2024, https://www.divinemercy.org/elements-of-divine-mercy/image.html.
[93] “The First Image of Merciful Jesus – Vilnius (Lithuania)” Faustina – The Message of Divine Mercy, accessed July 31, 2024, https://www.merciful-jesus.com.
[94] 313. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 101.
[95] Pope Pius XII, Iam olim Sacrosancta, sec. 1.
[96] Wincenty Granat, Ewangelia miłosierdzia (Poznan: Pallottinum, 1970), 405 (translated from the Polish by DeepL).
[97] Darius Jozef Olewinski, “Czy interpretacja x. Różyckiego rozwiązuje problem koronki s. Faustyny? (z post scriptum),” Teolog katolicki odpowiada, April 16, 2023, https://teologkatolicki.blogspot.com/2018/08/czy-interpretacja-x-rozyckiego.html.
[98] 1320. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 296 (my italics).
[99] 1572. Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 345-46 (my italics).
[100] Granat, Ewangelia miłosierdzia, 404.
[101] Alvis, “The Tenacity of Popular Devotions in the Age of Vatican II: Learning From the Divine Mercy,” 81.
[102] Ewa Czaczkowska, “To moje szczególne zadanie. Wyznaczyła mi je Opatrzność”. Misja św. Jana Pawła II,” Aleteia, October 5, 2016, https://pl.aleteia.org/2016/10/05/to-moje-szczegolne-zadanie-wyznaczyla-mi-je-opatrznosc-jaka-byla-misja-sw-jana-pawla-ii.
[103] Ewa Czaczkowska, Papież, który uwierzył (Krakow: Wydawnictwo Znak, 2016), 119. The letter from Cardinal Karol Wojtyla to the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith is published as a facsimile.
[104] Socha, “Development of the Worship of Divine Mercy in Poland and Abroad,” 121.
[105] Francis Seper, Norms Regarding the Manner of Proceeding in the Discernment of Presumed Apparitions or Revelations, accessed August 13, 2024, Vatican.va.
[106] Alvis, “The Tenacity of Popular Devotions in the Age of Vatican II: Learning From the Divine Mercy,” 76.
[107] John Paul Institute of Divine Mercy, Understanding Divine Mercy Sunday (Stockbridge: John Paul Institute of Divine Mercy, 2003), 21, https://www.thedivinemercy.org/assets/pdf/jpii/UnderstandDM.pdf.
[108] “Tradition: Pronouncements,” The Divine Mercy, accessed August 13, 2024, https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message/tradition/pronouncements.
[109] Luigi De Magistris, Indulgences attached to devotions in honour of Divine Mercy, June 29, 2002, Vatican.va.
[110] John Paul II. Redemptor hominis, encyclical letter, March 4, 1979, sec. 13, Vatican.va.
[111] Siepak, introduction to Divine Mercy in My Soul, 12.
[112] Andrew Deskur, preface to Divine Mercy in My Soul, by Faustina Kowalski(Stockbridge, Massachusetts: Marian Press, 1987), xi (my italics).
[113] De Magistris, Indulgences attached to devotions in honour of Divine Mercy.
[114] Czaczkowska, Papież, który uwierzył, 45.
[115] Ewa Czaczkowska, “Papież, który uwierzył,” interview with Jolanta Krasnowska-Dynka, Opoka, March 3, 2016, https://opoka.org.pl/biblioteka/P/PR/echo201607-jp2.
[116] Czaczkowska, Papież, który uwierzył, 39.
[117] Socha, “Development of the Worship of Divine Mercy in Poland and Abroad,” 115.
[118] Socha.
[119] Czaczkowska, Papież, który uwierzył, 48.

Back to top