Divine Mercy-st Faustina Kowalska Diary- Catholic Position

[Hanging by a Thread]

I discovered her diary towards the end of last year and started reading 5 pages daily on Jan1 which puts me on pace to finish the diary by the end of the year. Having just discovered the diary I was kinda fired up to attend church the Sunday after Easter (hadn't been attending much lately as my faith has been shaken recently-thus my login name) as this is the day proclaimed to celebrate the painted image and it's significance. The Image was displayed off to the right of the alter, "Divine Mercy Sunday" was mentioned on the weekly program and I believe the term may have been mentioned once during mass. But that was all, the mass for the most part was business as usual. I stuck around and asked the priest why nothing was said about the diary. At first he didn't completely understand the question (he has a foreign accent so maybe that was part of the reason) but when I mentioned sister Faustina he was aware of the name and suggested I google it to find out more. I explained that I had been reading the diary (he said "that's good") and was wondering what the Catholic position was on the diary. He told me he hadn't read the diary. I was a bit disappointed that a Catholic priest had not read the diary and also that he would defer to Google about,well, anything. I unerstand that Kowalska has been sainted, but I'm wondering if anyone can tell me the Catholic position on the diary in terms of:

1)Do we believe she actually had the contact with God/Jesus/Mary that she claims? And I mean literally, that she saw and spoke to them in a supernatural way as opposed the "inner voice" we credit as holy spirit. I.E. - did she talk to God in the same say Moses, Paul, and several other Biblical figures?
2) If this is the Catholic belief, why don't we treat it as such? I mean, this could be another chapter in the Bible and we could use the Jesus/God quotes to help understand our faith.
3) If this is not the case, why would she be sainted based on the diary? Wouldn't accepting her as a Saint almost require believing her accounts?

I suspect it's a little of both. She's been sainted, but to believe she actually held the baby Jesus in her arms is too big of a leap so it's swept under the rug somewhat. You could also draw the conclusion based on her actions and comments that she was suffering from some type of mental illness.

Does anyone know if the Catholic faith has addressed the legitimacy of her contacts with God/Jesus/ the departed, etc, and what the position is.

Also, if you're familiar with the diary, how do you feel about it personally.

 

[Michie]

I discovered her diary towards the end of last year and started reading 5 pages daily on Jan1 which puts me on pace to finish the diary by the end of the year. Having just discovered the diary I was kinda fired up to attend church the Sunday after Easter (hadn't been attending much lately as my faith has been shaken recently-thus my login name) as this is the day proclaimed to celebrate the painted image and it's significance. The Image was displayed off to the right of the alter, "Divine Mercy Sunday" was mentioned on the weekly program and I believe the term may have been mentioned once during mass. But that was all, the mass for the most part was business as usual. I stuck around and asked the priest why nothing was said about the diary. At first he didn't completely understand the question (he has a foreign accent so maybe that was part of the reason) but when I mentioned sister Faustina he was aware of the name and suggested I google it to find out more. I explained that I had been reading the diary (he said "that's good") and was wondering what the Catholic position was on the diary. He told me he hadn't read the diary. I was a bit disappointed that a Catholic priest had not read the diary and also that he would defer to Google about,well, anything. I unerstand that Kowalska has been sainted, but I'm wondering if anyone can tell me the Catholic position on the diary in terms of:

1)Do we believe she actually had the contact with God/Jesus/Mary that she claims? And I mean literally, that she saw and spoke to them in a supernatural way as opposed the "inner voice" we credit as holy spirit. I.E. - did she talk to God in the same say Moses, Paul, and several other Biblical figures?
2) If this is the Catholic belief, why don't we treat it as such? I mean, this could be another chapter in the Bible and we could use the Jesus/God quotes to help understand our faith.
3) If this is not the case, why would she be sainted based on the diary? Wouldn't accepting her as a Saint almost require believing her accounts?

I suspect it's a little of both. She's been sainted, but to believe she actually held the baby Jesus in her arms is too big of a leap so it's swept under the rug somewhat. You could also draw the conclusion based on her actions and comments that she was suffering from some type of mental illness.

Does anyone know if the Catholic faith has addressed the legitimacy of her contacts with God/Jesus/ the departed, etc, and what the position is.

Also, if you're familiar with the diary, how do you feel about it personally.

I read her diary while converting. She is a saint. There is a great following of the Divine Mercy within the Church. So I tend to think the Church see’s her experiences as valid.

 

[tz620q]

I discovered her diary towards the end of last year and started reading 5 pages daily on Jan1 which puts me on pace to finish the diary by the end of the year. Having just discovered the diary I was kinda fired up to attend church the Sunday after Easter (hadn't been attending much lately as my faith has been shaken recently-thus my login name) as this is the day proclaimed to celebrate the painted image and it's significance. The Image was displayed off to the right of the alter, "Divine Mercy Sunday" was mentioned on the weekly program and I believe the term may have been mentioned once during mass. But that was all, the mass for the most part was business as usual. I stuck around and asked the priest why nothing was said about the diary. At first he didn't completely understand the question (he has a foreign accent so maybe that was part of the reason) but when I mentioned sister Faustina he was aware of the name and suggested I google it to find out more. I explained that I had been reading the diary (he said "that's good") and was wondering what the Catholic position was on the diary. He told me he hadn't read the diary. I was a bit disappointed that a Catholic priest had not read the diary and also that he would defer to Google about,well, anything. I unerstand that Kowalska has been sainted, but I'm wondering if anyone can tell me the Catholic position on the diary in terms of:

1)Do we believe she actually had the contact with God/Jesus/Mary that she claims? And I mean literally, that she saw and spoke to them in a supernatural way as opposed the "inner voice" we credit as holy spirit. I.E. - did she talk to God in the same say Moses, Paul, and several other Biblical figures?

I think there is a general reluctance for the Church to take any sort of private revelation and make it part of the deposit of the faith. What they do do is to canonize people, create feast days, and in this case create a Sunday that should be a more special devotion to St. Faustina and her revelations. Unfortunately, even with all of this, there has been an ebb and wane of actual devotion to St. Faustina. I think that peaked under JPII and has been slowing dropping off since. In the parish I attend, we have a Divine Mercy novena that starts on Divine Mercy Sunday. We had a talented musician that wrote a musical setting for the Divine Mercy Chaplet that we sing on that Sunday and during the novena. Our Perpetual Adoration chapel has a copy of the diary in every hymnal rack. So I think this has helped keep the devotion alive.

2) If this is the Catholic belief, why don't we treat it as such? I mean, this could be another chapter in the Bible and we could use the Jesus/God quotes to help understand our faith.
3) If this is not the case, why would she be sainted based on the diary? Wouldn't accepting her as a Saint almost require believing her accounts?

I suspect it's a little of both. She's been sainted, but to believe she actually held the baby Jesus in her arms is too big of a leap so it's swept under the rug somewhat. You could also draw the conclusion based on her actions and comments that she was suffering from some type of mental illness.

Does anyone know if the Catholic faith has addressed the legitimacy of her contacts with God/Jesus/ the departed, etc, and what the position is.

Also, if you're familiar with the diary, how do you feel about it personally.

I think visions such as she had are meant to teach us about theological truths and help inspire us. They can do this without our needing to know if she actually physically held Jesus or not.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

I read her diary while converting. She is a saint. There is a great following of the Divine Mercy within the Church. So I tend to think the Church see’s her experiences as valid.

So why wouldn't we incorporate her experiences into our doctrine. Most of the quotes from the divine are already consistent with our faith, but still, there are some things that would be considered additions/enhancements/clarifications.

edit: thanks for the response, btw.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

I think there is a general reluctance for the Church to take any sort of private revelation and make it part of the deposit of the faith. What they do do is to canonize people, create feast days, and in this case create a Sunday that should be a more special devotion to St. Faustina and her revelations. Unfortunately, even with all of this, there has been an ebb and wan of actual devotion to St. Faustina. I think that peaked under JPII and has been slowing dropping off since. In the parish I attend, we have a Divine Mercy novena that starts on Divine Mercy Sunday. We had a talented musician that wrote a musical setting for the Divine Mercy Chaplet that we sing on that Sunday and during the novena. Our Perpetual Adoration chapel has a copy of the diary in every hymnal rack. So I think this has helped keep the devotion alive.


I think visions such as she had are meant to teach us about theological truths and help inspire us. They can do this without our needing to know if she actually physically held Jesus or not.

I'm not good at separating the response like others can so this is my response to your first paragraph:
Yet the Bible is, for the most part, completely based on "private revelation". I don't understand how we can believe that God talked to Paul, Moses, and several other biblical figures far less prominent via accounts that have been retranslated over 2000 years , but can't believe this can occur in modern times. i.e- why do conversations/revelations with God (and miracles) have to end with the last page of the Bible?
this is my response to your second paragraph
Well, not for me. I wanna know. And when you say the visions were "meant".... Meant by who? And are they in fact, theological truths? If so, then there is some new information available that should be indoctrinated, I think.

thanks for the response.

 

[tz620q]

I'm not good at separating the response like others can so this is my response to your first paragraph:
Yet the Bible is, for the most part, completely based on "private revelation". I don't understand how we can believe that God talked to Paul, Moses, and several other biblical figures far less prominent via accounts that have been retranslated over 2000 years , but can't believe this can occur in modern times. i.e- why do conversations/revelations with God (and miracles) have to end with the last page of the Bible?

While I can see your point, there was a time in the late 300's C.E. that the Church decided to canonize certain books and pull out other books from the Christian Bible. When this decision was questioned during the Protestant Reformation, the church closed the canon at Trent and I think that conciliar decision will be final. It would be needlessly divisive to our non-Catholic brothers to reopen the canon and add to it now.

this is my response to your second paragraph

Well, not for me. I wanna know. And when you say the visions were "meant".... Meant by who? And are they in fact, theological truths? If so, then there is some new information available that should be indoctrinated, I think.

thanks for the response.

While I don't think the diary will be added to the Bible, I feel the Catholic Church has promoted the revelations given to St. Faustina. I have seen not roadblocks put in the way of people using it as inspiration in their lives and worship maybe short of general ignorance. Private revelation can be from God and I think that is the view of most Catholics, that St. Faustina was talking to God and faithfully recording his answers.