Search This Blog

Sunday, April 16, 2023

It's Divine Mercy Sunday: Please Pray St. Faustina's Chaplet for Our Poor Church

Guest Post: Was Jorge Bergoglio St. Faustina's Greatest Cross?

By David Martin

On December 17, 1936, the renown mystic St. Faustina, known for her role in establishing the devotion to the Divine Mercy, penned two entries into her diary which warrant close examination today. Entries 823 and 824 appear to be closely related and occur chronologically without interruption. Without further ado, the first part of her statement [entry 823] is as follows.
"I have offered this day for priests. I have suffered more today than ever before, both interiorly and exteriorly. I did not know it was possible to suffer so much in one day. I tried to make a Holy Hour, in the course of which my spirit had a taste of the bitterness of the Garden of Gethsemane. I am fighting alone, supported by His arm, against all the difficulties that face me like unassailable walls. But I trust in the power of His name and I fear nothing."— Diary of St. Faustina, 823

It is significant to note that St. Faustina on that day was making reparation for priests, an offering that brought upon her the worst suffering she had ever endured, and perhaps the worst she would ever endure. But too, on that bitter day of December 17, 1936, was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who would later reign as Pope Francis, the 266th pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.

Could it be that on that day St. Faustina was atoning for the many priests, bishops, and cardinals of the future that would be misled by Francis? And too, was her reparation needed to solace Our Lord's Heart so torn with anguish over the coming apostasy that would be advanced in the name of divine mercy?

Certainly Faustina and Jesus had a bitter and secret understanding about this reign of "mercy" that would one day lead souls down the path of perdition. Consider now the second part of St. Faustina's statement [entry 824] which was penned on Jorge Bergoglio's birthday.

"In seclusion, Jesus Himself is my Master. He himself educates me and instructs me. I feel certain that I am the object of His special action. For His inscrutable purposes and unfathomable decrees, He unites me to Himself in a special way and allows me to penetrate His incomprehensible mysteries. There is one mystery which unites me with the Lord, of which no one — not even the angels — may know. And even if I wanted to tell of it, I would not know how to express it. And yet I live by it, and will live by it forever. This mystery distinguishes me from every other soul here on earth and in eternity." — Diary of St. Faustina, 824

The aforementioned mystery has long been a subject of speculation among Divine Mercy devotees. And while this mystery which distinguished Faustina "from every other soul here on earth and in eternity" could pertain to her discipleship in the cause of Divine Mercy, it might also concern the emergence of a false pastor who would mislead the universal Church under the guise of mercy.

However, to declare as fact that St. Faustina's diary entry of December 17, 1936, is connected to the birth of the future Pope Francis is not our place to do. Even so, it is good to point out the Pharisaic hypocrisy that has characterized his pontificate.

For while preaching mercy, he punishes the innocent. While preaching love of the poor, he robs the faithful of their sacred heritage. While dubbing "idolaters" those Catholics who hold to tradition, he bows and makes reparation to the planetary idol of "Mother Earth." While sacking loyal bishops and priests, he praises criminal offenders like genocidist Nelson Mandela, heretic Martin Luther, and abortionist Emma Bonino. While proclaiming love of life and family values, he invites U.N. pro-abortion advocates like Ban Ki moon and Jeffrey Sachs to use his Vatican as a platform to advance a more "sustained" planet through population control (abortion).

In light of these and other like crimes against mercy, is it not logical to at least consider that St. Faustina's intense suffering of December 17, 1936, was providentially connected to the birth of the future pope that occurred that day? And is it inappropriate to consider that her excruciating suffering of that day could have even signaled the arrival of the false prophet?


  1. Many have wondered if Faustina's secret was knowledge of living in the Divine Will. This is part of a long message that Luisa Piccarreta recieved from Jesus on December 20, 1936, 3 days later, on the role of the Blessed Virgin. For your discernement.
    Now, my daughter, I must tell you of a sorrow of the Celestial Mother: in the face of so much love, the ingratitude of creatures. This endowment that She gives with so many sacrifices, unto the heroism of sacrificing the life of Her Son-God, with so many atrocious pains – some don’t even know it; some take only a small interest and conduct a life poor in sanctity. Oh! how She suffers in seeing Her children poor!

    To possess immense riches of love, of grace, of sanctity – because Hers are not
    material riches, but the riches of this Celestial Mother are riches such that She laid down Her life in order to acquire them – and for Her to see that Her children do not possess them, and keeping them without the purpose for which She acquired them, is a continuous sorrow; and this is why She wants to make known this great good to all, because if it is not known it cannot be possessed.
    And since She acquired these endowments by virtue of the Divine Fiat that reigned in Her and loved Her so much as to let Her do whatever She wanted, and reach wherever She wanted to reach for the good of creatures, it will therefore be my Divine Will reigning that will make creatures aware of these celestial endowments and will let them take possession of them."
    It seems certain that Faustina and Luisa (whose own diary, 'The Book of Heaven, ran from 1899 to 1938) had no knowledge of each other in the material plane. I, and others, have wondered if they are the Elijah and Elisha of the End Times, one announcing the gift of the Divine Mercy, the other the gift of living in the Divine Will.
    I was unaware of the synchronicity of Bergoglio being born on the day Faustina suffered such tremendous anguish and also spoke of her "secret." It would seem prophetic. Luisa was born on the Sunday after Easter (April 23, 1865, in Corato, Italy), which now, of course, is Divine Mercy Sunday. Luisa, especially the early volumes, wrote extensively of the plots against the Church, of a rebellion that would come, and the transgressions and blasphemies of members of the Church, including high-ranking clerics. These writings must have scandalized the priests looking at the writings in Italy in 1900-1920 (a time we imagine as being graced with holiness!), but St. Annibale di Francia saw the true nature and gave his nihil obstat to the first 20 volumes (written before his death), taking them to Pius X to urge their publication.
    Anyway, sorry for the long reply, and many thanks for your posting. Speaking the truth in this age requires great fortitude. God bless you and happy Divine Mercy Sunday!

    Charles Davenport Florida
    April 16, 2023

  2. “ was providentially connected to the birth of the future pope”
    Correction …
    “ was providentially connected to the birth of the future anti-pope “
    I actually may be wrong, as I have a hard time finding documents singed “Pope Francis”, I seem to find only “Franciscus”…
    So he seems to avoid the Papal title, only allowing others to impose that title.

  3. Unless things have changed, SSPX does not celebrate Divine Mercy Sunday, nor do they (SSPX laity) pray the devotion. The diary, the devotion and the painting were all condemned, twice.

    Faustina’s diary was placed on the list of banned books by PiusXII, until Paul VI got rid of the list. Even John XXIII found it to be questionable. The Church did not believe it was divinely inspired and that some statements in it were heretical, such as the fact that Jesus said He was closer to Faustina than any other human. What about the Blessed Virgin? And the fact the she wouldn’t have to face a private or the general judgement is also highly doubtful.

  5. The real question is why are you promoting this devotion on a traditional Catholic blog? It was condemned by two previous Popes. Faustian makes ridiculous and presumptuous claims, such as “ the “Lord Jesus” appeared to her and said, “Now, I know that it is not for the graces or gifts that you love Me, but because My Will is dearer to you than life. That is why I am uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.”
    And now are we expected to believe that Our Lord told Sr. Faustina that He is more united to her than anybody else, even the Blessed Virgin Mary, and certainly more than all the other Saints? This affirmation smacks of pride in itself, let alone the assertion that it came from Heaven.
    Another example: Sr. Faustina claimed that Our Lord told her that she was exempt from judgment, every judgment - particular judgment and the general judgment. On February 4, 1935, she already claimed to hear this voice in her soul, “From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.”
    And many more presumptions like handling the Blessed Sacrament in her hands.

  6. You do realize the reason the devotion was banned was due to issues of TRANSLATION, as the diary was inaccurately initially translated by an Italian speaking person. The Divine Mercy Devotion, while adding the Chaplet, Feast and focus on repentance as a key to His Mercy, is nothing new.
    Taking the quotes you cite: Jesus did not say He was uniting Himself more than to the Blessed Virgin. Considering translation, He meant uniting Himself uniquely in quality given His use of her for the devotion. Besides, she WAS MARRIED TO HIM and suffering for Him in this intimacy. Yes, that IS MORE THAN MOST. Second, it is not uncommon for religious, as spouses of Christ, to have to repose Him, etc., in order to function in their spiritual exercises. Why would you resist a devotion, which at heart, is based in His love of you and His forgiveness of you if you repented? Is it hard for you to believe He is more intimately United to St Faustina than you?

    1. It has been suggested that there were some questions regarding the translation but upon further examination it was determined that the apparitions were not divine.

  7. Determined by whom, Cynthia? And when? And how?

  8. Cynthia, upon further examination, with accurate translation, the devotion was approved. What are you going to do if it is true? Are you saying you reject the concept that God’s mercy is plentiful to those who repent?

  9. What is the harm in Believing in God’s mercy? The revelations given to St. Faustina have been accepted and approved by our Church. It has been said that by their fruits you will know them. These revelations have brought many back to the faith and comforted those at the hour of their death.

  10. “Anonymous “, I would have more respect for your opinions if you didn’t hide behind that term. I do believe in God’s mercy, He demonstrates it every day. Through His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church He has provided His Mercy in many ways, the Sacraments of Confession (not the new “reconciliation”),
    His true presence in the Holy Eucharist, as well as the possibility of obtaining plenary indulgences under the proper conditions. In all these circumstances, He also requires of us a purpose of amendment, humbling ourselves, fasting, repentance and reparation for our sins. It seems to me that “The Divine Mercy “ Sunday indulgence is a lacking in this purpose.

    1. Here here Cynthia.

      NOM- dilutes/hides propitiatory sacrifice.

      DM devotion of s. Faustyna - dilutes/hides reparation for sins.

      Both used to divert away from true Mass & Sacred Heart devotion.

      I like to add: almost all the Polish bishops were against the devotion or reserved after a questionnaire was sent to them in 1957. S. Faustina's Ordinary (local bishop) Abp Jabrzykowski was the authority on it, and He was very against it. He was at odds also with Fr. Sopocko the confessor of Faustina who was pushing the devotion. (She died in 1938.) Sopocko was sharply admonished in the 1958 memo to stop his activities. The 1959 AAS statement publicly restated the 1958 decision more mildly.
      The Polish bishops played a decisive role in the Holy Office coming to its decision, as cited by Dr. Ewa Czaczkowska in her book, “ Papiez który uwierył”.
      This argument of a faulty translation which the supporters of Faustina’s DM wrongly claim, lacks factual evidence. (Vatican sources) Its become an urban myth.

  11. Cynthia, why is your respect for another person’s opinions determined by whether I publish a name with them? How does that change the content of what is said? You may put the name Cynthia with your comments, but I know more about you by what you say than by the name you attach to it. The name Cynthia still does not tell me who you are, and for all I know, may not be your real name. Me attaching my name to my comments is only an opportunity for pride, and I would rather allow my content to speak from itself.

    Please back up your claims that the indulgence is lacking in these purposes. The usual conditions are required, including both Sacraments you mentioned, and anyone who studies the Devotion is well aware of It’s emphasis on self offering and suffering. You make these sweeping statements (as anyone could) without any back up and support, and I am still waiting for you to tell me where the devotion was rejected after the translation was re-examined. Where does the devotion reject the Sacraments, purpose of amendment, humility, penance, etc.? Otherwise, this is just your opinion, and no, that would never be enough to sway me away from this devotion.

  12. From the Diary:
    “My daughter, meditate frequently on the sufferings which I have undergone for your sake, and then nothing of what you suffer for me will seem great for you. You please me when you meditate on my sorrowful passion. Join your little sufferings to my Sorrowful Passion....”

    “You are a disciple of a crucified Master. Let that one word be enough for you. You know what is contained in the Cross.”

    Do you know the words of the Chaplet, said daily at 3 o’clock, out of reverence for the hour Christ died? For the sake of His SorrowfulPassion, Have Mercy on us and on the whole world.

    Begging for mercy would seem a position of humility.

    “My daughter, let three virtues adorn you in a particular way: humility, purity of intention and love. Do nothing beyond what I demand of you, and accept everything my hand gives you. Strive for a life of recollection, so that you hear my voice.....

    “True greatness of the soul is loving God and I humility”

    Have you read the Diary, Cynthia?

    I could go on, but I have my apostolate to attend to. God bless you, and I will remember you in my Chaplet today!

    1. Yes, I have read the diary in its entirety twice, once simply to read for understanding, secondly for research purposes. See the response above regarding the Polish bishops. I did my research, my statements will mean nothing to you unless you challenge yourself to research for yourself. And as for not using your name to avoid the temptation to pride, the mention of your “apostolate “ speaks volumes.

  13. Cynthia, Thank you for your clarification that you have read the Diary. Also, thank you for your insinuation it was prideful for me to mention my apostolate, as I will offer up your rash judgment for any of your needs and intentions. I thought all Catholics were in a daily apostolate in our vocations, and therefore do not see this as prideful (especially with my name unattached), but I'll leave the judgment to God, not someone on the internet who does not even know me and who is now invested in interpreting my intentions. That, to me, is a sign you have run out of arguments. Praise God, thank you!

    In addition, the initial rejection is not a sign it was not authentic, and as I mentioned earlier, the devotion was later accepted once accurately translated. It seems you accept the 1958 teaching authority, but not the 1978. Given it is clear you reject the 1977-1978 teaching authority of the Church, I do not feel we can have a fruitful discussion on the topic, therefore, I wish you well,and will sincerely pray for you! God bless you! IN HIS MERCY!

    1. Anonymous, whomever you may be, I apologize for my pettiness and my unkind comments. Truly, my only goal was to make people aware of the controversy surrounding the DM feast. It is up to each individual to decide for themselves the best devotion for themselves.

  14. Cynthia I am having a difficult time understanding why you can’t accept the fact that the Diary has been approved by the Catholic Church. You site past opinions where it was initially rejected but refuse to accept that after further in-depth study it was accepted. It was even promoted by our Polish Pope, John Paul II. Even Jesus was not accepted by many of His own but it did not make His ministry less real. I find it disingenuous for you to say you don’t respect anyone’s opinion if they post under the title “anonymous “ yet you readily accept a comment by “anonymous “ when it supports your view.

  15. I don’t accept the Novus Ordo Vatican II church nor its ecumenical teachings. I remain faithful to the tradition taught by the fathers and doctors of the Church.End of discussion.

  16. Stepping back, the crux of the controversy in the comments here swirl around the acceptance (or not) of the teaching authority that promulgated the approval of the Devotion, rather than the stated "dilutes/hides reparation for sins".

    Given Confession is a critical part of the Divine Mercy Sunday - and a valid Confession requires contrition and firm purpose of amendment; the argument that "this promise omits to mention the need for contrition and amendment of life" (cf. is rather...disingenuous, especially considering that the Sacraments were much better understood by Catholics of that time.

    Last thought - St. Robert Bellarmine almost had some of his writings put on the Index (spuriously) - now those exact writings hold the key to getting out of this Bergoglioian mess we are in.

    Ave Maria!

    1. Michael, the promises on DM Sunday make clear that whoever goes to confession & communion & it’s validly done will be have all sins forgiven & all punishments wiped away. (Diary 699). The promoters/supporters call it a “second baptism”. It only happens once a year on this exact day.

      According to Catholic theology, the remission of guilt and punishment occurs only in the sacrament of Baptism. A baptized person can receive remission of guilt in the sacrament of Penance, while remission of temporal punishments in the indulgence obtained, the conditions of which are determined by the successor of St. Peter. The complete disregard of this distinction shows, at the very least, ignorance of the life of the Church and Catholic theology, if not undermining them. It was not until John Paul II that the so-called Feast of Divine Mercy was established on the first Sunday after Pascha Sunday, along with a plenary indulgence. The words of the "Diary," on the other hand, completely ignore the need for the Pope to establish the indulgence. Besides, the very establishment of this feast marks a "correction" of the traditional Roman liturgy, which since time immemorial has celebrated God's mercy on the second Sunday after Pascha Sunday (introit Misericordia Domini), a de facto undermining of the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church through the centuries.

      In the entire history of the Church, there is not - and cannot be - an authentic private revelation that denies or undermines the Church's sacraments, its liturgy and its hierarchical order. These are the characteristics of false revelations, which certainly do not come from God.This is contrary to Catholic doctrine on sacramental graces taught at Council of Trent. Nothing can be above the graces received in the sacraments.

    2. You seem to ignore Church teaching on plenary indulgences which do the same thing if the person fulfills the requirements including the very difficult detachment from all sin.

    3. I’m certainly not ignoring it. Just pointing out the differences:

      1. claiming that on this day a person who confesses and receives Holy Communion will experience remission of all guilt and punishment.
      2. the establishment of a plenary indulgence on this day under the conditions that confession and Holy Communion are not enough, but an act of worship of "God's mercy" is necessary.
      3 Establish a plenary indulgence for each recitation of the chaplet of Sr. Faustina, in addition to the usual conditions (confession and Holy Communion), since this is no longer tied to the day.
      According to the eternal teaching of the Church only in Baptism is the remission of all sins, that is, original sin and personal sins, as well as temporal punishments, available,
      - in the sacrament of Confession one accesses the remission of all trespasses (sins) of personal sins,
      - in plenary absolution, remission of temporal punishments is accessed.
      The granting of an indulgence does not follow from the institution of the feast itself. There has never been in the Church either a feast associated substantially with an indulgence, that is, the observance of a feast day alone has never been a sufficient condition for obtaining an indulgence, nor has there ever been an indulgence whose only condition is the observance of a particular feast day.
      Thus, giving "Divine Mercy Sunday" a quasi-baptismal character means, as it were, nullifying the uniqueness of Baptism, which is the fundamental sacrament of the Church.

  17. I disagree with the "Second Baptism" phrase as well; I don't recall that phrase occurring in the Diary though, so if a promoter imprudently used the phrase, that's on them, not the Devotion itself.

    I think that it's reasonable to consider that if the feast was established by the competent authority, the Plenary Indulgence was attached as well?

    I'm not sure what you intend by mentioning "the observance of a feast day alone has never been a sufficient condition for obtaining an indulgence" since Confession is explicitly required. and not "just observing" the feast day?

    My reading of objections that people on other sites have made include a lot of vague / oblique / insinuation arguments that don't take the entire context into account - which makes it hard to accept that they are actually objecting to the Devotion itself rather than the authority that approved it, and thus are trying to find reasons to reject it.

    I am not versed in what the standard of theological language preciseness is required of private revelation writings when determining authenticity; so for me this comes down to what authority is accepted or rejected, with as much analysis/reflection as I am capable of.

    Last point - conflating the Divine Mercy devotion with NO / Anti-TLM seems to at least in part stem from interpreting that the term "mercy" in the Devotion as used in the Modernist heretical re-definition of it; from my reading of the Diary it is NOT using the term in the Modernist sense.

  18. The term “second baptism” was used by the head of the theological commission, prof Fr. Rozycki, when looking into the beatification process of s. Faustyna back in the late 1960’s. He was appointed by the then Cardinal Karol Wojtyla. This term is publicly used by the official promoters of DM the Marian Fathers as seen by link below:

    As mentioned in previous post the graces received for remission of all sins & wiping away all punishments is only reserved under the terms for the sacrament of baptism. Most Catholics are baptized as infants so what is washed away is only original sin. As the Council or Trent dogmatically declared no grace is higher than that received in the sacraments.
    The only conditions on DM Sunday for this “extraordinary” grace akin to baptism is receiving communion on that day & going to confession(Diary 699). So all sins & punishments wiped away. How is this possible? It’s simply not as it would go against dogmatic teaching of the Church, & Christ wouldn’t contradict His Church. Instead the Church would give plenary indulgences. But to obtain these it’s a lot harder as one has to be detached from all sins. While DM Sunday has no such detachments required. It’s the same roadmap but alot easier to achieve with less conditions attached. Sounds too good to be true? Well it is. No private devotion promises such things & goes against Catholic dogma. The supporters even teach non Catholics can receive such graces on that day even without baptism. That’s just plain heresy. If you don’t trust see the film below, when Fr. Chris Alar answers questions on this topic from
    About min18:00:

    1. 👆👆👆

      When I was (re) entered the Church from Protestantism, the following Sunday was DMS and I thought to myself, well this certainly sounds like the Protestant Churches I just left. But I assured myself I was wrong as it was the true Church. Then I learned about the controversy. (Same thing happened when I learned about Assisi). These two things, and my firm belief that I was wrong are probably what allowed me to embrace sedevacantism. Also, my NO priest and even the canons at ICK would not hear my abjuration from protestantism, but my sede priest insisted on it.

  19. Not seeing a contradiction as reception of the Sacraments are part of the Divine Mercy Sunday devotion, and the "usual conditions" are explicitly attached to the Plenary Indulgence granted on Divine Mercy Sunday:


  20. I see I made a mistake and hit submit too soon, is not about the specific thing of contention here.

    If the approval is true we have assurance that the private revelation of the Divine Mercy promise does NOT contradict Trent. Given I don't have reasons to doubt the authority of the approval, then it becomes a matter to consider/ponder/study what Trent teaches and how the private revelation does not contradict it.

    Ave Maria!

    1. “We have assurance that the private revelation of the Divine Mercy promise does NOT contradict Trent”? This assurance isn’t part of the infallible teaching of the Church, which means in other words that it’s fallible, has possibility of error. After V2 unfortunately we have not only be taught error but heresies as well, we’re many Catholics don’t believe in Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or they deny at best misunderstand the dogma there’s no salvation outside of the Church. 99% of Catholic aren’t properly Cathecised because their prelates don’t teach them the Faith. This is why they accept error & truth together but can’t separate them like the chaff fronm the wheat.
      I’ve clearly highlighted that only once in our lifetime do we receive the grace we receive during baptism - remission of sins & wiping away all punishments. It can’t be repeated. This is dogma - de fide. This is why the Church in its charity for souls can offer indulgences, either partial or full. A plenary indulgence has the possibility of wiping away all sins, but it’s very difficult to get as we need to be detached from all sins, including venial. If one fulfills the other requirements but fails to detach, then they receive at least the partial one. Indulgences can be received every day, if we do what the Church instructs on that specific indulgence. I recommend highly reading the Raccolta, which is a Catholic Handbook of Indulgences. God bless.

    Read the section on “Can’t make it to church” Just have the intention to fulfill the requirements for a plenary indulgence and, Voila! There you go!

  22. Cynthia, I think there were a couple of "anonymous" commenting. If you meant me, however, I was praying and hoping we could be friends, despite our disagreements. Grateful to God for your apology. Heartily accepted. Prayers always. May He be close to your heart and you to His.