The Divine Mercy Controversy

Today we’re going to be discussing a major controversy in the church – a controversy that I’ve only recently been made aware of – but I was captivated right away. The debate goes back over 70 years. It is the lingering questions about The Divine Mercy Devotion – the chaplet Catholics pray, and the image Catholics venerate. Is this really an image from God, seen in a vision by a saint and mystic? Or is it really sacrilege? Just the machinations of a mad woman? For most Catholics, especially the modernist Post Vatican II Novus Ordo Catholics, no controversy around the image exists at all. For the more Traditional, Latin-mass loving, Pius X type Catholics, however, this image in not only not from God, but it is also possibly something much more nefarious. Some even claim that it is actually a depiction of Lucifer painted by a member of a secret society.

In most Theological debates, I can usually figure out my position quite easily. In my life I have explored all the major faiths and belief structures thoroughly. Testing them and experiencing them firsthand. And time and time again on that spiritual journey, I was repeatedly brought back to Catholicism, because in (almost) every instance they are the ones who are correct.

In other words, I would study the church’s position on a particular matter as well as their opponent’s position – all with an open mind (truly) – and almost every single time, I can see how the church arrived at her point both logically and theologically and then I have no other choice but to believe in the church’s reasoning and thus follow its doctrine.

In the case of The Divine Mercy devotion, however, I’ve been at a loss – As the church was herself for a time. Both, Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII rejected Sr. Faustina’s claims.

As I began my research on this matter, I admittedly had a particular hypothesis about where I thought my position was going to end up in this debate. But, I’ll tell you what, the more I researched, the more confused I became.

And because I was so conflicted about this debate, I thought that even if I did arrive at a conclusion, it would only be with nominal certainty.

Nevertheless, I have been pleasantly surprised by my findings. And on a sidenote that’s a misleading way to put it. I did not find this conclusion – which I think most of you will agree with – rather it was revealed to me by something beyond the veil of this reality – something I would call divine. You will see what I mean by the time I conclude this. No one else, in all my research about both sides of this debate, made the point that I am going make at the end of this. (if you find someone who has comment their name below) And this point, in this humble man’s opinion, is without question the final word on the matter – it truly feels like the handiwork of God.

So to begin, I was trying to figure out how I was going to lay this out. At first I thought, I would make the case for the Divine Mercy devotion, using all the supporting evidence, And then, I would present all the counter arguments and why it should be discredited. This debate, however, is far too nuanced, to designate the two sides of the argument in such clear distinction to each other. There seems to be an ever-present dialogue between the two sides that can only fully be addressed by presenting both sides together simultaneously. Because only in their constant back and forth, is the distinction fully achieved and realized. If that all seems confusing, don’t worry, you will see what I mean as I continue.

Okay, so where did the image of Divine Mercy come from? In 1930’s Poland, a nun named Sr. Faustina Kowalska, received internal visions from Jesus and she would dialogue with him frequently. So frequently in fact that she recorded it in her 600-page diary. This is where the debate begins. Many priests in Poland at the time denied Faustina’s miraculous claims. Obviously. Their first objection seems like a reasonable one: there is nothing supernatural about Faustina’s visions or dialogue as far any one can tell. (And some of you may be thinking – when has there ever been proof of the supernatural? You must’ve never seen my videos before. Either watch some of them, or just research Eucharistic miracles, Fatima, Guadalupe, Lourdes, the Shroud of Turin, near death experiences, intelligent design, and the Fibonacci sequence to start. And if you need more miraculous, God-proving avenues to follow – leave a comment below. But back to the matter at hand. How could Sr. Faustina prove that what she saw and heard was really from Jesus?

Father Sopocko was the confessor to the Sisters of Our Lady of Mercy, the order to which Sr. Faustina belonged. And Fr. Seraphim, whom I’ve highlighted before on this channel, said that Father Sopocko actually “wanted to quit” being her confessor. He was so alarmed by Faustina, in fact, that he told the Mother Superior to have her checked out by a psychiatrist.

Luckily, for Divine Mercy advocates, Fr. Sopocko didn’t quit being her confessor. After the psych results came back normal, and he discovered that all the other sisters in the convent adored Faustina, he started to have a change of heart. He began to realize that if she wasn’t crazy, then what she was saying had to be taken seriously. It did have the earmarks of something divine. For instance, Fr. Sopocko was on the radio one night, and despite her having not heard the show, Sr. Faustina told him that Jesus wasn’t pleased with his radio appearance because it lacked “pure intention.” What a bold and audacious thing for a nun to say to her confessor. Nevertheless, Fr. Sopocko admitted that she was right; he did in fact care more about what people felt about him, than he did about purely representing the Word of God. In other words, as Fr. Seraphim says, it’s like “Jesus squealed on him.” From then on, Fr. Sopocko was Sr. Faustina’s fiercest advocate. As a matter of fact, it was he, who would find the artist Eugeniusz Kazimirowski to paint the Divine Mercy image, as directed by Faustina.

If this debate is new to you, and you have only heard what I have said thus far, you may be thinking, her boldness does seem strange, but if what she says is always true, and she seems to know more than she could possibly know within the limits of our natural reality, then that is worth considering. What is more, there is another story, where Father Sopocko is discussing the complexities of the Holy Trinity with some other priests at the convent, and they seem to come to a theological impasse in their discussion. At which time, Fr. Sopocko sends for Sr. Faustina to clear up the confusion. The priests were left stunned. Faustina’s theological insight seemed to come right from God.

This all sounds pretty convincing right? Well, yes and no… Both sides of this debate seem to have a point. And what are both sides exactly. We have the modernist, Vatican II Catholics, that believe in Faustina’s divine revelations as promulgated by Pope John Paul II, her fellow-Polish countryman. And, on the other side we have the traditionalist, Latin Mass Catholics, who believe that secret societies have infiltrated the church with a modernist (at times Luciferian agenda), and this devotion is part and parcel of that movement.

I must admit, with these intra-Catholic debates where the modernists are arguing with the traditionalists, I usually side with the latter. This is because my standpoint on these matters is often aligned with the Venerable Fulton Sheen when he said, “If I were not Catholic, and were looking for the one true church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world.” In other words, the more modern something is, the more like the world it is. And the more like the world it is, the less like the church it is. Therefore the more modern it is, the less like the church it is. All this is to say, if the traditionalists are against the devotion, then I thought I’d probably be against it too. Let’s now take a closer look at their arguments against the Divine Mercy Devotion: [Video Clip]

So, the five main arguments against the Divine Mercy Devotion are as follows:

1. The church originally rejected the Devotion

2. The Divine Mercy devotion promotes a heretical teaching of Universal Salvation (which is a hallmark of the modernist movement within the Church)

3. Faustina’s diary is nothing but the ramblings of a narcissist

4. The Divine Mercy Devotion provides no support for its supernatural claims – like other miracles of divine communication, such as Fatima or Lourdes.

5. The Divine Mercy Image lacks the wounds of Christ and features Luciferian symbolism

My first inclination is to accept these arguments as valid. As a traditionalist myself, I must admit, that on the surface these do all sound like legitimate grievances. Nevertheless, we are going to go through each of these five arguments one by one and see if they stand up to scrutiny.

The first argument against the Divine Mercy devotion is that the church originally rejected it. This is not as impactful an argument, as most traditionalists seem to think it is. So, the church was either initially mistaken, or they are mistaken now. Either way there is a mistake – so from that point of view both sides have something to argue.

Moreover, looking closer at the church’s rejection of the devotion, the picture becomes less clear. You see, it’s hard to say, how much deliberation Pope Pius XII gave to the Divine Mercy Devotion considering he was likely at the end of his life when the matter was brought to him; people often try to slip things by a Pope when he is in that state. All this is to say, Pope Pius II reported skepticism of the Divine Mercy seems to be more of a stay of execution than an outright rejection. The outright rejection came from his successor John XXIII. This is where it get really confusing. The irony of the traditionalists using the actions of John XXIII in support of their argument is laughable. You see, to most traditionalists, John XXIII was the most destructive Pope in the past two centuries (although he has had a run for his money by Pope Francis), because John XXIII is the one who brought the second Vatican council together in the first place and is thus responsible for all the modernity they see as having ruined the church.

The second argument against the Divine Mercy devotion: is that it promotes a heretical teaching of Universal Salvation. [Insert recap clip] On the surface this does seem quite heretical. It appears to go against Jesus’ teaching, that he is the only way to the Father (John 14:6), and that it is a “narrow path” to heaven (Matthew 7:13-14). After all, no one talked more about hell in the Bible than Jesus. So how can the church endorse such a teaching as Faustina’s? The Lord has Divine Mercy, yes, but he also has Divine Justice, which seems to be excluded here. (For more on God’s Justice and Mercy, check out my video on the Eucharist)

Faustina seems to be preaching a message that all are saved regardless of what they believe or what they have done in their life. If she were in fact doing this, then surely the Divine Mercy devotion should be deemed heretical. The problem with this argument, however, is that is not what she is doing. One must first note one thing, that on the Divine Mercy image it reads “Jesus I Trust in You.” This is clearly an acknowledgement that the only way to God is Jesus, and it takes having faith in him to receive his mercy. What is more, Sr. Faustina was a huge advocate of the sacrament of confession. This is her acknowledgement that Divine Justice exists, and she is in alignment with the teachings of the church, that the best way to deal with God’s justice and our sins is to go to confession.

I do admit that that passage from her diary, taken out of context in such a way, does seem quite extreme and borderline antithetical to church teaching, however, in concert with what Faustina says about confession and the power of faith (i.e. trust in Jesus), the message of God’s love and mercy comes shining through. The argument against Faustina – that she teaches a heretical message of Universal Salvation – would be enough, in my opinion, to turn our back on her and the devotion – if it were true. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on which side of this debate you are on, it is not true. Sr. Faustina’s picture of God’s Divine Mercy is slightly more complicated than the simple notion of “Universal Salvation” and it is more aligned with the long-held teachings of the church, than the traditionalists would want you to believe. So, argument two, although it’s a good one, doesn’t hold up under serious scrutiny.

The third argument against the Divine Mercy devotion is that Sr. Faustina’s diary was nothing more than the ramblings of a narcissist. Opponents to the Divine Mercy devotion will say she has way too much pride when she keeps saying over and over again how she is going to be a saint or how much of a saint she is. The argument against this point is pretty obvious: She is in fact a saint. So where one side sees it as narcissistic rambling, the other side sees it as prophecy. So, once again, the argument against the Divine Mercy Devotion falls apart.

The fourth argument against the Divine Mercy devotion is that there is no supporting evidence for its supernatural claims – such as we find in other miracles like Fatima or Lourdes – will be addressed last in

The fifth argument against the Divine Mercy devotion is that it is actually a depiction of Lucifer. Where do claims such as these come from? Well first, and most obvious, Lucifer is referred to as “the Light Bearer,” and the Divine Mercy image is obviously a picture of a man bearing light from his chest. As convincing as that may or may not seem, one must keep in mind that Jesus is also called the “Light of the World” (so it could just as well still be him as well).

The second reason that many believe that this is not Jesus in the picture is that he is missing the wounds in his hands. As such, this is some kind of inversion of the Sacred Heart of Jesus – no wounds, no visible heart. This argument is a bit of a stretch. What those that make that argument probably don’t know is that Faustina was once asked why Jesus was looking down in the painting. Her initial reply was that she didn’t know. She then asked Jesus why. She said that he said, he was looking down because that’s the face he had on the cross, looking down on us. That does align with where the idea of the image comes from (but I’ll get to that in a moment).

And the last reason, and perhaps most convincing, reason that some people seem to think that this painting is Luciferian has to do with the occult symbolism. Do you notice anything strange about the beams coming from his chest? They form a triangle of light with the brightest part on its pinnacle; this could be seen as tantamount to the pyramid with the all-seeing eye on it (the symbol on our dollar bills – a big theme of the occult is to become “enlightened,” which is what both this eye and the light represent. This triangle of light symbolism also calls to mind the painting of God by the poet and mystic William Blake. So add all of this to the rumor (yes, rumor) that Kazimirowski (who painted this) was a secret society member who killed himself, and the Luciferian suspicions then seem justified.

The rebuttal to this powerful argument is found in the rebuttal to the fourth argument against the Divine Mercy devotion. That is, if one could show supporting evidence to prove that the Divine Mercy devotion is in fact of supernatural, which is to say, of divine origin, then all the claims that it is actually Lucifer or Luciferian in nature are put to rest immediately. You see what I mean, right? Both cannot be true simultaneously. If it’s from God, then it can’t be from or of the Satan.

Okay, so there are two powerful ways to demonstrate the Divine Mercy’s supernatural origin. The first is connected to the Shroud of Turin and the second is connected to scripture. The former has been shown by others, the latter, on the other hand, was divinely revealed to me in my research. As for the first one, let’s look at that closer. You see, if one superimposes the Divine Mercy image over that of the shroud of Turin, they appear to reveal the same exact man, with the same exact proportions. This is a miracle unto itself. The technology to do what I just did, didn’t exist at the time of the painting – so it seems completely outside of the realm of possibility that this was the intended goal. Also, it’s not that Faustina, Sopocko or Kazimirowski had easy access to images of the shroud either.  What is really interesting is that St. Faustina didn’t really like the Divine Mercy painting when she first saw it, saying that it didn’t fully capture Christ’s beauty; but Jesus told her “Not in beauty of the color, nor of the brush lies the greatness of this image, but in My grace.” And once again, Jesus’ words, as reported by Faustina seem to be spot on. Because say what you will, it is a powerful image – that yea, maybe it doesn’t reveal the perfect man that Jesus was, but there is something perfect about the image.

And the second way, that the Divine Mercy Devotion demonstrates its supernatural origin has to do with scripture. Amid my research on this subject, I reached an impasse. Both sides made convincing arguments. It was at this point I decided to take a step back, and I asked God to guide me. I then thought to myself, if the Divine Mercy devotion aligns with scripture, then that will help to convince me that it comes from God. So, what is the painting actually depicting. The red and white streams represent, blood and water respectively. This is what came gushing out of Jesus when the Roman soldier put the spear in his side to ensure that he was dead. We read: “But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water” (John 19:34). And like lightning, I received a message from God in the form of a question I didn’t know, but instantly knew, the answer to… like “Jesus I Trust in You.” So that passage that describes this scene is John 19:34. A flash in my brain, the question: what year was the Divine Mercy painted? That’s right – I knew it (but never knew it before) the year 1934. [John 19:34] The year 1934] You maybe thinking that’s just a coincidence. That doesn’t prove anything. You clearly don’t understand how God speaks to us. I’m sorry, but the way I saw it all come together, believe me, my experience was far from random. In my opinion, and against my instinct to side with traditionalists, God showed me that his church is right again. The Divine Mercy Devotion does in fact come from God. And we should venerate the image and pray the chaplet whenever we can. Keep in mind the Hour of Mercy – 3:00 o’clock when our Lord died on the cross. Because we are always in need of God’s Divine Mercy. Jesus, I trust in you.