I do not understand the concept of chaplets. How did/do they originate? Do you use a regular rosary? How do you pray one? Can you have a devotion to one?

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), August 25, 2003

Answers

Response to Caplets

My favorite is the Chaplets of Mercy of Saint Sister Faustina... if you google it, you'll be able to find out what it consists of. It's said on the Rosary beads. Just make sure you get the version that doesn't change Christ's words to faustina. Get the original.

It is basically an appeal to the Heavenly Father that the efforts of Christ on the Cross are not in vain, but that people would be granted the initial graces needed to avail themselves of The Passion of Christ for their salvation. It's a devotion to Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, when you get down to it.

It is also indicated by St. Faustina to be a last ditch effort of the Mercy of God in a crisis.

There all sorts of Chaplets though; this is just one.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 26, 2003.

Dear Scott, Some chaplets require a regular rosary and some do not. It usually states which one at the beginning of the prayers. The chaplet of Mercy is said on ordinary rosary beads. As Emerald said, be certain to get the original chaplet because words were deliberately changed to prevent people from receiving the graces that go with it. In this case, Our Lord gave this chaplet to Sister Faustina as a source of special graces to those that say it. It also mitigates God's anger against our sins and the sins of the whole world. It is a chaplet of atonement. You can purchase the 'original' as I did, from: De Guadalupe P.O. Box 370107 El Paso, Tx 79937 Telephone: 915-592-7742 This is a plastic laminated card and the serial # on it is 12465A Price is, I believe, 50 cents each (cheaper for a whole bunch). Be absolutely sure they send the original. You can contact me again on my email when you receive the item to confirm its the correct one if you like. The serial # on the card should guarantee this though. I bought a 100 and handed them out to everyone at church and some of them bought 50 or 100 & they handed them out to their family & friends as well. Keep in touch with questions Scott. Email is good. Glad to help anytime with anything. No question is considered too small or dumb. These are days of confusion for everyone.

dutchee

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 04, 2003.

Who would change the words of a chaplet to "deliberately prevent people from receiving the graces that go with it"?? Certainly not non- Catholic enemies of the Church. They never heard of a chaplet. For that matter, neither have most Catholics. Why would anyone among the small minority of Catholics who even know what a chaplet is, change the wording "to prevent people from receiving grace"?

Further, and more important, by what authority do you claim that changing a word in a common prayer reduces the graces available through the recitation of that prayer? Such a claim smacks of superstition. Is the prayer itself some sort of magical incantation which makes grace appear only if it is recited verbatim? If so, it has no place in Catholicism. Or, is the prayer simply a communication with the One Who is the source of all grace? If so, is it likely He will withhold His grace from those who pray to Him, simply because they didn't recite a given prayer exactly as it was written?? Not the God I know!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 04, 2003.

Hi Paul Where do I begin with you??? If Christ appeared to someone and gave them a prayer to all mankind and He says there will be certain graces that go with it. It is not up to you, me or anyone else to say it's okay to change HIS words. It is not. He gave us the prayers and expects us to say them word for word the way HE gave them to us. Jesus, as told by Himself, to Sr. Faustina, tells us EXACTLY how to say the chaplet. If you don't want to follow HIS rules to get the special graces, then don't. Go ahead and Play God, Paul, and tell Jesus that you don't have to say the prayers exactly and that you expect those graces anyway. Do whatever you wish Paul, afterall you do have free will.

Now, as far as the annulment business goes as concerns my reply to Alicia. Have you ever gone through the process, Paul? I have. I repeated to Alicia exactly what was told to me by the Church and I did as they requested. There is no such thing as a civil annulment. That in simple terms Paul, is called DIVORCE. The church told me to get my civil DIVORCE first (because the church wanted "no legal ramifications such as "alienation of affection",and that when it was completed (because I was married in the church, or so I thought) that I was to come back to the Chancery, Paul, and apply for the annulment. I did as the Church said and I repeated what was told to me by the Church to Alicia. Alicia was not married in the church, as stated by her, and I'll say it again, Paul, she does not need an annulment because and annulment is from the church. If Alicia listens to you, Paul, she will be messed up for life.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 04, 2003.

Scott, Sorry I did not answer this before. Yes, you certainly can have a devotion to a chaplet or as many as you like. Please note, however, that chaplets do not replace praying the daily rosary. It is recommended that the rosary and meditating upon the mysteries come first, but I'm sure you already are aware of that. Common sense & all. One comment on something Paul brought up earlier. And this is to Paul by the way. I can only begin to guess who changed the words of the original chaplet of Mercy. However, I have seen it many many times in many different places, printed wrongly. Since I have seen it with my own eyes, Paul, I give me the authority to tell others about it.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 04, 2003.

Dear dutchee,

Since the chaplet in question is a product of so-called "private revelation", and since NO private revelation is binding on ANY Catholic, there is nothing about a chaplet that is in any way binding on anyone. The Church gives you permission to participate in such a devotion if you wish. Period. You can even believe that Christ spoke to Faustina, if you wish. No Catholic is bound to believe that any such thing occurred, much less that any prayer supposedly given to Faustina by Christ during a supposed apparition, is sacrosanct. If you want to pray the prayer in its original form, that is perfectly acceptable. If you want to believe it came from God, that is permissible. If you want to take its ideas and rewrite them in a form you like better, that too is perfectly acceptable. And if you want to simply ignore the whole business, or even to believe that the purpoted apparitions were a hoax, that too is perfectly permissible within Church teaching. Therefore going around preaching your personal interpretations of the purpoted event as though it were doctrinal truth is simply not legitimate within the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. You cannot tell me "what Jesus said", because the Church has not definitively proclaimed that Jesus said ANYTHING to Faustina. You can only tell me what the Church has allowed us to believe concerning what Faustina believed Jesus said to her. And within that context, you can personally believe anything you like; and so can any other devout orthodox Catholic. The only prayer we KNOW came from Christ is the Lord's Prayer.

I'm afraid I don't follow you on the annulment matter. You say the Church FIRST required a civil divorce. That is correct! It is standard procedure, just as you described. You then say that the Church required you to APPLY FOR ANNULMENT, once the divorce was finalized! This is also correct! And this is exactly what Alicia must do! So WHY did you advise her to try to substitute Confession for Annulment? Am I missing something here? It is true that the particulars of a given marriage may render it de facto invalid from the Church's perspective. It is NOT true that an individual may make such a determination for herself! The matter MUST be submitted to a marriage tribunal, and a decree of nullity MUST be obtained before a valid Catholic marriage can be contracted. If your priest told you otherwise, he misled you, and if you do not have a decree of nullity for your former marriage, your current marriage may already be subject to annulment.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 04, 2003.

"And if you want to simply ignore the whole business, or even to believe that the purpoted apparitions were a hoax, that too is perfectly permissible within Church teaching."

I'm not totally sure about that, because in this case the seer is now proclaimed by the Catholic Church to be a Saint, and her life was intimately connected with this message, this devotion, and the sufferings related to it. So in that sense if you lend credence to the Catholic Faith, then you also have lent credence to Her saints, and therefore, also in one degree or another to their individual causes and devotions, and ways of sanctity.

So it's not completely clear to me that we can choose to blow them off or to hold in disbelief that which the Saints have profited from; these are gifts of the Holy Ghost for the benefit of the entire Mystical Body of Christ. There's a Catholic level of assent called Pious Assent that characterizes this lower degree of obedience or small-F faith.

"Therefore going around preaching your personal interpretations of the purpoted event as though it were doctrinal truth is simply not legitimate within the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church."

Applicable in kind to the Charasmatic Movement. Nobody is going to make it big and get rich in the hairshirt retail industry.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 04, 2003.

Jmj

Paul, Emerald criticized this statement of yours: "And if you want to simply ignore the whole business, or even to believe that the purpoted apparitions were a hoax, that too is perfectly permissible within Church teaching."

You were right to say that we are permitted "to simply ignore the whole business." Emerald was wrong to say that we cannot "hold in disbelief that which the Saints have profited from" and wrong to say that "[t]here's a Catholic level of assent called Pious Assent that characterizes this lower degree of obedience or small-F faith."

However, Emerald was right to say that you went too far in using the word "hoax." It is simply impossible to believe that the Holy Spirit would have led the pope to discern that Sister Faustina is a saint in heaven if she had pulled off a "hoax." Instead of believing that she may have engineered a hoax, we are permitted to believe that she simply misunderstood what happened to her -- for example, that the words she attributes to our Lord were actually from her own mind, honest outgrowths of her own pious meditations.

Paul, you are also correct in letting Dutchee know that she is mistaken (both about the wording of prayers and about nullity cases). After reading her messages, I realized that she had simply misunderstood what her pastor told her. He wanted to tell her that a "civil annulment" [one granted by a court] has no effect on a valid marriage, but she wrongly took that to mean that a "civil marriage" [a non-church ceremony] needs no declaration of nullity at all.

Dutchee, please be aware of the fact that Paul is a Catholic deacon, an ordained man who probably knows much more than you do about matters of the faith. No, he is not infallible, and I have had to wrestle very hard with him on several occasions. But I recommend that you accord him somewhat more trust and respect than you have done up to this point.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 04, 2003.

Dear John,

I must agree that the likelihood of a hoax in the case of this particular series of purpoted communications is nil, given the affirmed sanctity of the person who purpotedly received them. Of course that doesn't negate the possibility that she was mistaken about her supposed messages, nor does her personal sanctity mean that Catholics must therefore accept as genuine any spiritual phenomenon she reportedly experienced. Also, the term "hoax", or at least the distinct possibility thereof, certainly IS applicable to many of the hundreds of apparitions and locutions currently being reported all over the world. But I am indeed quite confident that Saint Faustina was not the intentional perpetrator of a hoax.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 04, 2003.

"Also, the term "hoax", or at least the distinct possibility thereof, certainly IS applicable to many of the hundreds of apparitions and locutions currently being reported all over the world."

Well me to. But might I point out that the greater part of these hoaxes, with the exception of a few, have a distinctly modern Catholic character to them as opposed to what one might call traditional.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 04, 2003.

So what?

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 04, 2003.

Well, Pope John Paul II thought enough of the devotion (and all it includes) to proclaim the Sunday after Easter 'Divine Mercy Sunday.'

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 05, 2003.

You cannot tell me "what Jesus said", because the Church has not definitively proclaimed that Jesus said ANYTHING to Faustina.

I don't know what happened. I was responding to this quote.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 05, 2003.

Emerald,

This is the first time that I've ever heard of the words being changed. How do I know what is the original and what is changed? I have a copy of "Divine Mercy in my Soul The Diary of the Servant of God" (ie St. Faustina's diary). Would not the original be in that? Of course, this was translated into English and she was Polish, so the original would be in Polish I imagine ;)

Your help is appreciated,

Carolyn

-- Carolyn (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), September 05, 2003.

The Nine Day Novena to the Divine Mercy starts out this way in St. Faustina's words:

"Novena to The Divine Mercy which Jesus instructed (Me) Sr. Faustina to write down and make before the feast of Mercy."

In what follows, on the fourth day of the novena, this is the intention:

Today bring to Me the pagans and those who do not yet know me. I was thinking also of them during My bitter Passion, and their future zeal comforted My Heart. Immerse them in the ocean of My mercy.

But later versions change the word "pagans" to read this:

Today bring to Me those who do not believe in God and those who do not know Me. I was thinking also of them during My bitter Passion, and their future zeal comforted My Heart. Immerse them in the ocean of My mercy.

There's sometimes a footnote that explains the change and the reason stated for changing it. Here's the one I usually find in pamphlets:

*Our Lord's original words here were "the pagans." Since the pontificate of Pope John XXIII, the Church has seen fit to replace this term with clearer and more appropriate terminology.

Christ's words weren't weren't clear enough, and not appropriate enough? When you really think about it, that's quite a statement. The part that kind of makes me sad, though, is that they try to make it look like it's an official act of the Church, and if one doesn't obey it that they will be acting with disobedience towards to Church. As time goes by I'm feeling more and more mental pain at seeing well meaning, searching souls be yanked around by a chain of false obedience, or being brow-beaten into submission on technicalities. Love is our Faith! An individual in the Church may have thought this appropriate, but the footnote makes it look like it's the official position of the Church, as if the Keys of the Kingdom had been employed in changing Christ's own words in this plea to Saint Faustina.

It may seem like I'm making a big deal of it, here's the problem... they say they are being more precise, but they've just left out a whole group, or whole groups, of people that the word "pagan" includes. When they say "...Today bring to Me those who do not believe in God and those who do not know Me..." they leave out huge chunks of people. For instance, these people:

Those who hate Christ and serious sinners and the like who know but do not follow. Christ died for these; these are most in need of His Mercy as well. Christ words are more inclusive, more precise.

Christ said it best and the Church never demanded something different from us under pain of obedience, some person or persons out there feel the need to make it look this way.

Here's another change. On the fifth day, the original words of Christ were this:

Today bring to Me the souls of heretics and schismatics, and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy. During My bitter Passion they tore at My Body and Heart; that is, My Church. As they return to unity with the Church, My wounds heal, and in this way they alleviate My Passion.

But it has been changed to this:

Today bring to Me the Souls of those who have separated themselves from My Church...

The reason for the change stated in the footnote is this:

*Our Lord's original words here were "heretics and schismatics," since He spoke to Saint Faustina within the context of her times. As of the Second Vatican Council, Church authorities have seen fit not to use those designations in accordance with the explanation given in the Council's Decree on Ecumenism (n.3). Every pope since the Council has reaffirmed that usage. Saint Faustina herself, her heart always in harmony with the mind of the Church, most certainly would have agreed. When at one time, because of the decisions of her superiors and father confessor, she was not able to execute Our Lord's inspirations and orders, she declared: "I will follow Your will insofar as You will permit me to do so through Your representative. O my Jesus " I give priority to the voice of the Church over the voice with which You speak to me" (497). The Lord confirmed her action and praised her for it.

Oh boy, Carolyn, because at this point I could open a whole can of worms and stray badly from the point, so I'll spare you the exhaustive earful... lol! Suffice it to say that while the reasonings here may seem attractive to some people, they still are changing the words of Christ when push comes to shove. Maybe later I'll post a calm rant on this particular change. As you might imagine from my usual rants on the forum, the above footnote just about sends me into the ionosphere.

In short, it's a little difficult to present a group of people to Christ that He might shower mercy on them when we're too afraid to identify what they are.

We love these pagans, these heretics and schismatics. We call them what they are out of love that Christ in His Mercy may save them, because we love them.

That being said, I probably differ a bit from dutchee in that I think that some good-hearted, loving soul approaching the Divine Mercy via this novena will reap the rewards using a version that they don't know has been altered. I also believe that if they're sincere, then... eventually Christ will get them His original wording.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 05, 2003.

There are few kinds of people as insufferable as those who try to be "more Catholic than the pope."

The "original words" of the Divine Mercy prayers, as was wisely pointed out, were in Polish (either given by Jesus or composed in the soul of the saint).
Therefore (the Church would certainly assure us), any reasonably accurate translation whatsoever -- including the more recent one that was disparaged above -- is equally acceptable, equally pleasing to God, and equally efficacious. Case closed. (Actually it was already closed when Paul explained the matter to Dutchee earlier.)

God bless all.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 05, 2003.

John,

No offense, but I'm sure you are mistaken. In any translation from language to language there can be nuances that aren't carried over from one language to another, so even the FIRST translation into English isn't likely what the Polish meant *exactly* to St. Faustina when she heard it.

I'm sure Emerald knows this too and is therefore saying the prayer *in Polish* to make sure he is doing so as correctly as possible. Otherwise, how could he be sure that the first translation isn't less accurate than the second?

Emerald,

The vernacular in languages change. Why not try asking several people at random what the definition of the word "pagan" is, and see what answers you get. Then take another look at this passage and ask yourself whether keeping a word no one uses anymore is MORE accurate than using words people understand. After all, unless Christ spoke to her in English, you aren't getting Christ's own words anyway.

Frank

P.S. For myself, I defined the word "pagan" as a non-Christian, someone like a tribesman. I looked it up and saw it defined as "a non- Christian, Jew, or Muslim, especially polytheistic".

I did some "research" on this, and asked one of the ladies at work how she would define a pagan and she said "I don't know, someone who is not religious??". A second said "a Westerner would use that to describe a person who doesn't agree with their beliefs."

Is "pagan" the BEST word to use for today's Catholic so that they UNDERSTAND as closely as possible Christ's intent? For myself, I wouldn't have been as likely to worry about "pagans" in society, after all, how many tribesmen are out there? Non-believers OTOH...

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 05, 2003.

Why don't you just read the footnotes. The footnotes explain why they changed it.

Their footnotes don't agree with either of you.

Oops.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 05, 2003.

And as usual, you don't *read to understand* anything outside of your pre-conceived idea of what you think is correct. Protastantism 101.

Sigh.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 05, 2003.

That's interesting, Frank.

I've always found this page to be enlightening Carolyn; it's a listing of some of the words and experiences of St. Faustina by topic. You might find some good reading in there.

St. Faustina imho is one of the latest in a long line of impressive women mystics a sufferers which have remarkable similiarities among them. If you haven't heard of these you might enjoy reading about them:

Ven. Mary of Agreda

Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich

Ven. St. Gemma

You wouldn't believe how many like this there actually are; it's a big list.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 05, 2003.

Venerable Saint Gemma? Ooops.

At any rate, if you allow me Carolyn, feel free to just blow past the picky stuff to move onward to sanctity; the Saints are your best allies.

-- (emerald1@cox.net), September 05, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, folks.

Me (last time): "The original words ... were in Polish ... . [A]ny reasonably accurate translation ... is equally acceptable, equally pleasing to God, and equally efficacious."

Objection: "... I'm sure you are mistaken. In any translation from language to language there can be nuances that aren't carried over from one language to another, so even the FIRST translation into English isn't likely what the Polish meant *exactly* to St. Faustina when she heard it."

Rebuttal: No, I'm not mistaken. I said that any translation used must be "reasonably accurate." There could be nothing "mistaken" about saying that. Every translation ever done in Church history (from Aramaic/Hebrew to Greek, from Greek to Latin, from Greek or Latin to modern languages) has been "reasonably accurate," not necessarily "exact." I have no doubt that God is pleased and satisfied with each "reasonably accurate" translation.

Objection: "Why don't you just read the footnotes. The footnotes explain why they changed it. Their footnotes don't agree with either of you."

Rebuttal: Whether or not the footnotes agree with me is of no concern to me. All that matters, I believe, is that the more recent translation is "reasonably accurate." In my opinion, it is.

[Just tangentially ... (1) The first footnote rightly calls for "clearer" language than the oft-misunderstood "pagans." (2) The second footnote misleads readers, leading them to believe that Vatican II's Decree on Ecumenism #3 forbids the use of the terms "heretics" and "schismatics." In fact, the Decree mentions no form of those words.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 07, 2003.

Emerald,

Thanks for the links and information that you provided. Very interesting reading! I am very interested in reading about saints, and so I am excited about exploring those links further!

So it is the Novena that we are talking about (original words), not the chaplet itself.

As far as my comment about the original in Polish. I was just trying to make sure that no one was telling me that I had to learn Polish to be able to say this prayer. Once I had a (for lack of better terminology) a fundemental Protestant tell me that I had ought to learn Hebrew, Greek, etc if I wanted to know what the Bible "really" said.

I guess for me in it, I want to please God, and in my prayers, I need to have my heart attitude right, and He will handle the rest. Kind of like what you said Emerald, "...I think that some good- hearted, loving soul approaching the Divine Mercy via this novena will reap the rewards using a version that they don't know has been altered. I also believe that if they're sincere, then... eventually Christ will get them His original wording."

God bless! Carolyn

-- Carolyn (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), September 11, 2003.

Don't learn Polish! lol; right, it's only the intention for those particular days, days 4 and 5 of the Novena that I've noticed any changes, not the words of the actual Chaplets themselves that have. Imho, the intentions are altered for those days, and as for myself, if I know that then I'm inclined to get as close to the original intentions as possible.

The prayers of the Chaplet itself, the "Eternal Father, I offer..." etc., the "For the sake of His sorrowful passion", etc. and the Holy God prayers aren't a part of any changes at all.

Here's my take on the prayer, and why I like it and why I'm attracted to it; it calls to mind the passion of Christ, such as you meditate on in the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary. It makes you think how much this incredible sacrifice of Christ, which He did out of love for souls and for their salvation, goes completely unnoticed by people; completely ignored. I think it's a plea similiar to this one: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." But how can He forgive them if they do not repent and ask for forgiveness? It seems such a waste of The Passion, and what you're begging for is that souls will awaken and take notice, and take advantage of Christ's saving blood. But this also means they when they do so, they partake in the Cross of Christ as well, that they devote themselves to Holy Faith. It's meant to take people out of their lukewarmness and to move them to look to their eternal home. Imho, it's a devotion to the Eucharist and the Cross of Christ.

The prayer is extremely powerful, yet at the same time I use it somewhat loosely; I'll add someone's name into the prayer, like this: "Have mercy on us, on (name of the person), and on the whole world." You can simply say it by itself during the day, or just a single Holy God prayer. It jolts people out of lukewarmness and gives them a zeal for the Catholic Faith. The Hail Mary makes for a good 10-second prayer during the day also.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 11, 2003.