The real problem again, is people spreading misinformation with the authority of the Internet. Particularly poisonous are the so-called ultra traditionalist sects who misinterpret Church Councils and the teachings of the Church with the same skill that Protestants misinterpret the Sacred Scriptures. Very religious figures in Christ’s time vilified Christ Himself, twisting His words and misrepresenting Him.

Your disdain for the Divine Mercy devotion, and dismissing St. Faustina and pope John Paul II as frauds lunatics and false prophets, again, is based on what you have read on the Internet; putting your faith in individuals behind blogs and websites rather than the teaching authority of the Church.

Another real problem is that people are not reading their Bibles; if they did, they would know that the prophets God sent were usually rejected by many, rationalizing all sorts of objections. Like Ezekiel, St. Margaret Mary Alacoque who had the visions of the Sacred Heart, also suffered opposition, condemnations and ridicule; many proofs were demanded for the authenticity of the visions and of Christ’s request. She wrote: “I was forbidden, henceforth, to put any picture of the Sacred Heart in a conspicuous place, being allowed merely to honor it in private. … persecutions of various kinds arising at that time, it seems, indeed, as if all hell were let loose against me, and that everything conspired to annihilate me.”

The Church, in the end, approved the visions and the message that were delivered through St. Margaret to God’s own people. So opposition such as what you spread on the internet about the Divine Mercy and St Faustina, is consistent with how God’s prophets are usually treated by some.

According to those against the Divine Mercy devotion, they accuse St Faustina of being a false prophet and a heretic, followed by accusations that Pope John Paul II was an apostate Pope and false teacher, and that they are both false Saints; so according to you, by the authority of your research on the Internet, everyone should reject the Divine Mercy devotion and expose the pope and Saint Faustina as frauds (ergo secret agents of the devil?)

According to those who reject the Divine Mercy devotion, it is a false devotion with false feast days. their evidence for all of this diabolical deception is that in 1959 the Church placed her diary on the list of forbidden books, even though the same office that banned it lifted the ban after a thorough examination was conducted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I have popes, the magisterium and the Scriptures on my side; I will trust the Church, and the Magisterium of the Church and the Scriptures before I trust some self appointed inquisitors on the Internet.

In case you were not aware, The Devotion of the Divine Mercy is a call to repentance and trust in the mercy of God, and to make reparation for the sins of the world, and to show mercy through the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy. The beautiful prayers of the Chaplet of Divine Mercy goes like this: “Eternal Father, I offer you the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole World; Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy immortal One, have mercy on us and on the whole world”.

This is a shame Gloria.TV - I love your work and enjoy all your videos... but now you are in need of humility to start speaking out when this has had clear church approval, its easy to rip apart any and every approved apparition if we want to, we should respect the Church decision here.

I am a traditional Catholic and have no attachment to this devotion but am only saddened to see Gloria.TV take this route, I still fully support GLoria.TV think you're fantastic, but the criterion for discernment of private revelations never takes such a silly mock and rip apart approach to discernment, going through ever point you can rip yours apart just as much as follows (thank God for Mother Church to conclude the matter):

"Forbidden"
This is misleading, showing absolutely no information that this devotion is now explicitly "approved" with a Canonised saint and Feast Day. Practically all other private apparitions pass through this period which the criterion for discernment wishes to test the visionary - St Padre Pio was "Forbidden". So this argument is exposed as unfair.

Odd image.

This isn't a devotion to the sacred Heart it's a devotion to the Ressurected Lord walking through the door to the Apostles on Whitsun when he asked them to touch his side. Traditionally Whitsun was a major feast lead up by an octave after Easter and this providentially prepared to somewhat maintain solemnity when the Novus Ordo church would obliterate the octave and whitsun devotion. The whole point of this devotion is the Blood and Water which Christ shed which is why they shine like rays, he is described as the light that illuminates the world.

Contains the claim that we can expect an unconditional mercy without the cross.

This is a lie - the prayer literally says "FOR THE SAKE OF HIS SORROWFUL PASSION" and goes on to beg for Mercy... - how more explicit is the condition FOR THE SAKE of the cross to then ask for Mercy? I wonder do you have the humility to say "good point here, I stand corrected"? So who is actually making the flase claim here?

"The central error of the Divine Mercy is that it promises lots of spiritual rewards with no penance and reparation."
The entire devotion is based on offering the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in "atonement" for our sins, the condition of Christ's Mercy clearly is given that it must be accompanied "with acts of Mercy" by the soul. St Faustina was shown numerous souls in hell, shown purgatory. The focus here is to offer the passion of Our Lord in atonement for the sins of the world, something God told St Catherine of Siena is the only possible attonment, and again in Fatima. So you infact are writing a "central error" here

"Wait a minute, Our Lord united Himself more intimately with Sr. Faustina than with any other creature?"

Our Lord said there is no one born of a man holier than St John the Baptist. For the protest this is a great opportunity to throw something without listening deeper...and it seems the same for you. In like manner with Our Lord's word's in the gospel, it is clear in the diary including subsequent lessons from The Blessed Virgin, that Our Lord was not including The Blessed Virgin here. Criterion for Discernment given to bishops clearly permits a poetic dialogue with God, advising not to take every word literally. You however are doing this to just rip apart. St Catherine of Sienna, St Veronica, Ven Maria of Agreda, all were told comments on a level of being more intimately united or holier than anyone else. Upon seeing St Faustina on the last day... what humility will your soul experience with the veneration owed to her compared to the voice of your mockery of her put to so many other souls!

"Two years later, Second World War started."
LOL I always love your puns... gotta laugh... but again still, a spirit of mockery and sarcasm, not a spirit of discernment, especially far from how this is guided by the Church since the Council of Trent's guidance on discerning private revelation. Thankfully the Church lays out guidelines that are not the sneering, jeering type...however they always are the ones who attack those saints with spiritual gifts as we so often see by other religious enrapped with a spiritual envy and persecuting the saintly...

“From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.” In reality, nobody but Our Lady is free from the general and particular judgment."
In Fatima Our Lady told Jactina and Francisco they were going to Heaven. St Catherine of Sienna dictates God the Father telling her all her sins will be forgotten and not judged. This does not say "you will not experience the particular or general judgement", this could be read like St Catherine of Sienna that her sins will be forgotten on the day of Judgement. It is again open to poetic interpretation so easy prey to rip apart, so could we do with St Catherine of Sienna or so many saints.

" the consecrated host jumped out of the Tabernacle three times and placed itself in her hands, so that she had to open the Tabernacle and place it back." This was in the 1920s well before communion in the hand was even a thing! To compare a mystical experience to the modernist sacrilege of taking communion in the hands is a false dichotomy. This was a vision and mystical experience does not necessarily mean a real host went to her, this was a time when communion in the hand was known as possible but forbidden largely due to the vast amount of people who could spread particles, among many other reasons, even though communion in the hand was permitted in the early church. Her having a vision of holding the host, were it a real host that means the angelic choir would have governed the entire transmission of the host as it was in a context of an apparition, so the protection of particles would have been governed. St Barbara is depicted holding the chalice and host, and i'm blanking on that famous saint whos depicted grabbing the monstrance and chasing away soldiers with it. Even I would be scandelised if I saw a lay man let alone woman doing that now, i'd personally sit there and die if communists come and kill us during mass rather than grab the monstrance, would be petrified of getting shot then suffering that one in purgatory. We are understandably scandelized by abuse left right and centre but please dont juxtapose todays mess to a mystical experience a hundred years ago.

Ultimately we literally can rip appart every single approved apparition with this method of nit-pick mockery. St Bernadette rolling about eating grass, St Veronica saying she had her last judgement already, Fatima saying the visionaries are already going to heaven ahead of particular judgment. Please have some humility rather than dig heels approach I'm right you're wrong... if Satan hates this devotion it is sad to be on the same side of that. Its at least more humble and sanctified to remain silent if the church has explicityl approved it rather than mock it with sarcasm. Gloria TV you are great and a prayer for you tonight in Trad Mass. Much love from London.

Greetings,

This video pushes objections to The Divine Mercy & St. Faustina which are unnecessary,& some that are indeed untrue (I’ve changed my opening as I’ve learned I may have been incorrect of the objections’ origins, and it was slightly brash. my apologies for the potential oversight or insult). Below are answers, whether mine or someone else's, to every single one of your objections in the video.

Objection #1: That it was condemned (thrice) , and that there was no evidence of the supernatural.

Answer: yes it was condemned(EDIT: actually may not be the right word, see lepantoin.org/in-defense-of-the-divine-mercy-devotion/ furthermore, Pius XII actually refused to ban the devotion wholesale, see the link) like St. Theresa of Avilla's 'The Way of Perfection,' it was also un-condemned; you didn't mention this next claim but for those reading, no it wasn't released from the index due to the index being dissolved like some false memes claim. The move to remove it was from the very same cardinal that opposed it, before(see unamsanctamCatholicam link + Lepanto).The official decree reads:

"

This Sacred Congregation, having now in possession the many original documents unknown in 1959, and having taken into account the profoundly changed circumstances, and having taken into account the opinion of many Polish Ordinaries, declares no longer binding the prohibitions contained in the Notification [of 1959]. [Emphasis mine]” Dr Stackpole’s emphasis " -
marian.org/…s/How-One-Divine-Mercy-Critic-Misses-the-Mark-4194

Also from that article is this quote:

"The fact is that the only translation the Vatican possessed of the Diary of St. Faustina in the 1950s was a faulty translation of the book into Italian, which included gross distortions of what Sister Faustina had written (for example, our Lord said to Sister Faustina, "I am Love and Mercy itself" in entry 1074, but the Italian translation makes it appear that Faustina was making this claim about herself!)”

St. Faustina predicted this, (my boldening) in her diary, by the way, Entry #378 states, "

…...There will come a time when this work, which God is demanding so very much, will be as though utterly undone. And then God will act with great power, which will give evidence of its authenticity. It will be a new splendor for the Church, although it has been dormant in it from long ago. …….."

(EDIT: further on in that same entry 378 she accurately predicts that both she and her spiritual director would be dead when the suppression stopped:

“When this triumph comes, we shall already have entered the new life in which there is no suffering. But before this, your soul [of the spiritual director] will be surfeited with bitterness at the sight of the destruction of your efforts. However, this will only appear to be so, because what God has once decided upon, He does not change” My boldening)

and at entries 1044-1049 in which she sees either the installation or celebration of DM Sunday, and ends with her predicting her canonization, in between both of these predictions is entry 1245 it says this:

“Then some clergymen whom I did not know began to examine me and to humiliate me,[183] or rather, what I had written; but I saw how Jesus himself was defending me and giving them to understand what they did not know.”

The second part of this objection is that there was allegedly no supernatural nature to her writings or experiences. (EDIT: the wording, according to this video’s description, actually uses a term like we ‘think’ which isn’t very definitive) This claim was in the notification of 1959 and is thus undone, if I understand it properly, as it’s mention is giving reason for the prohibition and is thus part of the prohibitions. I'll inform you that they basically said the same about St. Padre Pio(again my boldening, and underlining):

“A similar situation arose with the Church’s initial pastoral and disciplinary condemnations of St. Padre Pio. The Italian journalist Renzo Allegri, in his book Padre Pio: Man of Hope, reports that the Holy Office’s first decree against Padre Pio of May 31, 1923, declared that they could not confirm that Padre Pio had the stigmata. A decree of July 24, 1924, from the Holy Office explained that the earlier decree said their earlier investigation “failed to find anything of a supernatural character” in the “phenomena surrounding Padre Pio of Pietrelcina,” and forbade the faithful from maintaining contact with Padre Pio, even by letter. This condemnation was reiterated in a decree of July 11, 1926. On May 23, 1931, Padre Pio was deprived of all ministerial functions, save for saying Mass privately, and lived as a recluse for three years. He was allowed to resume his priestly ministry by Pius XI, but the Holy Office never formally rescinded their decrees. (Indeed, Allegri says that at the time of Padre Pio’s death (Sept. 23, 1968), “his name was still on the list of people condemned by the Holy Office.”) In 1952, the Holy Office condemned a number of books on Padre Pio, books that later were used as source material for his cause for canonization. In 1960, at the conclusion of an apostolic visitation of the Capuchin friary at San Giovanni Rotondo, Padre Pio was once again given a series of restrictions on his priestly ministry. These were only lifted on the direct intervention of St. John XXIII through Cardinal Ottaviani on January 30, 1964.

So the Church before the Council imposed heavy restrictions on Padre Pio, going so far as to decree officially that the Holy Office had found nothing supernatural in the phenomena surrounding him. On Feb. 20, 1971, Pope St. Paul VI spoke of Padre Pio having the stigmata in an address to the superiors of the Capuchins, contrary to the pre-conciliar decree of the Holy Office. Also subsequent to Vatican II, the Church, judging there to be no obstacles to Padre Pio’s cause for canonization, beatified (May 2, 1999) and canonized him (June 16, 2002).

The Church after the Council did not hold as binding the decrees of the pre-conciliar Holy Office when it came to the supernatural phenomena in the life of St. Padre Pio. Similarly, the Church after the Council overturned the ban imposed on the Divine Mercy message and devotion given to us through St. Faustina. Further, the Church after the Council beatified and canonized both saints. If Faustina’s post-conciliar rehabilitation and canonization is questionable, then so must be Padre Pio’s.” -Dr. Robert
Stackpole and Chris Sparks from the article “Answering Radical Traditionalist Critiques of the Divine Mercy Message and Devotion” thedivinemercy.org/…nalist-critiques-divine-mercy-message-and-devotion
----------------------------------------------------------

Objection #2: The image is 'odd,' it's a 'copy' of the Sacred Heart, there's no halo, no visible heart, signs of The Passion are "almost invisible", and this, or some of these, equals that the image means unconditional mercy without the cross.

Answer: There's a lot here, the idea that the image is 'odd' is a very lame claim actually the image is very beautiful, just because you don't like it's appearance doesn't mean that it's 'odd.'

You claim it's a copy of the Sacred Heart, yet claim that it's odd, so does that make the Sacred Heart odd? In the next objection I will show why there's no conflict between the two, that is, between the Sacred Heart, and Divine Mercy Image.

You claim it's a problem that there's no halo, yet, how many crucifixes has Christ with a halo? How many statues? Are all St. Benedict Crucifixes now wrong, because of the absence of a halo? The halo originated in pagan culture, by the way. I'm not saying that it's wrong to use halos, it's not, I'm simply pointing out that they aren't needed. EDIT: The Divine Mercy image, the original, does have a halo not that it matters, it's just not as pronounced as other images.

There's no visible Heart. Yep that's true, indeed there are tons of images of Christ where His Heart isn't visible, same with Mary, shall we condemn all of those? I'm talking statues, pictures, and crucifixes. Clearly this is a lame objection; still the Heart is present, and that will be handled in the next objection.

Sign of The Passion are "almost invisible," true again, but they are there, this is an image of The Resurrected Christ, so it makes sense.

Finally is the wrong claim that this means unconditional mercy without The Cross; or in other words, there's no justice. First of all the image, and it's features does not speak to that in the slightest, unless you want to claim that when Christ resurrected, and appeared to the apostles, that's what Christ was saying,of course we all know that's nonsense. Or that the idea of trusting in God equals it, which is absurd. As to the idea that St. Faustina's writings claim unconditional mercy and no need of the cross, I submit that you can only make this claim if you haven't read the diary. This post will be long so I will reply to this post with how ridiculous this claim is, it will also include your objection about the graces attached to the image. Suffice to say the most said prayer in The Divine Mercy Chaplet beseeches Mercy through The Passion.

Final Edit (hopefully) just in case you get bored and don't venture to the mentioned post here's just two of the entries: ""There is no way to heaven except the way of the cross. I followed it first. You must learn that it is the shortest and surest way." #1487

“By means of this image I shall grant many graces to souls. It is to be a reminder of the demands of My mercy, because even the strongest faith is of no avail without works” #742

Please watch this video from 1:06:33 to 1:14:00 youtube.com/watch?v=oPDF7SWi-X4 It shows the scientific analysis of The Shroud of Turin, and The Image of Divine Mercy. While watching, bear in mind that St.Faustina had the artist repeatedly redo parts of the painting( if not start all over) like 12 times for a number of reasons, including that he wasn’t capturing The Lord’s beauty.

You then tried to compare and equate St. John Paul II with St. Faustina; bad logic. By this logic one can argue St. Francis is nothing more than an animal loving hippy, because some use him as such.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Objection #3 It replaces The Sacred Heart. (not explicitly stated, but clearly implied)

Answer: Nope.

The diary, and devotion, should not be held to what some may attempt with it. Regarding the diary there is nowhere a condemnation of The Sacred Heart, but instead mentions of it, in fact one of the last things mentioned in the diary is a vision of The Sacred Heart: “..Today I saw the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the sky, in the midst of a great brilliance. The rays were issuing from the Wound [in His side] and spreading out over the entire world.” - #1796

There are many other mentions, #1287, 1290, 1306, 1318, 1321, 1367, 1680.
#1485 is a mention of His Sacred Heart, from The Lord. There are likely more.

In her vision(or discription) of heaven The Sacred Heart is mentioned at entry #592

In fact there are similarities between the two, there’s a number of articles on TheDivineMercy.org. One of these very interesting things is that both devotions coming from Nuns (one a Nun St. Margaret Mary Alacoque (cloistered) the other a sister St. Faustina (not cloistered)) The spreading of the devotion was largely placed upon the shoulders of their spiritual directors, St. Claude Colombiere (Sacred Heart) and Bl. Michael Sopocko (Divine Mercy) both died, 100s of years apart, on the same day Feb. 15. Feb 15 also happens to be the day of St. Faustina’s patron, St. Faustus. (this info was taken from an article on the website in this paragraph)

Additonaly, St. Faustina may have had a devotion to St. Claude, “+I have chosen Saint Claude de la Colombiere and Saint Gertrude as my patron saints for this retreat, that they may intercede for me before the Mother of God and the merciful Savior” – Entry #728

If the Image of Divine Mercy replaces The Sacred Heart, simply due to it's similarities; then which image of Mary must we defend? Fatima, Akita, Our Lady of Good Success, Guadalupe, Lady of Victory, Immaculate Conception, etc, etc, etc, etc. Oh, by the way, how many of those has The Heart exposed? What about all of our images of Christ?

The Heart is, in fact, present in the image. Where are the rays coming from? " Oh Blood and Water, which gushed forth from The Heart of Jesus, as a fount of Mercy for us, I trust in you."

Or from Jesus according to St. Faustina: “.... These two rays issued forth from the depths of My tender mercy when My agonized Heart was opened by a lance on the Cross.....” #299

------------------------------------------------

Objection #4: Entry 707, that is, about Christ, "uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.”

Answer: I can understand the concern, but it's unfounded.

First of all, the one part in question is very short “as with no other creature,” and is thus actually a good candidate for a not-perfect translation, as it being so short, that even a slightly inaccurate word translation* can lose subtlety, which is what this rests upon. (*St. Faustina had 2 and a half years, or winters, of schooling. Much of her writings were spelt phonetically, so if she spoke english and tried to spell 'phone' she may have spelt it as 'fone' or 'fown', the translation that we have has gone through A. translating her phonetic polish into polish, and B. That Polish into the various languages. Subtly can be lost with even a normal translation. For what it's worth, I have heard that Fr. Ripperger believes that people's qualms about her diary come down to translation. If you have his book 'Deliverance Prayers For Use By The Laity' check the 3rd prayer.)

Assuming that the translation here is perfect, I’d like to point out that the statement is actually vague. It’s vague because it can be understood in a number of ways: That St. Faustina is receiving a union with God,

a) even greater than The Blessed Mother, (both Church Triumphant and Militant) thus making St. Faustina higher, as the objection runs.

b) greater than any other soul in The Church Militant, that is, of those alive at the time of the message, St. Faustina was the holiest.

c) in a unique way, unlike anyone before. (Fr. Nix, below)

d) in a unique way, at that moment/time, as there is a cause and effect relationship between entries #707 and #708.

“But my strongest argument in favor of the authenticity of St. Faustina’s private revelation on that DMD 707 line is the following: When Christ said to her, “I am uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature,” anyone who has studied the ascetical theology of the Catholic Church (something that is dogmatic, not devotional) knows that such is how Christ unites Himself to any soul! This is not me playing with words. St. John of the Cross, the greatest doctor of spiritual theology in the Catholic Church repeatedly wrote about how unique the Blessed Trinity’s union is to each one of us. This is true, even at the lowest levels of holiness, provided we are in sanctifying grace. In other words, it is the spiritual theology teaching of the Catholic Church that Christ uniquely and intimately has united himself to me, Fr. David Nix, in a way as found in the soul of “no other creature.” The same is true for you if you are in sanctifying grace. Thus, anyone who has studied (even at a cursory level) the multivalent gifts of grace in the soul should quickly understand that Christ could very easily say to any and every saint in history that He was “uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.” Our souls are even more unique than our bodies.” - Fr. David Nix padreperegrino.org/2019/04/div-mercy/

I don't know much about Fr. Nix, I don't know what his standing is in the Church, nor his claims about what is dogmatic; what I know is that he does not say the Norvus Ordo, and his answer here does make sense. As you can see, only one (we could stretch it to a total of 6 possibilities, with 2 being problematic) of 4 possibilities is problematic, it is thus a matter of interpretation with the odds in St. Faustina's favor.

I will now quote a number of passages that show St. Faustina did not consider herself higher than Mary, after entry 707, and then simply list the entry numbers to save room:

“….During Holy Mass today, I was united in a particular way with God and His Immaculate Mother. The humility and love of the Immaculate Virgin penetrated my soul. The more I imitate the Mother of God, the more deeply I get to know God. ….” - #843

“…..O radiant Virgin, pure as crystal, all immersed in God, I offer You my spiritual life; arrange everything that it may be pleasing to Your son. O my Mother, how ardently I desire that You give me the Infant Jesus during the Midnight Mass. ..” - #844

“Mary, Immaculate Virgin, take me under Your special protection and guard the purity of my soul, heart and body. You are the model and star of my life.” - #874

“Since that time, I have been living under the virginal cloak of the Mother of God. She has been guarding me and instructing me. I am quite at peace, close to Her immaculate Heart. Because I am so weak and inexperienced, I nestle like a little child close to Her heart.” - #1097

More:
(#1746) #728, #785, #846, #1097, #1114, #1174, #1244, #1250, #1261, #1388, #1398, #1412-1415, #1585, #1624, #1710-1711, #1745

In addition to the above, an obvious question is: Who would be higher, Mother of God (#786) or Secretary (#1785)? Also, St. Faustina regards herself as wretched (#1417), etc many times, and has both the Blessed Mother, and The Lord instructing her throughout. #1361 is The Lord acknowledging her resolution to become a saint. As well as many occasions of St. Faustina going to confession throughout the diary; all while maintaining that Mary was “ever untouched by sin(#1746).”

--------------------------------------------------

Objection #5: Love language. + the alleged impossibility of St. Faustina loving God greater than the angels while on earth.

Answer: God loves us all. Just because constant reaffirmations, and compliments, are against your temperament, doesn't mean it was against hers. See the 3-part series 'Defense of The Divine Mercy Devotion' on Unam Sanctam Catholicam, starting here unamsanctamcatholicam.com/…le/82-spirtuality/222-defense-of-divine-mercy.html she mentions some other Saints being talked to similarly. EDIT: Third part has a more full list unamsanctamcatholicam.com/…7-defense-of-the-divine-mercy-devotion-part-3.html <--third part also deals with the second half of this objection.

Mankind is elevated above the angels, due to The Incarnation, ergo, if a soul reaches great holiness and sanctity, even on Earth, it's possible that they can love God greater than the angels. It's also possible that there's a loss of subtly in translation, but because you didn't give the actual citation number I don't know where it is. Regardless, I think what I have said is correct, it would certainly be amazing, but not impossible.
--------------------------
Objection #6 The world was blessed, but WWII came anyway.

Answer: So? Did not St. Joseph holding The Infant Jesus at Fatima give a blessing during the miracle of the sun, before WWII? A blessing does not = prevention.

I do not know all of the citations, but she does speak of a war to come, as well as chastisement upon Poland. Entry #39 reads :

"One day Jesus told me that He would cause a chastisement to fall upon the most beautiful city in our country. This chastisement would be that with which God had punished Sodom and Gomorrah. I saw the great wrath of God and a shudder pierced my heart. I prayed in silence. After a moment Jesus said to me, My child, unite yourself closely to Me during the Sacrifice and offer My Blood and My Wounds to My Father in expiation for the sins of that city. Repeat this without interruption throughout the entire Holy Mass. Do this for seven days. On the seventh day I saw Jesus in a bright cloud and began to beg Him to look upon the city and upon our whole country. Jesus looked [down] graciously. When I saw the kindness of Jesus, I began to beg His blessing. Immediately Jesus said, For your sake I bless the entire country. And He made a big sign of the cross over our country. Seeing the goodness of God, a great joy filled my soul."

It is believed that that city is Warsaw, being the capital of Poland, for when the war ended due to the bombings, it did in fact look like a punishment like Sodom and Gomorrah. According to her spiritual director :

"She [Sr. Faustina] wrote in her diary that Jesus Himself said that He was about to destroy one of the most beautiful cities of our country like Sodom was destroyed on account of the crimes perpetrated there [Diary, entry 39]. Having read about these things in the Diary I asked her what does the prophecy mean? She answered confirming what she wrote and replying to a further question of mine, on account of what kind of sins God was going to inflict these punishments. She answered: especially for the killing of infants not yet born, the most grievous crime of all."

It turns out that Warsaw was one of the capitals of abortion in Poland. thedivinemercy.org/articles/poland-1930s-are-we-due-chastisement

Whether or not she's saying abortion is the most grievous sin of all, or simply that of that city doesn't matter, St. Faustina is not infallible. What's important here, is that she predicted it's chastisement, the manner of the chastisement, and that it was due to abortion.

According to her spiritual director, she would break down and cry when he would press her for information on the war to come.

Here is a short video of something, actually two things she predicted not in her diary 1. that the war coming would not be short, and 2. the convent would be spared youtube.com/watch?v=xTORziS9dHg
-------------------------------------------------------------
Objection #7: You will not be judged

Answer:
"Actually, any saint who dies in a state of entire sanctification and therefore goes straight to Heaven at their death is in that sense “exempt from divine judgement,” in the sense that they will not suffer condemnation of any kind. The Church teaches that one can only know for sure that one will be saved by means of an extraordinary revelation from God — which is evidently what St. Faustina experienced here." - Robert Stackpole, Chris Sparks from thedivinemercy.org/…nalist-critiques-divine-mercy-message-and-devotion
Further, what about "Judge not, that you may not be judged," Matthew 7:1
My point here, is that sometimes you can't just read a single line without looking further.

John 3:18 " He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Sincerely,

Joshdalf

P.S will be back with the follow up after a break, which will include your objection to The Host coming out of the tabernacle, I forgot to address it in this one