Jump to content

Talk:Faustina Kowalska/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Where did the biography come from?

The bulk of the biography comes from one person User:Hypnosssomnus[1], now apparently inactive. Does anyone know where this information was sourced from? If it can't be verfied it needs to be deleted and replaced with verifiable information. patsw 19:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this article was taken from some site and translated into English (just look at the style the article is written with).—Preceding unsigned comment added by D00pa (talk • contribs) 2006-09-13

Where did the image come from?

It was not properly sourced, so it got deleted. It you have permission for the image please add it back with the proper source information. patsw 01:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I contacted the Marians of the Immaculate Conception and obtained a declaration the image is in the public domain. patsw 02:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Abbess?

On the last sentence at the Biography, I don't think it is appropriate to call the sister who found the paintings abbess. I think it must be superior. We also need to know the source. Tnavarro61 (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be superior since her house was not a abbey. patsw (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Was this not Sister Beata, the Sister in question?

MacOfJesus (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Change the article's title to:Mary Faustina Kowalska ?

I was just wondering would it be better to call this article Faustina Kowalska ? Because Faustina is the most common English form of her name. Any thoughts? Wikipedia policy on saints is to use "their most common English name, minus the "Saint" " see here. On the Vatican web page her name is spelled Faustina see here.Her name on the Saintbox is spelt Faustina. --Trounce 16:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the Vatican website biography calls her Mary Faustina Kowalska I propose changing the name of this article to Mary Faustina Kowalska . If any one has any opinion regarding the article's title please share it.--Trounce 18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I copied and pasted the contents of the article and the Talk page from Faustyna Kowalska to here (Mary Faustina Kowalska)--Trounce 09:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Does any one know why she is called Maria Faustina Kowalska in the Saint Infobox ?--Trounce 10:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Does any one have any objections to me changing her name in the saint info box from Maria to Mary to match the article title (and her vatican bio page) --Trounce 19:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest changing Mary back to Maria since this is the name given on the cover of her diary and on the web page of the Marians of the Immaculate Conception who are the official promoters of the Divine Mercy message. In addition the name of the mother of God, whom Helen took for patron, can be translated as Maria or Mary, but is translated as Maria in her book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.mawson (talk • contribs) 10:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This was already discussed. We want to keep it whatever it is most commonly in English. If it were "Steve" we would keep it, if that were the most common usage. :) We don't want to confuse people. We're not here to manufacture standards, merely follow them. Student7 (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Extending the biography

I extended the bio, but it does not look like it fits together yet - because it is work in progress. So wait a day or two please and I will make it all fit together. 16:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The most famous statement

Saint Faustina said, quoting Jesus: "Mercy is God's greatest Attribute, Quality". This is the most controversial statement, which should be quoted in the article page, as it is impossible to understand adequately Saint Faustina and The Divine Mercy and its significance without it.

MacOfJesus (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to add this quote to her fact box but it was twice removed; hopefully you at least will personally appreciate this reference! :D I'm mainly pointing out the first line, but the rest of the prayer is wonderful advice for all of us volunteer contributors/editors of this project. :)

"O Lord. I want to be completely transformed into Your mercy and to be Your living reflection. May the *greatest of all divine attributes*, that of Your unfathomable mercy, pass through my heart and soul to my neighbor. Help me, O Lord, that my eyes may be merciful, so that I may never suspect or judge from appearances, but look for what is beautiful in my neighbors’ souls and come to their rescue. Help me, O Lord, that my ears may be merciful, so that I may give heed to my neighbors’ needs and not be indifferent to their pains and moanings. Help me, O Lord, that my tongue may be merciful, so that I should never speak negatively of my neighbor, but have a word of comfort and forgiveness for all. Help me, O Lord, that my hands may be merciful and filled with good deeds, so that I may do only good to my neighbors and take upon myself the more difficult and toilsome tasks. Help me, O Lord, that my feet may be merciful, so that I may hurry to assist my neighbor, overcoming my own fatigue and weariness (...) Help me, O Lord, that my heart may be merciful so that I myself may feel all the sufferings of my neighbor. (...) May Your mercy, O Lord, rest upon me" (Diary 163). (http://www.faustina-message.com/prayers-sister-faustina-litany.htm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.254.40 (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

21st century beginning

There are incorrect claims in the article about 21st century. 21st century started at 1 January 2001, like the 1st century started on 1 January 1AD. 2000 was the last year of 20th century, not the fırst year of 21st.81.30.188.189 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


The Divine Mercy was an Approved Devotion of the Catholic Church before Vatican II

The Divine Mercy was never on the Index of Forbidden Books. That completely untrue story has been spread widely over the internet by promoters of the discredited false visionary Valtorta. Valtorta is not connected to The Divine Mercy. The Valtorta writings were put on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Vatican. Valtorta promoters have spread the completely untrue story that The Divine Mercy was also on the Index, because they are trying to persuade people to accept the banned Valtorta writings. The Valtorta writings really are on the Index of Forbidden Books. The Catholic Church has decreed that Catholics are forbidden to read the Valtorta writings.

There is a Vatican decree which proves that the Valtorta writings are on the Index of Forbidden Books. Here is a verifiable link which has a photographic reproduction of the exact decree condemning the Valtorta writings: http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_042_Valtorta.htm Valtorta promoters falsely claimed that the Diary was put on the Index on the same day as the Valtorta writings, in the same decree. This is totally untrue. The decree does not mention the Divine Mercy or Saint Faustina at all. It is just about the condemned Valtorta writings.

The Divine Mercy was never on the Index of Forbidden Books. Saint Faustina’s writings were never on the Index of Forbidden Books.

Books which were put on the Index of Forbidden Books have been listed in alphabetical order by author, by J. Martinez de Bujanda in his book, "Index Librorum Prohibitorum: 1600-1966". On p.489, it lists the name Kortholt. Saint Faustina Kowalska’s surname would have come next after Kortholt. Her name is not there at all. Saint Faustina Kowalska was never even mentioned on the Index of Forbidden Books.

Fortunately, the relevant page from the Bujanda book can even be viewed online for free at a google books preview page here:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Tie0hkcrpg4C&pg=PA472&lpg=PA472&dq=J.+Martinez+de+Bujanda,+Index+Librorum+Prohibitorum&source=bl&ots=Hs5bY9R936&sig=jl6SsJsIJF6C0GdIUZ_Qv5DXeJA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zXhjUdvYDvSo0AXMmoGIBw&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=J.%20Martinez%20de%20Bujanda%2C%20Index%20Librorum%20Prohibitorum&f=false

Also, you can read the relevant page of the Bujanda book if you copy-and-paste the following words into the google search engine: Index Librorum Prohibitorum 489 Kortholt. The Bujanda book, "Index Librorum Prohibitorum:1600-1966", is the first link in the google search results for that search. Then scroll down to p. 489 of the book, and look at the name Kortholt. Saint Faustina Kowalska is not listed there. Alphabetically, the name Kowalska would come directly after Kortholt. Saint Faustina’s writings are not listed there. Saint Faustina Kowalska and the Divine Mercy were never on the Index of Forbidden Books.

Also, this website: http://search.beaconforfreedom.org/search/censored_publications/result.html?author=&cauthor=&title=&country=8052&language=&censored_year=&censortype=&published_year=&censorreason=&Search=Search has a list of books which were put on the Index of Forbidden Books. Saint Faustina Kowalska is not listed there because the Divine Mercy was never on the Index of Forbidden Books.

The blatantly untrue information in the article will have badly affected the reputation of Wikipedia. Valtorta is not connected to the Divine Mercy. Valtorta was a bogus, pretend visionary who is condemned by the Catholic Church. Valtorta’s writings are filled with obvious theological errors. Also, Valtorta ridiculously claimed that screwdrivers were being used in the first century A.D., when in reality screwdrivers were not invented until hundreds of years later. There are many other untrue claims by Valtorta, which I can also disprove. The Catholic Church condemned Valtorta’s writings. Even reading Valtorta is condemned by the Catholic Church as mortally sinful. Valtorta died in 1961. Valtorta is not connected to the Divine Mercy.

The Divine Mercy is an Approved Devotion of the Catholic Church, and Saint Faustina is very deeply venerated by Catholics. Catholics believe that canonizations are infallible. Saint Faustina and the Divine Mercy were never on the Index of Forbidden Books. The Divine Mercy Researcher (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article does not say "the Divine Mercy", which is not a book, was on the Index of Forbidden Books. Thus the above is off-topic and has no place in a talk page dedicated to improving the article. Esoglou (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Cardinal Ottaviani Believed in The Divine Mercy

Valtorta promoters have also falsely claimed that Cardinal Ottaviani got John XXIII to put Saint Faustina’s writings on the Index. Valtorta promoters have spread this totally untrue story around on the internet. Cardinal Ottaviani believed in Saint Faustina and the Divine Mercy. The Marian Fathers are the world experts on Saint Faustina. Their website says: “Informative Process of Sr. Faustina's life and virtues is opened …encouraged by Cardinal Ottaviani, the Prefect of the Holy Office.” http://thedivinemercy.org/message/history/timeline.php So Cardinal Ottaviani encouraged the opening of the canonization process of Saint Faustina. Other sources mention Cardinal Ottaviani supporting the Divine Mercy. E.g., Catherine Odell, in her biography of Saint Faustina, wrote: “Cardinal Ottaviani, the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation, urged the archbishop to open an investigation quickly - before all the witnesses to Faustina’s life were dead. (Faustina: The Apostle of Divine Mercy by Catherine M. Odell. 1998. Our Sunday Visitor.(IN) p.158 ISBN 0-87973-923-1) So Cardinal Ottaviani believed in the Divine Mercy and Saint Faustina, and was actually involved in opening the canonization process for Saint Faustina. The Divine Mercy Researcher (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article does not say Cardinal Ottaviani got John XXIII to put Saint Faustina’s writings on the Index. Thus the above is off-topic and has no place in a talk page dedicated to improving the article. Esoglou (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Index of Forbidden Books

NB: I have moved the comments below, in response to TheDivineMercyResearcher, from my own talk page. Please only comment here.

So far my research on this topic indicates the following:

1. The last published version of the Index of Forbidden Books was in 1948 so that makes it more difficult to know if The Divine Mercy was ever placed on any unpublished version of the book between 1948 and 1966.

2. A Divine Mercy website itself states that the book was temporarily banned by the Vatican duing the papacy of Pope John XXIII. This may be an indication that the book was at least temporarily placed on an unpublished version of the Index.

3. The two sources you have provided as "proof" are inconclusive. The Beacon for Freedom website is definitely irrelevant as it is only concerned with the last published version of the Index in 1948. Bujanda's book may be relevant but we cannot be certain of the criteria he used for the inclusion of forbidden publications. It is quite possible, for instance, that he chose not to list anything which was only temporarily put on the Index of which there may have been many such publications.

If you can provide some more definite proof for your claim that The Divine Mercy was never ~ even temporarily ~ placed on the Index I would be interested in looking at it. We need to get this information as correct as possible. Thanks. Anglicanus (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

St Faustina was Never on the Index of Forbidden Books

The Divine Mercy was Never on the Index of Forbidden Books.

All the books which were put on the Index of Forbidden Books have been listed in alphabetical order by author, by J. Martinez de Bujanda in his book “Index Librorum Prohibitorum: 1600-1966”. On p.489, it lists the name Kortholt. Saint Faustina Kowalska’s surname would have come next after Kortholt. Her name is not there at all. Saint Faustina Kowalska was never even mentioned on the Index of Forbidden Books. Saint Faustina Kowalska is not mentioned anywhere on the Index of Forbidden Books. The back cover of the Bujanda book describes the inside: “The present catalogue records all the books placed on the Roman Index from 1600 until its withdrawal in 1966.” So every book ever placed on the Index is listed in the Bujanda book. They are listed by author in alphabetical order. Saint Faustina Kowalska is not listed. She would come directly after Kortholt. She does not. That is conclusive proof that Saint Faustina was Never on the Index of Forbidden Books.

This false story about the Index has been spread around the internet by promoters of the discredited false visionary Valtorta. Valtorta’s writings really are on the Index of Forbidden Books. The Catholic Church teaches that it is a mortal sin to read Valtorta’s writings. Valtorta is not connected to Saint Faustina or the Divine Mercy.

Saint Faustina Kowalska and The Divine Mercy were Never on the Index of Forbidden Books. The Divine Mercy Researcher (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article. I can find no mention of the Index of Forbidden Books in this article. It seems therefore that you are trying to turn this page into a forum or soap box.
Do you want to talk instead about the Holy See's 1959 prohibition of circulating images and writings promoting devotion to Divine Mercy in the form proposed by Sister Faustina Kowalska? That prohibition is published in the official bulletin of the Holy See for that year. It is a fact and an undeniable one. Esoglou (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
But this prohibition was only a temporary one, and it was then reversed by the Vatican. It was only temporary, and it has been completely removed by the Vatican. Pope Pius XII blessed the Divine Mercy in Rome in 1956. The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a notification in 1978 which decreed that: “This Sacred Congregation… declares no longer binding …the quoted “notification [from the time of John XXIII].” (note 89). Also, The Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decreed that: “with the new “notification” …the intention of the Holy See …there no longer exists, on the part of this S. Congregation, any impediment to the spreading of the devotion to The Divine Mercy.”
It was only a temporary delay, and one prophesied by Saint Faustina. She wrote that "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" (Diary 1738). This whole matter has been distorted by Valtorta promoters. Valtorta is nothing to do with the Divine Mercy. Valtorta is condemned by the Church. This intensely confusing episode has been grossly exaggerated by these Valtorta promoters. It is necessary that this unimportant matter is no longer exaggerated to the detriment of the good name of a holy Catholic Saint. Valtorta promoters had sprinkled many sections of the article with references to the temporary, obsolete, repealed notification. I left those two in. But it does not need to be repeated throughout the article, just to unjustly besmirch the reputation of a Catholic Saint, and because Valtorta promoters wanted to use the article for their own ends. They have a lot to answer for, if they have maliciously harmed the reputation of a Catholic Saint. That would possibly incur great punishment from God.
Two large paragraphs are more than enough to cover something which has been reversed decades ago. The whole unimportant incident has been deliberately exaggerated by Valtorta promoters. So I included that current notification from 1978, which is more relevant. And I also included an explanatory summary of the earlier, repealed, obsolete notification. About Vatican Radio, it was a guess on the part of Fr. John Larson, the author of the article about it, that it was the Polish Service. He actually said “I am guessing this was the Polish service.” So it is just a guess. But it was definitely Vatican Radio. So I removed “Polish service” and put Vatican Radio, so it is now accurate. There was a strange sentence, full of errors that claimed she knew that “due to her lack of education it was not likely she would attain higher levels within the order and that her duties would forever consist of cooking, cleaning and gardening.” This is irrelevant speculation. And also is untrue. Most girls in Poland in the first half of the last century had little education, but could become nuns. and I do not recall it being mentioned in the Diary. Also, the word forever is ridiculously dramatic word to use in such a context. And she had about the 3 or 4 years education. And also it did not happen: Saint Faustina did a variety of other tasks, as is shown in her Diary, e.g., she was Portress. And di other tasks. So it did not even happen. So I removed that sentence.
The Divine Mercy is an Approved Devotion of the Catholic Church. The Divine Mercy is from God. Cardinal Siri believed in the Divine Mercy. Canonizations are infallible. Pope Pius XII blessed the Divine Mercy in Rome in 1956. The Divine Mercy Researcher (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Saccharine

An article exhibiting the worst faults of saccharine and sentimental hagiography. Awful. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Cardinal Ottaviani, Pius XII and John XXIII

What is certain is that a 6 March 1959 notification of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, as it was called then, forbade circulation of images and writings that presented devotion to the Divine Mercy in the forms that Saint Faustina proposed. The actual text as published by the Holy See can be read on page 271 here. The notification made no mention of the Pope's approval, although the 4 April 1959 response of the Congregation to the question whether Catholics could vote for parties that in fact supported the communists, a response that is given in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis immediately after the Divine Mercy notification, mentions the Pope's approval of that response.

Far from certain is the claim that has recently been inserted in the article: that Cardinal Ottaviani, after failing to get Pope Pius XII to sign a "condemnation", included the works of Saint Faustina (all of them? even those that the Congregation said in 1978 were unknown to it in 1959?) in a list that he submitted to Pope John XXIII, who was elected on the previous 28 October. The claim, as expressed, suggests that Ottaviani at last succeeded in his previously frustrated aim of getting Saint Faustina's writings (all of them?) condemned. The 6 March 1959 notification speaks generically of writings that present devotion to the Divine Mercy in particular forms and mentions no writings on any other matter. Saying that Ottaviani included Saint Faustina's writings on a list suggests either that her writings did not necessarily have to be seen as presenting the devotion in that way (surely absurd) or that Ottaviani used an underhand trick of inserting her writings among others that should clearly be condemned (but of which no condemnation was in fact issued!) in the hope that the insertion would pass unnoticed.

Most of the sources presented are merely blogs ("devotional websites") that reproduce what someone unreliably inserted in Wikipedia in the past: blog 1, blog 2, blog 3. This dead link may well be of the same character. The final citation is from another blog that calls itself Advanced Christianity. None of them is a reliable source for Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The last link contains a supporting quote from a book that has an Imprimatur from an Archbishop. There is a huge resource of links to support this, here is another; "The works of Maria Faustina Kowalska were placed on the Index by Pope John XXIII in 1959, despite the fact that Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani at the Holy Office had previously failed to convince Pope Pius XII to do so. In 1965, Archbishop Karol Józef Wojtyła (later to become Pope John Paul II) opened the case for the beatification of Maria Faustina Kowalska. Maria Faustina Kowalska was beatified on April 18, 1993 and canonized on April 30, 2000. Even though her works had once been placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, Maria Faustina Kowalska became the first saint in the 21st century" (http://catholicgene.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/index-librorum-prohibitorum). I'm not sure what the point is, I can keep posting supporting links until most of the article is just supporting links to this one fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcuteInsight (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to accept that what a blog presents as an excerpt from a book bearing an imprimatur must be both an accurate transcription and an authoritative judgement. You should look up what an imprimatur really means. The archbishop's authorization to print the book does not mean he believes or agrees with what is in the book. He is saying he has found in it no denial of the Church's teaching on faith and morals. He is not saying there is nothing mistaken in it.
Now isn't it time to just let other editors say what they think, without either of us trying to impose one view or the other? I think your paragraph should be removed. You think it should be presented as undisputed fact. Why not agree on a compromise until we hear from others? Against my wishes, we can let your paragraph stand. Against your wishes, we can let the tag stand that invites other editors to express their views. Then let others judge. Esoglou (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I posted nine completely independent links (including a book supported by a Imprimi Potest, Nihil Obastat & Imprimatur by an Archbishop back in 1994. As an alternative to your mania for deleting all this verification, can you provide anything that states that Cardinal Ottaviani did not attempt to persuade Pope Pius XII to sign a Decree? When performing searches with Google & Yahoo, I can't find anything challenging this claim. Why are you the only one on the entire World Wide Web challenging it after all these years?AcuteInsight (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, let us just wait for the views of others. While waiting, I would suggest reading WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPS. If you prefer not to wait, you can raise the question on WP:RSN. Esoglou (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The oldest reference I found was from a 1994 book, one of the most persuasive references is from the late Brendan Whiting's Dating the Shroud site, the world-renowned STURP researcher who wrote the "Shroud Story" debunking the 1988 14th Century Carbon 14 dating by presenting all the evidence that the Shroud's outside seem was mended at a later date. Can you produce at least one reference by anyone that Cardinal Ottaviani didn't try to approach Pope Pius XII attempting to have Divine Mercy condemned? I can't find anything at all contesting this.AcuteInsight (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The book just arrived; "Prayer, Aspiration and Contemplation" ISBN 0-8189-0300-7. The quote is on page 187. According to the link you provided to Wikipedia:Verifiability & Identifying reliable sources, as well as the Archbishop's Imprimatur, that should be a solid reliable source. The book contains a note under the Ecclesiastic approvals: "The Nilil Obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error". I found another reference to this on a Douay-Rheims Bible ordering site, a 1,332 page e-book by Civil Engineer Stephen Austin of Black & Veatch Engineering who made appearances on Australian television (http://www.drbo.org/dnl/Maria_Valtorta_Summa_Encyclopedia.pdf) Maybe if you could find anything supporting your position, you could add it after that line. AcuteInsight (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

My "position" is that we lack a clearly reliable source upholding the statement that you are inserting into the article. I have asked for guidance on WP:RSN and have restored the tag pointing to the statement's basis (rather than the statement in itself). Please let the tag remain, so as to identify the statement for the editors who will be good enough to respond to my request. Esoglou (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

In disagreement with the extensive substantiation, wouldn't you consider it more rational to contest the overwhelming evidence through the typical means? By following it with a retort statement supported by a link to a credible source critical to the occurrence. Moreover, wouldn't you consider the complete lack of anything supporting your exceptional opinion conclusive evidence in itself that your position is untenable? That is why I can't understand why we are even having this discussion. What is to prevent any Wikipedia editor from randomly deleting any historic happening they simply don't agree with? Now I'm starting to understand why some statements have such long strings of verification links; some people have a very difficult time with evidence, and lack of.AcuteInsight (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth am I even entertaining your preposterous protests and mania for deleting credible references? I just viewed your User Page and you are being observed by Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Esoglou Notwithstanding that your talk page displays an image of two under-aged lesbians engaging in sadomasochism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Esoglou I'm not playing along with this nonsense anymore, post a credible reference disputing this fact, or throw in the towel.AcuteInsight (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The verdict expressed to date in the discussion of the reliability of your "extensive substantiation" is: "None of these meet Wikipedia reliable sources standards for that statement". Would you like to present the opposite view there? It might be good also to (re)read WP:ONUS. Esoglou (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The book is not being challenged, and most of all the other links in "References" would have to be eliminated, as they are even less credible than the ones I've posted. Compare the other links to the ones I posted, it's quite obvious; ^ http://www.faustina-message.com, Chaplet of Divine Mercy, http://www.pallottins.fr/prière/spiritualité/centre-à-osny, This website, http://thedivinemercy.org/library/article.php?NID=2210, The Divine Mercy website of the Marian Fathers: "A Priest after My Own Heart", etc. If mine links have to go, so should all the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcuteInsight (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Put your arguments in the proper place. I will accept whatever is the verdict. Esoglou (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The amount of information supporting the “failed attempt” statement is quite substantial, and there is zero evidence to the contrary. I’m confident that there are still many more sources of books, periodicals, information, etc. to be tapped. My next move is to contact all the sources in an effort to compile more verification. I’ll add additional references as they become available.AcuteInsight (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Just got a tip that there is also a reference to Ottaviani's attempt to get Pope Pius XII to sign a condemnations in "Vatican Secret Diplomacy: Joseph P. Hurley and Pope Pius XII by Charles R. Gallagher, Society of Jesus New England [2]. It's $40, and I'm not buying another book just to have it rejected again. I'm going to try to order it through the library.AcuteInsight (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Faustina Kowalska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Faustina Kowalska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Faustina Kowalska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Miracles

Source 53 is showing error 404 (from legatus magazine), Source 54 is showing error 404 (Faustina: The Apostle of Divine Mercy by Catherine M. Odell) while source 55 is just personal testimony. All these sources are non-secular, while the miracles are allegedly approved by secular scientists and Catholic Church.

The "Miracles" section needs to be updated and verified. Antarktyk (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Antarktyk, what policy requires sources to be "secular"? Elizium23 (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Elizium23, Article content must be verifiable. Wikipedia is not the place for archival findings that have not been published, or evidence from any source that has not been published. The case of Maureen Digan and Ronald Pyten were examined and approved by Catholic Church, so where is medical documentation? Antarktyk (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Faustina_Kowalska/Archive_1&oldid=1135678089"