Asumsi nyaéta kapercayaan yén Maryam, dina kacindekan tina kahirupan bumina, dibawa awak jeung jiwa ka sawarga. Ieu tersirat dina rupa-rupa petikan Kitab Suci, meureun paling vividly di Wahyu 12, sarta dipercaya ku urang Kristen awal, sakumaha dituduhkeun ku liturgies kuna jeung tulisan. Bisa oge bukti sajarah greatest Asumsi, sanajan, nyaéta kanyataan yén teu aya individu atanapi komunitas anu kantos ngaku ngagaduhan awak Maryam.1 Hiji bisa dipastikeun nu miboga awak Maryam, ku tebih paling Maha Agung tina para wali, tetep di bumi, pengikut Kristus bakal geus ogé sadar eta.
Aya dua kapercayaan anu béda ngeunaan tempat pupusna Maryam: hiji nunjuk ka Yerusalem; nu sejenna ka Epesus. Tina dua, tradisi baheula leuwih kolot jeung leuwih alus dibuktikeun. cukup metot, hiji kosong, Makam abad kahiji kapanggih nalika penggalian di tempat maotna di Yerusalem 1972 (tingali Bellarmino Bagatti, Michael Piccirillo, jeung Albert Prodomo, O.F.M., Papanggihan Anyar di Makam Virgin Mary di Gethsemane, Yerusalem: Franciscan Printing Pencét, 1975). Sababaraha sarjana cangcaya kaaslian makam ieu sabab henteu disebut ku bapa-bapa mimiti anu cicing di Paléstina., sapertos Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), Epiphanius (d. 403), jeung Jerome (d. 420). Tapi, salaku arkeolog Bellarmino Bagatti nunjuk kaluar, Makam Maryam sacara umum dihindari ku urang Kristen awal asal-usul non-Yahudi sabab aya dina hak milik urang Yudeo-Kristen., WHO “dianggap schismatics lamun teu heretics” (ibid., p. 15). Pikeun alesan anu sarua, situs suci lianna, saperti Rohang Luhur, henteu muncul dina tulisan awal ogé (ibid.). Perlu diinget ogé yén pasukan Romawi Jenderal Titus ngaleungitkeun Yerusalem dina taun éta 70, nyumputkeun tempat-tempat suci pikeun Yahudi sareng Kristen handapeun puing. Di 135, Kaisar Hadrian meratakeun kota deui kalayan tujuan anu jelas pikeun ngawangun kuil pagan di luhur ruruntuhan situs suci.. Tempat pupusna Maryam sareng tempat-tempat suci anu sanés tetep leungit dugi ka abad kaopat sahenteuna nalika Kaisar Konstantin Agung laun-laun mimiti mulangkeun situs-situs suci Kristen., dimimitian ku Makam Suci di 336.] Asumsi nyadiakeun conto murid Kristus nuturkeun sanggeus Anjeunna dina jadian ragana, nunjuk kana realitas anu diarepkeun sadayana umat Kristen. Pamustunganana, eta ngabuktikeun teu kasucian dirina, komo deui, tapi kana kasucian Yesus, on anu akun manehna narima prerogatives husus.
Sedengkeun geus salawasna geus dipercaya ku urang Kristen, Asumsi ieu sacara resmi nyatakeun dogma Garéja Katolik ku Paus Pius XII di 1950. Pasti urang tiasa ningali hikmah asih Allah dina negeskeun kabangkitan ragana Maryam ka dunya di tengah-tengah abad anu nyaksian seueur pisan kateuadilan anu parah ngalawan martabat manusa.. Dina waktu proklamasi dogma urang, dunya muncul tina horor kubu pati Nazi sareng gancang ngadeukeutan pembunuhan anu ditangtayungan nagara tina budak anu teu lahir.. Kabangsaan awéwé sareng padamelan anu utami pikeun keibuan parantos diserang ku masarakat modern, nu geus fokus inordinately kana kageulisan exterior nya jeung ditéang kantos pikeun ngurangan dirina kana objek nafsu. Kontras pisan kana proklamasi ieu ngeunaan budaya maot, Asumsi Maryam nyatakeun martabat wanoja sareng awak manusa, tina jalma manusa, ku cara anu kuat.
Dogma tina Asumsi rests kana otoritas Garéja urang pikeun kadaharan domba Kristus (cf. John 21:15-17; Lukas 10:16) jeung jangji Jurusalamet urang yén Garéja-Na bakal ngajarkeun bebeneran (cf. John 14:26; 16:13; Matt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15). Otoritas infallible ieu salawasna dipercaya pikeun ilahi ajaran leres nalika sengketa geus risen diantara satia.. Urang ningali ieu dina panggero Déwan Yerusalem (Lalakon 15); dina milarian Paulus ka para Rasul’ persetujuan da'wah na mangtaun-taun sanggeus konversi na (Gal. 2:1-2); sarta dina lampah Déwan Ecumenical dimungkinkeun, nu memproklamirkan ketuhanan Kristus di 325, ketuhanan Roh Suci di 381, jeung maternity ketuhanan Mary di 431.
Sacara teologis, Asumsi raket patalina jeung Immaculate Conception, nu nyebutkeun yen Maryam, ku rahmat husus ti Allah, ieu luput tina noda dosa aslina ti moment mimiti ayana dirina. Kabébasanna tina dosa tersirat dina jangji Gusti nalika Jatuhna Manusa pikeun nempatkeun permusuhan antara Iblis sareng Ibu Penebus. (Gen. 3:15). Balik deui ka jaman apostolik, Garéja geus revered Mary salaku Hawa Anyar, helpmate satia tina Adam Anyar. Sagampil Hawa kahiji percaya kabohongan Iblis, malaikat anu murag, jeung ku nolak rencana Allah mawa dosa jeung maot ka dunya; jadi Hawa Anyar percaya kabeneran Jibril, hiji Archangel, jeung ku gawé bareng jeung rencana Allah mawa kasalametan jeung kahirupan ka dunya. Dina contemplating Mary salaku Hawa Anyar, komo deui, urang datang ka nyadar yén dina orchestrating panebusan urang, Allah dina cara heran literal ngabalikeun kajadian ragrag urang. Aslina, salaku conto, Adam sumping heula; jeung Hawa kabentuk tina daging-Na. Dina panebusan, Maryam, nu Hawa Anyar, sumping munggaran; jeung Kristus, Adam Anyar, dibentuk tina dagingna. Kabeneran, Ieu naha dina Covenant Anyar awéwé jeung lalaki éta indung jeung putra, sanes pasangan sapertos Adam sareng Hawa.
Éta Maryam ngagaduhan kapolosan Hawa sateuacan gugur hartosna anjeunna sigana dibebaskeun tina hukumanana: nyeri labor jeung maot awak (cf. Gen. 3:16, 19; Rom. 6:23). Malah lamun teu excused tina hal ieu sagemblengna, kumaha oge, Sahenteuna pantes yén rahmat anu luar biasa dipasihan anjeunna nalika ngalahirkeun sareng maot.2
Kawas kebangkitan awak para wali sanggeus Crucifixion (cf. Matt. 27:52), Asumsi mangrupikeun prékursor pikeun kebangkitan jasmani umat satia dina Poé Kiamat., nalika aranjeunna bakal “bray up … dina méga papanggih Gusti dina hawa” (1 Tes. 4:17).3 Alkitab teu nolak konsép asumsi jasmani ka surga. Dina Kitab Suci, Enoh sareng Élias dicandak ka sawarga (cf. Gen. 5:24; 2 Kgs. 2:11; Heb. 11:5). Leres yén Alkitab henteu sacara eksplisit nyatakeun yén Maryam dianggap. Acan ku token sarua, Alkitab teu mungkir atawa contradict Asumsi nya.4 Sumawona, sedengkeun akun langsung tina Asumsi henteu kapendak dina Kitab Suci, eta bisa jadi disimpulkeun tina passages tangtu ngeunaan Ark of Covenant, tipe Maryam. Peti Perjangjian dijieunna tina kai anu teu bisa ruksak sarta dilapis ku emas murni lantaran kasucian barang-barang anu dirarancang pikeun dibawa. (cf. Misal. 25:10-11); kitu ogé Virgin ieu endowed kalawan purity spiritual jeung jasmani jeung incorruptibility dina persiapan bearing Putra Allah.. Éta awak Maryam incorrupt, The Ark of Covenant Anyar, bakal dibawa ka sawarga dituduhkeun dina Jabur 132:8, nu nyatakeun, “Bangun, Duh Gusti, sareng angkat ka tempat peristirahatan anjeun, Anjeun sareng Peti Kaperkasaan anjeun.” Éta Ark Perjanjian Lama sacara misterius ngaleungit dina titik anu tangtu dina sajarah ogé nunjukkeun Asumsi Our Lady..5 Wadah suci tetep disumputkeun salami sababaraha abad dugi ka Rasul Yohanes ningali éta di surga., sakumaha anjeunna ngajelaskeun dina Wahyu: “Teras Bait Allah di sawarga dibuka, Jeung Peti Perjangjian-Na katempo di jero kuil-Na … . Jeung portent hébat mucunghul di sawarga, wanoja dibaju panonpoé, jeung bulan handapeun suku nya jeung dina sirah nya makuta dua belas béntang” (11:19, 12:1). Visi John ngeunaan Ibu Penebus anu cicing sacara jasmani di surga mangrupikeun hal anu pangdeukeutna pikeun urang pikeun saksi saksi tina Asumsi.. Anjeunna neraskeun ngajelaskeun yén anjeunna parantos diangkat ka surga saatos Naékna Gusti. “Anakna,” anjeunna nyatakeun, “geus bray nepi ka Allah jeung tahta-Na, jeung awewe kabur ka gurun, dimana manehna boga tempat anu disiapkeun ku Allah, di mana kudu diasuh salila sarébu dua ratus genep puluh poé” (12:5-6). Nya kitu cenah, “Awéwé éta dipasihan dua jangjang garuda gedé, supados anjeunna tiasa hiber tina oray ka gurun., ka tempat di mana manéhna bakal diasuh pikeun hiji waktu, jeung kali, jeung satengah waktu” (12:14).6
Tulisan pangheubeulna anu masih aya dina Asumsi nyaéta rupa-rupa téks apokrif sareng pseudoepigrafis., nu digolongkeun dina judul umum tina The petikan Maryam atawa Ngaliwatan Maryam. Pangkolotna ieu, dipercaya geus diwangun salila abad kadua ku Leucius Karinus, murid Yohanes, Diduga dumasar kana dokumén asli ti jaman apostolik, nu geus euweuh.7
Kapercayaan Garéja awal yén Virgin Rahayu teu rusak dina awak sareng jiwa sacara implisit ngadukung Asumsi.. Anu anonim Surat ka Diognetus (cf. 125), contona, nujul ka dirina salaku Virgin nu teu bisa deceived.8 Kanyataanna, loba panulis kuna, utamana Saints Justin the Martyr (d. ca. 165) jeung Irenaeus of Lyon (d. ca. 202), kontras Mary dina kasatiaan nya jeung Hawa dina sinfulness dirina. Saint Hippolytus Roma (d. 235), murid Ireneaus, dibandingkeun daging Maryam ka “kayu incorruptible” tina Ark (Koméntar ngeunaan Jabur 22). The Perlindungan anjeun solat, diwangun dina ngeunaan pertengahan abad katilu, nelepon Mary “nyalira murni tur nyalira rahayu.”
Di Saint Efraim urang Siria Hymns on Nativity, ti pertengahan abad kaopat, ngagunakeun imaji anu nginget-nginget Wahyu 12:4, Maryam sigana ngaramalkeun pangiriman awakna ka surga, nyebutkeun, “Babe anu ku kuring digendong parantos ngagentos kuring … . Anjeunna ngabengkokkeun leungeun-Na sareng nyandak sareng nempatkeun kuring di antara jangjang-Na sareng melesat ka hawa” (17:1). Di 377, Saint Epiphanius of Salamis wrote, “Kumaha Suci Maryam moal boga Karajaan Sawarga jeung daging nya, saprak manéhna teu unchaste, atawa dissolute, ogé teu kungsi zinah, sarta saprak manehna pernah ngalakukeun nanaon salah sajauh lampah fleshly anu prihatin, tapi tetep stainless?” (Panarion 42:12). Some have suggested he could not have believed in the Assumption since he speaks here of Mary’s bodily entrance into heaven in the future tense. Yet he remarked later in the same document, “If she was slain, … then she obtained glory together with the martyrs, and her body … dwells among those who enjoy the repose of the blessed” (ibid. 78:23; tekenan ditambahkeun). Speculating on her death, he went on to say that either
she died or did not die, … she was buried or was not buried. … Scripture simply is silent, because of the greatness of the prodigy, in order not to strike the mind of man with excessive wonder. …
If the holy Virgin is dead and has been buried, surely her dominion happened with great honor; her end was most pure and crowned by virginit. …
Or she continued to live. Pikeun, to God, it is not impossible to do whatever he wills; di sisi anu sanésna, no one knows exactly what her end was (ibid. 78:11, 23).
That Epiphanius did not know the details of Mary’s passing is perfectly understandable–Christians still do not know the details of it and it is likely the Apostles themselves did not know either, for her body was taken from within an enclosed tomb.9 Unlike other early writers, kumaha oge, Epiphanius avoided inventing the details for himself. Though he did not know exactly what had taken place, he knew, in light of Mary’s perfect sanctity, that her passing had to have been miraculous–something that would “strike the mind of man with excessive wonder”–and that she could not have remained in the grave. “In the Apocalypse of John,” he also noted, “we read that the dragon hurled himself at the woman who had given birth to a male child; but the wings of an eagle were given to the woman, and she flew into the desert, where the dragon could not reach her. This could have happened in Mary’s case (Rev. 12:13-14)” (ibid. 78:11).
At the start of the fifth century, or earlier, the feast of the Commemoration of Mary–nyaeta, the commemoration of her passing–was introduced into the Eastern Liturgy, placing it among the oldest of the Church’s official feast days.10 Kira-kira taun 400, Chrysippus of Jerusalem commented on Jabur 132, “The truly royal Ark, the most precious Ark, was the ever-Virgin Theotokos; the Ark which received the treasure of all sanctification” (On Psalm 131(132)).
An orthodox writer from this same time period, operating under the nom de plume of Saint Melito of Sardis, a near-contemporary of Leucius, reproached him for having “corrupted the most ancient text by expounding his personal ideas which do not agree with the teaching of the Apostles” (Bagatti, jeung sajabana., p. 11). This author endeavored to restore the true account of the Assumption, which he alleged Leucius had “corrupted with an evil pen” (The Passing of the Holy Virgin, Prologue).
Dina ngeunaan 437, Saint Quodvultdeus identified the Woman in Wahyu 12 as the Blessed Virgin, noting, “Let none of you ignore (the fact) that the dragon (in the Apocalypse of the apostle John) is the devil; know that the virgin signifies Mary, the chaste one, who gave birth to our chaste head” (Third Homily 3:5).
In about the middle of the fifth century, Saint Hesychius of Jerusalem wrote, “The Ark of thy sanctification, the Virgin theotokos surely. If thou art the pearl then she must be the Ark” (Homily on Holy Mary, Indung Allah). Around 530, Oecumenius said of Wahyu 12, “Rightly does the vision show her in heaven and not upon the earth, as pure in soul and body” (Commentary on the Apocalpyse). Writing of the Assumption near the end of the sixth century, Saint Gregory of Tours (unlike Epiphanius) did not avoid the incidental details of the Transitus story. “Jeung behold,” wrote Gregory, “again the Lord stood by (the Apostles); the holy body (of Mary) having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise” (Eight Books of Miracles 1:4).
Critics of the Church’s Marian teachings have made much of the fact that the earliest-known accounts of the Assumption are found in apocryphal writings, and that the Church Fathers did not speak of it before the late-fourth century.
It is also true, kumaha oge, that the Fathers did not look to correct belief in the Assumption; they simply remained silent on the matter–an unprecedented stance if it was a heretical teaching, especially given its prevalence among the faithful. It is unlikely, leres pisan, that the concept of Mary’s Assumption, which upholds the sanctity of the human body, could have originated among the Gnostics, given that they denounced the body and all things physical. The Apocrypha, kanyataanna, were often not the work of heretics, but of orthodox Christians seeking to impose details upon real events from the lives of Christ and the Saints that were otherwise shrouded in mystery. While apocryphists embellished the story of the Assumption, they did not invent it. The fact that the Transitus existed virtually everywhere in the Christian world, appearing in multiple languages, including Hebrew, Yunani, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic, proves the story of Mary’s Assumption was spread universally in the early centuries and, kituna, of apostolic origin.
While the Church has ever been cognizant of the danger involved in relying upon works of a spurious nature, it cannot be denied that kernels of truth prevail in many such works. Recall, salaku conto, that Saint Jude refers to the Assumption of Moses jeung First Enoch in his New Testament Surat (tingali Yuda 1:9, 14 ff.). Origin wisely observed:
We are not unaware that many of these secret writings were produced by men, famous for their iniquity. … We must therefore use caution in accepting all these secret writings that circulate under the name of saints … because some of them were written to destroy the truth of our Scripture and to impose a false teaching. Di sisi anu sanésna, we should not totally reject writings that might be useful in shedding light on the Scripture. It is a sign of a great man to hear and carry out the advice of Scripture: “Test everything; retain what is good” (1 Tes. 5:21) (Commentaries on Mateus 28).
Di 494, Pope Saint Gelasius, seeking to guard the faithful against the potentially corruptive influence of the numerous religious writings of questionable authorship that plagued the Christian world, reissued the list of canonical books drawn up by his predecessor, Pope Saint Damasus, coupled with a lengthy catalog of acceptable and unacceptable extra-biblical books.
Opponents of the Church have made an issue of the fact that an apocryphal writing on the Assumption is included among the forbidden books in Gelasius’ decre, but the Pope condemned an apocryphal account of the Assumption, tangtosna, and not the Assumption itself.
Apocryphal accounts of other orthodox beliefs are likewise condemned in the decree–éta Protoevangelium of James, contona, deals with the Nativity; jeung Acts of Peter deals with Peter’s missionary activity and martyrdom in Rome. Even more to the point, the writings of Tertullian are banned, though his writings, contona, simply entitled Baptisan jeung Repentance, defend the orthodox position on these subjects. Does Gelasius’ condemnation of these books amount to the rejection of Baptism and repentance, saterusna, or does it have to do more with a question of Tertullian’s character?
Jelas, the banning of a book in the Gelasian Decree cannot be said to be a wholesale rejection of the book’s subject matter or contents. In many cases, more scholarship would be required by the Church to sift out the truly harmful elements from these books. In the meantime, placing them under the ban was prudent given the uncertainty surrounding them.11
For those seeking to find in the Gelasian Decree some compromise of Papal Infallibility, it should be explained that the banning of a book has nothing to do with the Pope’s infallibility since it is merely a disciplinary action, not connected with the defining of dogma. Ku alam, a disciplinary action is subject to change. It stands in place only so long as the perceived threat exists; once the threat has passed, the censure is lifted. In this particular case, as the canon of the Bible grew in acceptance the threat posed by the Apocrypha waned and the ban became obsolete.
- This is extraordinary proof indeed given Christianity’s penchant for preserving and venerating saintly relics–a practice which dates back to the early days of the faith as the Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp, composed in the middle of the second century, shows. ↩
- While Catholics have traditionally believed Mary was exempted from labor pains, it has been supposed that she did indeed suffer death in order to perfectly conform to Her Son, who though sinless accepted death (cf. Phil. 2:5 ff.). In defining the dogma of the Assumption, Pius XII avoided saying for certain she had died, merely stating she had “completed the course of her earthly life” (Munificentissimus Deus 44). ↩
- The Catechism tina Garéja Katolik teaches, “The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians … . She already shares in the glory of her Son’s Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of his Body” (966, 974). ↩
- There are other significant events in the life of the apostolic Church which are omitted from the New Testament as well, such as the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman legions in the year 70. According to the Fragmen Muratorian, composed in Rome in the latter part of the second century, Luke only included in the Kalakuan para Rasul events he had witnessed with his own eyes. That Luke avoided writing of things he had not actually seen helps us to understand why the Assumption was not recorded, for it took place inside a tomb. Unlike the Lord’s ascension, a public event seen by many, the Assumption had no eyewitnesses. ↩
- Second Maccabees 2:5 says that Jeremiah sealed the Ark in a cave on Mount Nebo prior to the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. (cf. 2 Kgs. 24:13, jeung sajabana.). ↩
- Protestantism tends to see this Woman as either a symbolic figure of Israel or the Church (cf. Gen. 37:9). Catholicism accepts these interpretations, but extends them to include in a specific way Mary, the embodiment of the people of God. Israel bore Christ figuratively; Mary bore Him literally. In commenting on this passage, Saint Quodvultdeus (d. 453), the Bishop of Carthage and a disciple of Saint Augustine, wrote that Mary “also embodied in herself a figure of the holy church: namely, how while bearing a son, she remained a virgin, so that the church throughout time bears her members, yet she does not lose her virginity” (Third Homily on the Creed 3:6; see also Clement of Alexandria, Instructor of the Children 1:6:42:1).
The motif of God’s people escaping “on the wings of an eagle” to a place of refuge can be found throughout the Old Testament (tingali Misal. 19:4; Ps. 54 (55):6-7; Isa. 40:31, jeung sajabana.). God’s promise of “escape into the wilderness” is profoundly fulfilled in the Assumption, Mary being the preeminent representative of His people.
The symbolic references in Wahyu 12 to a duration of time, “one thousand two hundred and sixty days” jeung “for a time, jeung kali, jeung satengah waktu” (6, 14), may represent the period of persecution, which the Church will endure, prior to the Second Coming of Christ.
Verse 12:17 says the devil, infuriated by the Woman’s escape, diatur kaluar “to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep God’s commandments and give witness to Jesus.” That the followers of Christ are considered “the rest of her offspring” supports the Church’s regard for Mary as the Mother of All Christians (cf. Isa. 66:8; John 19:26-27). ↩
- While at one time the Transitus was thought to have originated no earlier than the fourth century, certain theological terms used in Leucius’ document confirm an origin either in the second or third century (Bagatti, jeung sajabana., p. 14; Bagatti referenced his own works, S. Pietro nella “Dormitio Mariae,” pp. 42-48; Ricerche sulle tradizioni della morte della Vergine, pp. 185-214). ↩
- The actual text reads: “If you bear the tree of (pangaweruh) and pluck its fruit, you will always be gathering in the things that are desirable in the sight of God, things that the serpent cannot touch and deceit cannot defile. Then Eve is not seduced, but a Virgin is found trustworthy” (Surat ka Diognetus 12:7-9). Regarding this passage, Cyril c. Richardson comments, “It is fairly clear that the author intends to state the common Patristic contrast … between Eve, the disobedient mother of death, and Mary, the obedient mother of life, in which case the parthenos of the text will be the blessed Virgin Mary” (Early Christian Fathers, York énggal: Collier Books, 1970, p. 224, n. 23). Hilda Graef concurred, nyebutkeun, “It almost seems as if Mary were called Eve without any further explanation” (Maryam: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, vol. 1, York énggal: Sheed and Ward, 1963, p. 38). ↩
- In contrast to the Transitus account, which claims the Apostles witnessed Mary’s body being transported to heaven, there is a tradition that she died on January 18 (Tobi 21), but that her empty tomb was not discovered till 206 days later on August 15 (Mesore 16) (see Graef, Maryam, vol. 1, p. 134, n. 1; the author referenced Dom Capelle, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 3, 1926, p. 38; M.R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, 1924, pp. 194-201). ↩
- The feast of the Nativity (i.e., Christmas) was established in the early fourth century, during the reign of Constantine. The feast of the Ascension was established in the fifth century, having originally been included in the feast of Pentecost. ↩
- Kucara kieu, the Church resembles the mother who forbids her children to watch a particular TV show until she has had the chance to watch the show and judge its contents for herself. The Church has always erred on the side of caution in discerning matters of faith and morals. Consider that, more recently, Saints Teresa of Avila (d. 1582) and John of the Cross (d. 1591), now revered as Doctors of the Church, were interrogated by the Inquisition on the suspicion of heresy. Nya kitu deui, the diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska (d. 1938), Divine Mercy in My Soul, was at one time rejected as heterodox by Church theologians, but subsequently gained official approval under Pope John Paul the Great. Faustina’s revelations found in the diary, kanyataanna, have led to the institution of the feast of Divine Mercy, now universally celebrated in the Church. ↩