"I have to say that this devotion induces persons to believe they are not supposed to fight against the consequences of original sin in themselves nor the bad influences of the world, nor the temptations of the Devil, but only trust in divine mercy. This trust would be sufficient to eradicate any bad action, tendency or influence and deliver the man to eternal salvation. (Sister Faustina’s Diary entries 699, 1074, 1485, 1578)"

Twice Sister Faustina's Diary and the Divine Mercy devotion were placed on the index of forbidden books. traditioninaction.org/polemics/F_07_DM_06.h

Yeah, it's impossible to tell the context of the quote from this, and it appears to splice together several different entries, just based on what you provided, which means that it can't possibly be in context. Furthermore, it appears to be a quote provided by someone else regarding the Diary, which makes the parenthetical a bit misleading.

I am aware that it used to be on the index of forbidden books. As I understand it, a correct translation was later provided which removed the erroneous passages and led to it being removed from the list. Perhaps I am mistake on that count?

Your tradition in action link is broken.

@giveusthisday I just found this: "I am love and mercy itself. ... Let no soul fear to draw near to Me, even though its sins be as scarlet. ... My mercy is greater than your sins, and those of the entire world. ... I let My Sacred Heart be pierced with a lance, thus opening wide the source of mercy for you. Come then with trust to draw graces from this fountain. ... The graces of My mercy are drawn by the means of one vessel only, and that is trust. The more a soul trusts, the more it will receive (Diary, 1074, 699, 1485, 1578)."

So your quote is entirely off. Mine might be off, too, but at least it makes more sense in context.

Strong and Steadfast; I think your quote summarizes some of the concerns about this devotion; the idea that God's Mercy is infinite without a corresponding thought about Divine justice. Here is a very good link with a very good explanation of the devotion and diary having been placed on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1958.Divine Mercy Polemic IX: Br. Theodore Roriz O.C. Refutes Michael Hichborn on Divine Mercy

@giveusthisday Thank you for the working link. Out of curiosity, what do you know about Br. Theodore Roriz O.C.? Is he a sedevacantist? I looked for some easy info about him online and could not find any.

God's mercy is clearly infinite. That's been shown and written about for the entirety of the history of the Church. I'm not a huge supporter of the Divine Mercy devotion, but those I know who are have never supported the idea that they don't need to worry about judgement. That's a very protestant idea. Nor are Br. Theodore's points in the hyperlinked article (which does bring up specific examples) refuting passages that necessarily say that, either.

Given Br. Theodore's clear passion in this matter, I would assume that the 4 passages he brings up in his article are the worst offenders in the entirety of the Diary. If that's true, his points are not conclusive, and certainly not worth taking his side over that of the decision of the Vatican, which has the authority to make these kinds of decisions. In point of fact, I believe the Church teaches us that we have the duty to assume, in cases like this one, that the offending words are meant in a way that is consistent with Church Tradition.

As for St. Faustina's prideful diary entries, it seems that every single one of those passages are the words that Our Lord supposedly said to her, and not words she is saying of herself. On the contrary, in my very limited research I found numerous examples of her calling herself "nothing", and a "terrible sinner" and the like.

All that being said, there is one thing that, to me, makes me uneasy regarding the devotion to Divine Mercy, and that is the constant repetition of these words, "I offer Thee the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ." As far as I know, this devotion presents the first example in Church history that advocates for laypeople, in their own place and right and authority, having the ability to offer our Crucified King to the Heavenly Father. If someone can correct me on that point, I'm all ears. I'd love to hear a correction of that, because it is something that gives me pause.