Douay-Rheims Bible Online has hosted a new e-book about Maria Valtorta’s The Poem of the Man-God which has an entire section on the SSPX position on the Poem.
I looked at it and found that it actually is very solid. Its description says:
A comprehensive and well-researched guide to everything a traditional Catholic needs to know about Maria Valtorta’s The Poem of the Man-God: its importance, its history, its ecclesiastical status, its status with the SSPX, the claims of proofs of its divine origin, and its critics and defenses
The e-book can be downloaded here:
Poem of the Man-God Research Document (PDF)
A video trailer which describes it is here:
Poem of the Man-God Research Document Trailer
To give you a taste of its level of depth and scholarship: it has 902 references/endnotes.
Here are some notable chapters in the e-book which you may want to check out:
Archbishop Lefebvre’s Words About the Poem of the Man-God
Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle, FSSPX: His Approval of and Comments About the Poem of the Man-God
Opinions of non-SSPX Experts on the Poem of the Man-God and How It Relates to Tradition and Theological Soundness
The Position of the Popes, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Holy Office), and the Vatican Newspaper on the Poem of the Man-God
A Detailed Analysis of Maria Valtorta and Her Writings According to the Traditional 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia’s Thorough Criteria for Assessing Private Revelations
Timeline of Major Events of the Poem of the Man-God’s Ecclesiastical Approval
Analyzing Some Critic’s Arguments that it Encourages Sensationalism or Appeals Too Much to the Sensitivity
The Most Notable Critics and Critical Articles Against the Poem of the Man-God and Answers to Those Articles (Refutations)
How Maria Valtorta’s Revelations Are Being Proven By Science to a Degree Much Greater than Most (if Not All) Previous Mystics of the Church
Proof by Geography and Topography and Archaeology (Such as Her Mentioning in the Poem Over 350 Geographic Locations in the Holy Land, Including Nine Towns/Villages Not Discovered Archaeologically Until After Her Death, and at Least 62 Places Which Were Either Unknown at the Time of Her Writing or Known Only by a Few Specialized Archaeologists)
Proof by Astronomy (Such as Detailed Astronomic Observations in Her 1940’s Visions that a Purdue University Professor of Theoretical Physics Testified Are Perfectly Consistent with Her Dating System and that She Could Not Have Predicted or Verified Without a Computer)
Proof by its Knowledge, Depth, and Eminence in the Theological, Exegetical, Mystical, and Mariological Fields (Which Many World-Renowned Trustworthy Theologians Say Exceed Anything They Have Ever Read)
Letter from a Spiritual Daughter of Padre Pio’s Telling About His Verbal Command to Read Maria Valtorta’s Works
Interestingly, it gives evidence that modernists have been opposed to this work from the beginning, particularly in the chapter entitled “About the Anonymous Letter in the L’Osservatore Romano and a Thorough Analysis and Refutation of This Letter”.
What do you all think about it?
Mystic Post News (formerly Ministry Values) has a post about the Medjugoogooites’ position on the poem:
Revisiting Medjugorje and Maria Valtorta’s “The Poem of the Man-God”
By Davide Bianchini – Ministryvalues.com Contributing writer
——————————————————————————–
There are some Medjugorje followers who seem to want to deny any connection between Medjugorje and “The Poem of the Man-God” (by Maria Valtorta), likely due to the fact that it was once included on the Catholic Church’s Index of Forbidden Books. To anyone who has not studied the history of this book, it may seem justified to harbor such reserve and caution with regard to it. After all, what more compelling sound-byte is there (in an age where sound-bytes govern our culture and media, rather than thorough scholarship) than; “It was on the Index of Forbidden Books. Stay away.”? It would not be an exaggeration to say that this “one-liner”–this single sentence alone–has discouraged thousands, if not millions of people, from reading this book. And yet, any serious scholar of Maria Valtorta will agree that it is only a half-truth; one which does not reflect the Church’s true position with regard to this book.
It cannot be denied that the visionaries of Medjugorje have explicitly stated, on numerous occasions, that Our Lady not only permits the reading of this work, but also encourages people to read it if they want to know Jesus (see evidence below). And yet despite this, some Medjugorje followers continue to refuse to acknowledge the evidence. Well-intentioned though they may be, they nonetheless do a disservice to the apparitions and to Our Lady for their persistent denial of this truth (It should be no surprise that the greatest lies are those mixed with a little truth). Was the Poem listed on the Index of Forbidden books? Yes. But what we fail to hear, is that it was only the first edition that was placed on the Index, and for reasons of a legal stipulation (Canon 1385), which required all private revelations to have an Imprimatur prior to publishing. What critics also fail to mention, is that in 1966, Pope Paul VI not only suppressed Canon 1385, but also abolished the Index of Forbidden Books altogether. What is also glossed over, is the fact that the Holy Office later gave the publishers permission to freely distribute the second edition of the book. Nor do we hear about the fact that Pope Pius XII explicitly gave permission for the book to be published and read. It is also never mentioned that Saint Faustina’s diary was also included on the aforementioned Index, as was Alexander Dumas’ “Three Musketeers” and ” Count of Monte Cristo”, or Galileo’s writings on celestial bodies. Nor was it mentioned that the same Cardinal that was responsible for all this, was also the one who banned Padre Pio for exercising his priestly faculties.
All this and much more could be said in defense of this book. But rather than provide a lengthy rebuttal to the many misconceptions surrounding this work (and why the faithful may, in fact, read it in good conscience), it should suffice to refer our readers to a webpage which has already done the work for us; www.maria-valtorta.net. For those who would like to investigate further, we believe that this website provides a good starting point. Here is also a website with links to additional websites of study; www.mariavaltortawebring.com. And finally, we will also provide a link to the publisher’s website, which provides 1,000 free pages of the book online, for those who would like to review the work directly; valtorta.org.
Vicka: “They are true. Yes, yes, true. Authentic, yes. You can read these, they are true.”
(listen to audio recording here)
Marija: “You can read it.” (EWTN Interview, March 4, 1992, Archbishop Hannan Focus program)
Vicka: “Yes. The Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta, ten volumes. Our Lady says The Poem of the Man-God is the truth. Our Lady said if a person wants to know Jesus he should read Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta. That book is the truth.” (Interview with Attorney Jan Connell of the Pittsburgh Center for Peace on January 27, 1988, image1, image2)
Marija: “Our Lady says The Poem of the Man-God is the truth.” [cf. R. Laurentin, Dernieres Nouvelles de Medjugorje No 15, OEIL, 1996, p. 19]
IS “THE POEM OF THE MAN-GOD” SIMPLY A BAD NOVEL?
Maria Valtorta’s multi-volume life of Jesus flirts with heresy and
exhibits bad taste. Its claim to authenticity have been rejected by Rome.
by Father Mitch Pacwa, S.J.
“The Poem of the Man-God” is a five-volume “narrative” of the life of
Jesus written in the 1940s by a sickly Italian woman named Maria Valtorta.
“Poem” purports to fill in the details of Jesus’ life left blank by the
four Gospels. Such narratives have been produced since the second century
A.D. Some were written by gnostic heretics. Some by New Agers and
occultists. And some were produced by pious Christians who made up stories
about Jesus to edify their readers and listeners.
The four Gospels do not give a biography of Jesus–or of anyone else in
His life. Their purpose is evangelical and theological–to proclaim the
Good News that human beings need for their salvation. Thus, for centuries,
the “hidden life” of Jesus has been the subject for speculation.
“The Poem of the Man-God” is in this tradition of apocryphal literature on
New Testament themes. Valtorta claimed that she was the “secretary” of
Jesus and Mary, and was setting down the divinely inspired truth about
Jesus’ life. The Church has rejected this claim. Nevertheless, “Poem” has
become quite popular, particularly among Catholics as well.
Remarkably, the book has grown in popularity in part because its champions
claim that high Church officials–including one Pope–endorsed it. They
haven’t. In fact, “Poem” was included on the Index of Forbidden books
until the abolition of the Index in the 1960s. No less an authority than
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, reiterates the Church’s rejection of the claims made for “The
Poem of the Man-God.”
How did “The Poem of the Man-God” come to be, and how has the notion
become widely accepted that it contains important religious truth?
Maria Valtorta, author of “Poem,” was born in 1897 into a sadly
dysfunctional family, where she suffered emotional abuse at the hands of a
despotic mother. When she was 23, she was attacked and beaten by a mugger.
She was never completely well after that. From 1933 on, she was unable to
leave her bed.
Maria began to receive “dictations” on Good Friday, 1943. In 1947, she
handed over 10,000 handwritten pages to her spiritual director, Father
Romuald Migliorini, O.S.M. Father Migliorini typed them and Father
Corrado Berti, O.S.M. bound them. Fr. Berti, brought them to Father later
Cardinal Augustin Bea, S.J., spiritual director to Pope Pius XII.
Did Pope Pius read the whole manuscript or parts? If only part, which
part? Advertisements by the Canadian Central distributors for Valtorta
(CEDIVAL) quote Father Bea: “I have read in typed manuscripts many of the
books written by Maria Valtorta . . . As far as exegesis is concerned, I
did not find any errors in the parts which I examined.” Notice, he read
only parts of the books. Which were they?
On Feb. 26, 1948, Fathers Migliorini, Berti and A. Cecchin enjoyed a
private audience with Pope Pius XII, as listed in L’Osservatore Romano’s
daily announcement of audiences. Standing in St. Peter’s Square after the
audience, Father Berti wrote down Pope Pius’ words as he remembered them.
These words were “not” printed in L’Osservatore Romano, but Father Berti
remembered the Pope saying:
“Publish this work as it is. There is no need to give an opinion about its
origin, whether it be extraordinary or not. Who reads it, will understand.
One hears of many visions and revelations. I will not say they are all
authentic; but there are some of which it could be said that they are.”
CEDIVAL calls this a “Supreme Pontifical Imprimatur,” where “he took upon
himself to pass the first official judgment on these writings.” CEDIVAL
glues this inside the cover, though the publisher does not print an
imprimatur. The reason: it has none!
Confident of papal approval, Father Berti brought the books to the Vatican
press. However, in 1949, two commissioners of the Holy Office, Msgr.
Giovanni Pepe and Father Berruti, O.P., condemned the “Poem,” ordering
Berti to hand over every copy and sign an agreement not to publish it.
Father Berti returned the manuscripts to Valtorta and handed over only his
typed versions.
Despite his signed promise, in 1952 Father Berti went to publisher
Emiliano Pisani. Though aware of the Holy Office’s opposition, Pisani
printed the first volume in 1956, and a new volume each year through 1959.
When volume four appeared, the Holy Office examined the “Poem” and
condemned it, recommending that it be placed on the Index of Forbidden
Books Dec. 16, 1959. Pope John XXIII signed the decree and ordered it
published. L’Osservatore Romano, on Jan. 6, 1960, printed the
condemnation with an accompanying front-page article, “A Badly
Fictionalized Life of Jesus,” to explain it.
The article complained that the “Poem” broke Canon Law. “Though they treat
exclusively of religious issues, these volumes do not have an
“imprimatur,” which is required by Canon 1385, sect. 1, n. 2.”
Second, the long speeches of Jesus and Mary starkly contrast with the
evangelists, who portray Jesus as “humble, reserved; His discourses are
lean, incisive.” Valtorta’s fictionalized history makes Jesus sound “like
a chatterbox, always ready to proclaim Himself the Messiah and the Son of
God,” or teach theology in modern terms. The Blessed Mother speaks like a
“propagandist” for modern Marian theology.
Third, “some passages are rather risque,” like the “immodest” dance before
Pilate (vol. 5, p. 73). There are “many historical, geographical and
other blunders.” For instance, Jesus uses screwdrivers (Vol. 1, pp. 195,
223), centuries before screws existed.
There are theological errors, as when “Jesus says” (vol. 1, p. 30) that
Eve’s temptation consisted in arousing her flesh, as the serpent
sensuously “caressed” her. While she “began the sin by herself,” she
“accomplished it with her companion.” Sun Myung Moon and Maria Valtorta
may claim the first sin was sexual, but Scripture does not.
Vol. 1, p. 7, oddly claims, “Mary can be called the ‘second-born’ of the
Father . . .” Her explanation limits the meaning, avoiding evidence of an
authentic heresy; but it does not take away the basic impression that she
wants to construct a new mariology, which simply goes beyond the limits of
propriety.” “Another strange and imprecise statement” made of Mary (vol.
4, p. 240) is that she will “be second to Peter with regard to
ecclesiastical hierarchy. . . ” Our Lady surpasses St. Peter’s holiness,
but she is not in the hierarchy, let alone second to St. Peter.
Further, Valtorta did not claim to write a novel, but called herself a
“secretary” of Jesus and Mary, so, “in all parts on reads the words ‘Jesus
says. . .’ or ‘Mary says . . .’” The Church takes this claim to revelation
very seriously, since it has the God-given duty to discern what is or is
not truly from the Holy Spirit. In Valtorta’s case, the Church decided
against Divine inspiration.
Finally, “Poem” is condemned for reasons of disobedience. Competent Church
authority had prohibited the printing of Valtorta’s work.
Pope John’s approval of the condemnation of the “Poem of the Man-God”
should have ended the issue, but it did not. The publishers printed a
second edition of 10 volumes, which the Church condemned in another
front-page article in L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 1, 1961. This second
Italian edition was later translated into German, French, Spanish and
English.
CEDIVAL asserts that a “modernist clan in the Church” . . .
“surreptitiously attempted to seize the manuscripts and destroy them,”
claiming “firsthand documentation on this.” These “enemies” included Msgr.
Pepe and Father Berruti, the Holy Office censors.
I asked the head of CEDIVAL, Prof. Leo Brodeur, for evidence that Msgr.
Pepe and Father Berruti held any modernist heresies, but he had none. He
assumed they were modernists because the “Poem” claims “to help the Church
fight against the terrible heresy of modernism.” If the “Poem’s enemies
are modernists, Msgr. Pepe and Father Berruti must be modernists, too.
Such assertions are unacceptable. Accusations of modernism or any other
heresy without proof is slander.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, present head of the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the same office that condemned the
“Poem”), informed Cardinal Siri in 1985 of the “Poem’s condemnation:
After the dissolution of the Index, when some people thought the printing
and distribution of the work was permitted, they were reminded again in
L’Osservatore Romano (June 15, 1966) that “The Index retains its moral
force despite its dissolution.”
More recently (April 17, 1993, Prot. N. 144/58i), he wrote:
“The ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in the work, “The Poem of the
Man-God,” are simply the literary forms used by the author to narrate in
her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in
origin.”
The best that can be said for “The Poem of the Man-God” is that it is a
bad novel. This was summed up in the L’Osservatore Romano headline, which
called the book “A Badly Fictionalized Life of Jesus.”
At worst, “Poem’s” impact is more serious. Though many people claim that
“Poem” helps their faith or their return to reading Scripture, they are
still being disobedient to the Church’s decisions regarding the reading of
“Poem.” How can such disregard for Church authority and wisdom be a help
in renewing the Church in these difficult times?
When Catholics insist on reading “Poem,” despite Church condemnation, I
make these requests: First, read three hours of Scripture for every one
hour spent in the “Poem.” The Church guarantees that the Bible is God’s
Word, inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Church has judged the “Poem” to be
a poorly done human work. Second, read solid Catholic theology books in
addition to Scripture. G.K. Chesterton, Frank Sheed, Archbishop Sheen’s
“Life of Christ” and many other works are excellent starts. Third,
maintain a strong prayer life, drawing closer to Christ Jesus, Our Lord,
at Mass and at eucharistic adoration, and to our Blessed Mother Mary,
especially in the Rosary.
If sheep insist on bad pasturage, at least let them take antidotes.
Does Blessed Mother Recommend A Book Church Placed on Index [of Forbidden Books]?
by Paul Likoudis
One of the hottest-selling books in Catholic stores today is Maria Valtorta’s multivolume Poem of the Man-God, a book placed on the Church’s Index of Forbidden Books in 1961, and condemned as recently as 1985 by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
“It’s one of our biggest-selling books,” Terry Colafrancesco told The Wanderer.
Colafrancesco, director of Caritas of Birmingham, a major promoter of Medjugorje messages, tours, and books, is only one of many distributors of the book in the United States, and says he has sold 5,000 to 10,000 copies of the multivolume set in the past year.
“It’s so hard to get good spiritual direction in the Church today, because of the crisis,” he said. “These books give tremendous insights into Scripture . . . It is like a pastor reading the Gospel, and then explaining it. People find the spiritual direction they need that they aren’t getting in church.”
But Cardinal Ratzinger, former and current Apostolic Nuncio Archbishops Pio Laghi and Agostino Cacciavillan, and a host of other ecclesiastics take a contrary stand. In their view, the book is condemned and dangerous.
Cardinal Ratzinger, in a letter dated Jan. 31st, 1985, written in response to the request of Genoa’s Giuseppe Cardinal Siri on the book’s status, recalled L’Osservatore Romano’s judgment that it was “a badly fictionalized life of Jesus.”
The Cardinal-Prefect added: “After the dissolution of the Index, when some people thought the printing and distribution of the work was permitted, people were reminded again in L’Osservatore Romano (June 15th, 1966) that, as was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (1966), the Index retains its moral force despite its dissolution. A decision against distributing and recommending a work, which had not been condemned lightly, may be reversed, but only after profound changes that neutralize the harm which such a publication could bring forth among the ordinary faithful.”
The book has been described as a “second-rate soap opera,” a bawdy, at times, obscene life of Jesus, who is depicted as a wise man who utters such word as, “Smell flowers; do not pick them,” while He approves of stepping on caterpillars because they have a “lascivious sensuality.”
Moreover, He is a Savior unsure of who He is, looking to His disciples – whom He loves to kiss on their lips – for leadership.
Mental Sickness
Printed in four (or ten) volumes, Poem of the Man-God is not a poem, but poorly written prose, filled with imagined conversations between Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the Apostles that can be, most charitably, described as banal.
As L ‘Osservatore Romano declared, the work belongs in the “category of mental sickness,” and that it is a “heap of pseudo- irreligiosity,” “a mountain of childishness, of fantasies, and of historical and exegetical falsehoods, diluted in a subtly sensual atmosphere”.
But the book is selling like hotcakes, because it is part of the Medjugorje phenomenon, promoted among Medjugorje enthusiasts as endorsed by the Blessed Virgin Mary herself.
According to Colafrancesco, many Catholics are reading the book as a source for meditation when they make visits to the Blessed Sacrament.
He said interest in the book was “sparked” when Marija Pavlovic, one of the Medjugorje seers, asked the Virgin Mary – at the request of a seminarian friend – if it was okay to read the book.
In Colafrancesco’s recollection, Mary said, “One could read it.”
“If you consider that every word the Virgin Mary says has meaning, then you know what a strong statement that was,” he said.
Colafrancesco is aware of the documentation circulating around the world which affirms that the book is still condemned, and the prohibition against Catholics reading it is in force, but disregards it.
He insists that under Canon Law, Catholics have the right to read the book, and that Cardinal Ratzinger “is taking advice from people who want Satan to destroy the Church.
“What’s happening to these books is terribly unjust,” he said.
The Growing Controversy
The Poem of the Man-God received a major boost during a broadcast interview on Mother Angelica’s EWTN cable network, which aired an interview with Medjugorje seer Marija Pavlovic conducted by retired New Orleans Archbishop Philip Hannan, an enthusiastic propagandist for the Medjugorje messages.
Hannan, in fact, in a recent fundraising letter sent to members of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, cited his program’s promotion of the Medjugorje messages as a key reason why Catholics should support public station WLAE.
On March 4th, on the Archbishop’s Focus program, a viewer from Milwaukee asked Marija, on the air, “What exactly did our Lady say regarding the Poem of the Man-God?’
Marija responded that our Lady told her, “You can read it,” and expressed an immediate afterthought.
“I have heard now that there are problems with this,” she said,” looking nervously over to Archbishop Hannan, who simply accepted the outrageous claim that our Lady would contradict the judgment of the Holy See, and changed the subject.
The Wanderer attempted to contact Archbishop Hannan to ask him about the apparent conflict between the Vatican and the Blessed Mother on what books Catholics should read, but he was not available for comment.
His secretary of 20-plus years, Emily Kulchyski, who works with the Archbishop at the television station, WLAE-32, doing research for him and typing his commentaries, did talk, however.
Kulchyski is now reading the fifth volume of the Poem, and believes Valtorta’s work “is absolutely fantastic, completely engrossing, and totally edifying.” She admits that it led her “to read Scripture in a new light,” and dismissed the notion the book should not be read because it was on the Index.
“There is no Index anymore,” said the Archbishop’s secretary, “and besides the Virgin told us that, ‘It is good reading’.”
Kulchyski also explained why the Archbishop could not respond to Pavlovic’s answer. “I think he felt he was not prepared to answer the question that night,” she told The Wanderer.
Curiously, however, she added in the next breath, “We had received numerous questions from people around the country who had heard that Marija was going to be on his program, and who wanted him (the Archbishop) to ask the seer that question. But he felt it would not be appropriate to ask the question because that was not what most people wanted to hear from the seer.”
Seven Reasons Not To Read It
While the Archbishop’s secretary and thousands of other Catholics continue reading Poem of the Man-God, and encourage others to do likewise, there are 7 reasons the Holy Office (consultors were Fr. Augustin Bea, S.J., and Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.) condemned the book:
1.) The book contains a fraudulent imprimatur, allegedly bestowed by Pope Pius XII, and has no legitimate imprimatur, which it must have.
2.) The Jesus and Mary are in stark contrast to the Gospels. “Jesus speaks the maximum like a chatterbox, always ready to proclaim Himself the Messiah and the Son of God, or to share lessons in theology with the same terms used by a modern professor . . . (and) the Most Holy Virgin speaks as abundantly as a modern propagandist.”
3.) “Some passages are rather risque and record some descriptions and some scenes like modern novels . . . the reading of such passages as those quoted, only with difficulty could be finished without danger of spiritual damage.
4.) There are “many historical, geographical, and other blunders.
5.) There are numerous theological errors in the book, beginning with what “Jesus says about Eve’s sin.”
6.) “The work would have merited a condemnation . . . if nothing else, for reasons of irreverence.”
7.) The authoress claims revelation, and the Church decided it was not revelation.
What Catholics Read
There are hundreds of examples justifying the condemnation of this Poem, but three examples are sufficient to illustrate how Jesus and Mary talk, offered with the caveat that this is blasphemous material.
After the 18-line description of the scourging of Jesus before His crucifixion, Valtorta’s Jesus “says”:
“They would not believe that I was the Messiah, but did not want to kill me, in case I were . . . The world, after an incubation of perverted ideas, explodes now and again in such displays of perversion. Like a huge pregnant woman, the crowd, after nourishing its monster in its womb with doctrines of wild beasts, gives birth to it so it may devour” (vol. V, p. 569).
After the crucifixion, and Jesus is taken down from the cross. Mary says, “Leave Him in my lap. If I succeed in warming Him up, He will rise sooner.
A few lines later, she reveals, “As far as I, His Mother, am concerned, He is nothing but a big boy who is tired and sleeping . . . Prepare the way for His return. I am sending you. I, whom Maternity makes the Priestess of the Rite. Go. I said that I do not want it. Do not think that I will let you put it on Him. It will be easier for Him to rise if He is free from those funeral useless bandages” (vol. V, p. 634).
After Jesus “revealed” to Valtorta how He rose from the dead, He explained how the marks were made on the Shroud of Turin:
“My kidneys, almost crushed by the scourges, were no longer able to work. Like those of people burned by fire, they were unable to filter, and urea accumulated and spread in my blood, in my body, bringing about the sufferings of uraemic intoxification and the reagent that oozed out of my corpse and fixed the impression on the cloth . . . anyone suffering from uremia, will realize what suffering the uremic toxins cause me” (vol. V, p. 669).
In Valtorta’s fantasy, the Apostle Peter is continually rebuked by Jesus, and repeatedly warned not to judge people.
In one passage, Jesus exclaims to Peter, “You are an awful bore. You are worse than a boy.”
In other passages, Peter is rebuked, “Peter, Peter, you are a big old baby,” and is called “a snake.” With the other Apostles, he is compared to “pubescent girls.”
In one particularly violent passage. Jesus calls to Peter, “Come here, you usurper and corrupter,” and accuses him, saying, “You have corrupted my Mother.”
Final Notice
The current Apostolic Nuncio and his predecessor have received numerous requests from both laity and clergy on the prohibition on Poem of the Man-God, and in one recent response, Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan observed that “faithful Catholics would still heed the reservation and caution expressed” in the Index of Forbidden Books dated Jan. 5th, 1960.
Thanks Tom.
One of my in-laws was ‘exposed’ to this in its french edition. When he read MV’s account of the multiplication of loaves being not a miracle but the result of a fervent baker – he tossed it.
Enough said. It won’t be on my “to read” list.
Phew!
Thanks, Tom, as always!
Whatever got some sicko into mixing Catholic Tradition up with the ravings of Valtorta is entirely disturbing.
That *$^%^$&*^ book has been a major source of impediment and spiritual dementia for a very long time. And it is a REAL pleasure to join HH Benoit XVI in condemning the $&^# thing to the infernal regions!
Oh, and Tom – Go Yanks! ( Great to see ‘em finish it all off with a blowout against the Sox! )
Road apples, mon ami.
Although, I’ve been told, once someone becomes an addict they have to hit bottom before realizing they reach out for a helping hand.
We’ll keep the light on for ya! : – )
Seriously, McDee, please – as time and mood dictate – review the critiques. Fr. Pacwa’s is quite basic but entirely sound. It’s a good start on the road to recovery. And, to encourage you, I’ve met a few other kind, deeply well-intentioned souls just like you over the years who shared your sentiments, once.
They are successfully through their recovery now and back in possession of their Catholic senses. Valtorta is a work of madness. Else, why even ban it?
Oh, one more thing. I met and worked on some projects back in the 1990s with James Likoudis, a founder of CUF ( sadly, no longer what it began as ), and met his son, Paul who is a first rate, very hard working journalist.
Neither are Traditionalists but both are meticulous researchers and, even though not in sympathy with folks like us on the Trad side of the aisle, they do marshall their facts.
Paul’s arguments are entirely trustworthy.
GPMTrad-
Please explain to me why on earth Bishop Williamson, and a number of SSPX priests influenced by him, are in favor of Maria Valtorta? It just doesn’t make sense. My understanding is that ABL was not in favor of it, yet you have BW and a number of priests who insist it is good and OK.
What do you make of it?
I have no earthly idea, NeelyAnn.
“Trust not in princes…”, etc. is all I can advise. Oh, along with “De gustibus non disputandem.” ( “There’s no accoiunting for taste.” )
There is so much going on within the Church that even the best and brightest can be wronger than wrong at times. In a sense, that factoid has a long provenance. What matters and what will determine our own eternal desitny is perserverance in the virtues, especially charity.
I can only say and I hope with all due charity, that cuddly and inspiring as he well and truly is, His Lordship is: ( a ) English ( i.e., apt to be quick to charge uphill at strongly reinforced defenses, all daffy notional proclivities notwithstanding ), ( b) quite brilliant on philsophical and theological topics and, (c), a conspiracy groupie ( which I believe he has admitted ).
I might add his mathematical aptitude is unquestionable, as well. Having consulted my grade school arithmetic text, he’s absolutely right: 2 + 2 does = 4! Which is more than can be said for the sunny Nova Romanitas crowd, at least nowadays.
So there you have it, m’dear.
Richard the Lionhearted is, His Most Excellencied Self, as dear as dear may be to many of us. Whatever the man has, does or may yet say regarding Tradition, sound Catholic exegesis, the Doctors, the Fathers ( don’t bring up the “mothers”, however! ), the state of affairs in Menzingen and Sunny Nova Roma, Beethoven and shelves full of good Brit Lit, you may take it to the bank.
Oh, wait, I better qualify that one….. ( another time )
On metallurgical properties of architectural steel, historical revisionism, certain mad women posing as “visionaries” and certain Hollywood musicals, it’s another matter altogether, I suppose.
Personally, I think he’s a terrific gentleman and a devout, believing Bishop of the Catholic Church who’s more right than many, even most of his peers almost ALL the time ( within the limits indicated above ). On top of that, he’s a grand figure in an hour when all we see are politcal hacks and faceless, unrememberable bureaucratic “authorities” holding the reins of church and state in their perspiring, twitching hands; an enhancement of the “Williamson mystique”, no doubt but one deserved and psychologically necessary to souls looking about for SOME leader as the world and the Vatican continue spiraling out of control.
I can think of only two writers alive today who could do justice to a portrait of HIs Lordship, capturing the blend of pixilating irony he tosses off so well and the fear-of-God gutchecks he induces in his audiences, either Tom Wolfe of John LeCarre.
The man probably truly is worthy of his own novel. Louis de Wahl did one about St. Thomas Aquinas. Perhaps someday we will see some future Faulkner take up the challenge of writing “Lord Wimbledon, Shall the Army Advance Now, Your Grace?”
Put me down for a pre-pub autographed first edition!
Okey dokey, mon ami! If some good came out of it, terrific! But recall your metaphysics. Whatever benefit was derived was only accidental and not substantial.
Anyway, I just have a thing about people makin’ it up on the fly when it comes to the lives of Our Lord and Our Lady. Kinda territorial on my part. And, once upon a time, most guys who punched a clock in the Vatican were like that, too. I suspect a few may yet be so.
For the sake of presenting both sides, I just came across, and totally by accident, this article defending “The Poem of the Man-God”:
. The author is also, apparently, a priest of the SSPX. Obviously these points are not an infallible guarantee of the truth of the article, but at least it’s not coming out of nowhere.
www.drbo.org/valtorta.htm
As you will notice, it is on a traditional site which provides the Douay-Rheims Bible, and incidentally, it has a link to AngelQueen
Any thoughts?
Zip. Nada. Zilcho.
I’ve alway done a double take whenever any actually educated gentleman of the cloth endorses this crapola.
There actually has been some documentation that bipolar disorders are on the rise, however.
For me, when objective evidence, sifted and pondered at length by qualified professionals, constantly points to the same conclusion ( that Valtorta was a fraud, even if “unintentionally” – which is a stretch ) it just makes sense to abide by reason.
Obviously, even among certain educated clerics, that falls through the cracks.
Oh, and my guess is that the “link to AQ” is just window dressing. Even Pravda used to manage to publish a real fact, now and again, back in the day. And on that tiny point, many a fencesitter would fall prey to the commie’s agitprop: See, they really are “getting it”, aren’t they?
Again, Fr. Pacwa’s comments, basic as they are, are all that’s necessary to define why no one should fall for Valtorta’s blatant lies about Our Lord and Our Lady. And, yet, how many well-intentioned “conservative” Bogus Ordoite priests and bishops have been sucked up into the Medjugoogoo hurricane?
I believe you will recall the infallible Scriptures actually DO have something to say about the deception, were it possible, of the elect?
Voila!
De gustibus non disputandem.
Colloquially translated as “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.”
Will you at least agree to NOT like Russia’s “Catherine the Great”, another infamous madwoman?
If so, we can chalk it up as a negotiated cease-fire and call it a day. : – )
In 1947 Cardinal Bea went went behind Cardinal Ottaviani’s back to get Valtorta’s writings into the hands of Pope Pius XII. At that time Cardinal Ottaviani was the Head of the Holy Office and had every right to be informed about such writings. In any case, I would back the traditional Cardinal Ottaviani over the liberal Cardinal Bea any day.
In a letter to Fr. Migliorini, who regarded her writings favourably, Valtorta wrote as
follows:
‘I do believe that Father Berti is finding something “new and without human
reference”! I have no book that might be of help to me; I am absolutely ignorant of
any writing revealed or made by men on the subject. You know that I have said to
you: “Even if I had money or there was someone who gave me The Life of the
Virgin… by Father [Gabriele] Roschini, I would not read it. I want to know only from
God”. And thus do I say for any other writing of the kind. That the points [in The
Poem...] are beautiful, exact and new, is natural! After all, it is the Author of the
episodes Who narrates His own life, and there is no better and more exact biography than an Autobiography. Don’t you think?’
Those words demonstrate a disposition of heart that is hardly in keeping with holiness and humility. Quite off-putting, in fact. No, sorry, not true food and true drink.