P
patrick456
Guest
Hey guys, i’m sorry if this is off-topic but i noticed that your discussion drifted away from Valtorta and kinda went to Medjugorje.
Again, sorry if i interrupt.
Again, sorry if i interrupt.
- Status
E
Eliza10
Guest
Kurt wrote:
Kurt G.:
Tominellay:
This is really funny!
Do they really have all that in Pleasanton, TX???
The rest of wht Tominellay was saying:
Tominellay:
Why not just comment on what he said?
And you think he has some other, “real”, reason he is withholding from us? Because the reasons he gave are not enough??
I see Kurt has already responded before I finished this but I will send this post anyway.
I have several responses to this thread that I started and saved in my computer notebook that I have not finished for posting here. I guess the discussion got going so fast. But my delays are also because I am so troubled with the disrepect here. It really robs my peace. I am sorry I ever participated in it. Yet I feel its been a real education. What has taken place here gives understanding to a lot of things I have wondered about in the Catholic community since I converted.
Kurt G.:
And Tominellay responded:
This is really funny!
Do they really have all that in Pleasanton, TX???
The rest of wht Tominellay was saying:
In spite of what Kurt said, Tominellay, you say Kurts motivation is he is “hooked” on an alleged appearance of Mary. Thats not what he said.
Why not just comment on what he said?
And you think he has some other, “real”, reason he is withholding from us? Because the reasons he gave are not enough??
I see Kurt has already responded before I finished this but I will send this post anyway.
I have several responses to this thread that I started and saved in my computer notebook that I have not finished for posting here. I guess the discussion got going so fast. But my delays are also because I am so troubled with the disrepect here. It really robs my peace. I am sorry I ever participated in it. Yet I feel its been a real education. What has taken place here gives understanding to a lot of things I have wondered about in the Catholic community since I converted.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Well, what *I *find strange is the tone of so many of the posts in these threads. I should clarify: the tone of an Valtorta detractors, who also seem to be Medjagorie detractors. I have not been to Medjagorie. But I have met those who have And I see that they come back on fire in their love for the Lord much as Kurt seems to be here. Its very inspiring. I judge the fruits i see although I know little about Medjagorie.
(patrick456 weighed in to note we are getting off-topic. It does seem so, but one can see earlier in the thread that the Valtorta detractors see a decided link with Medjagorie).
You have misunderstood me concerning Pio. I agreed with and respect what he posted. There was just a small point of clarification I had about something he said - I think it was that he might be unaware how he worded something would communicate. I hope Pio also did not misunderstand me.
Yes, I do see that Lux(Diane) is hellbent on getting me to convert to her point of view about Valtorta, and I imagine that is why she keeps reprinting and reprinting and reprinting the same tired letter over and over and over again. In case I missed it the first time, perhaps? Because of membership in the Broken Record School of Persuasion? Because has she has deemed me her project? Only God knows.
God is my teacher. God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And His Holy Mother Mary. And His Holy Mother the Church. They are my Shepherds. They have One voice. And I know my Shepherd’s voice. And it is not disrespectful, shrill, militant, or demeaning and insulting. It is not proud or forceful. It is a thoughtful voice that teaches, explains, listens, loves, and imparts wisdom. It is charity and kindness. When it speaks, it brings peace and understanding.
I see Valtorta detractors here that are speaking in a voice not at all like that. Some other voice. :nope:
E
Eliza10
Guest
Diane, you have responded to very little of what I have said, but instead you come back restating what you have already said. Yet I want to comment on this because I thought it would not be long before you found this piece of “dirt” on Valtorta, if you have not already posted it here:
Lux_et_veritas:
***I respect Fr. Groeschel and I have learned so much from his quiet loving wisdom. I love to listen and learn from him who is so wise. ****But I do not think he is infallible. ***
I want to ask, who said Valtorta had catotonic schizophrenia? Where did the admirable Fr. Groeshel get this information? Did he glean it from a complete source, or is he just repeating popular “knowdege” - or, popular misunderstanding?
I would need to know SOME fact about this before I could swallow this 3rd party diagnosis. Because this would be an expected diagnosis of a secular psychologist that would examine a mystic. As far as I knew, they have no explanation for religious ecstacy. And since they don’t acknowledge the hearing voices from heaven, as heaven doesn’t exist in psychology, “schizophrenia”, which is a *very *broad term in the field of psychiatry, would a useful way to coin the unexplainable mystical phenomena of actually hearing heavenly voices.
But I suppose I will be labeled here as rebellious for seeking further understanding of the few things, such as this, that have been said against Valtorta, and repeated and requoted many times over, completely devoid of any supporting information to the “facts”.
I just want to speak in defense of Maria Valtorta.
***I respect Fr. Groeschel and I have learned so much from his quiet loving wisdom. I love to listen and learn from him who is so wise. ****But I do not think he is infallible. ***
I want to ask, who said Valtorta had catotonic schizophrenia? Where did the admirable Fr. Groeshel get this information? Did he glean it from a complete source, or is he just repeating popular “knowdege” - or, popular misunderstanding?
I would need to know SOME fact about this before I could swallow this 3rd party diagnosis. Because this would be an expected diagnosis of a secular psychologist that would examine a mystic. As far as I knew, they have no explanation for religious ecstacy. And since they don’t acknowledge the hearing voices from heaven, as heaven doesn’t exist in psychology, “schizophrenia”, which is a *very *broad term in the field of psychiatry, would a useful way to coin the unexplainable mystical phenomena of actually hearing heavenly voices.
But I suppose I will be labeled here as rebellious for seeking further understanding of the few things, such as this, that have been said against Valtorta, and repeated and requoted many times over, completely devoid of any supporting information to the “facts”.
E
Eliza10
Guest
So you say.
Yes, I recall it now. Perhaps you have someplace to borrow a copy and revisit that passage.
I saw no such thing when I skimmed that passage. I was quite sure of that. But since you again assert that it said that, I decided to find the passage in the book and reread it.
Now I can tell you for certain, it does not say that.
Just as I was willing to admit that i may have read it wrong, I hope you are willing also to admit that what you read you may have misconstrued. Please don’t repeat that false statement any more without being quite sure the slander you speak is true.
I have confirmed it by reading the passage this morning. Eve does not have sex with the serpent. There is one sentence where that could be misconstrued, but if you read the preceeding and following sentences, and exam the whole paragraph, you will see it is not so.
I also want to respond to Diane, who has been lecturing here about Eve’s sin being the sin of disobedience, as if Valtorta’s book did not say that, and also as if the many renouned theologians who support Valtorta’s work must have somehow missed that major point when the endorsed the theology therein.
I want Diane to know that in the same brief chapter from which the Eve/serpent sentence has been misconstrued, it also explains:
"Disobedience was the beginning of the downfall: “Do not eat and do not touch of that tree” said God. And man and woman did not respect that prohibition, although as kings of creation they were allowed to touch and eat of everything except of that tree because God wanted them to be inferior only to angels."
E
Eliza10
Guest
I have read, to one degree or another, all of the works mentioned, including much of Hardon’s catechism, some encylicals, and at least some of each of the writers and Saints mentioned. And I have read through the Bible and have spent many years rereading passages and studying, memorizing it, reflecting on it, reading and listening to commentary on it, and above all, applying it to my life, even in the most difficult of circumstances.
I share this only because you have made it clear that your bias against supporters of Valtorta’s work includes judgement that they are underread and poorly catechized, in spite the fact that there are many church officials who support the work whose catechesis can’t be questioned.
I find it distasteful to talk about my “credentials” when I just wanted to participate in a civil discussion about a book that has had a very postive impact on my life, as it has had such positve impact on the lives of so many.
But this discussion has been anything but civil, because of the forceful uncharitable ways of some of the Valtorta detractors on this thread. Thats primarily your’s, and sometimes Mike’s.
The problem is the lack of charity and apparent disinterest in finding any points of agreement with Valtorta supporters. And worse is that you often insult me or readers of The Poem of the Man God in general.
So its distateful to me, and robs me of my peace.
I did not want to see misinformation repeated and repeated about this amazing book. Something continually repeated starts to ring true after awhile. I wanted to make things right by stating what I know to be true, and discussing my reasonable misgivings with some of the ridicullous things that have been said about Valtorta personally and her work. For the purpose of presenting balance to these existing injustices, I wanted to speak here.
But yours is a differnt purpose. I don’t want to misconstrue what that is. It seems to be an all out war to force me to change my mind and you won’t be at rest until you either do that or discount me as being rebellious, immature, unintelligent or - I don’t know, i haven’t kept track of all the personal innuendoos. Its been a very unpleasant discussion, I can tell you that.
A
allhers
Guest
I see that they are speaking the truth and telling it like it is.
S
son_of_pio
Guest
Okay I have spent soemtime catching up on these postings. What a topic of contention! To calm the nerves of the critics here I thought I might give you a brief desription of my daily journey of faith. I awaken 1 hr before I am due at work and spend 30 minutes of that time reading scripture. I use the wonderful The Word Among Us as my guide. During my luch break I read these boards for guidance and direction and links to other interesting sites. In the evening I read The poem of the Man God Vol.1. I have Vol 2 on order ( now all the detractors here can launch hellfire and brimstone in my direction) I follow that up by reading a passage from 1 of 2 books on my FAVORITE saint Padre Pio (The Secret of a Soul which is a collection of his letters to his spiritual director OR Praying in the Presence of our Lord with Padre Pio edited by Fr Groeschel.) In the past I have read The Rosary Chain of Hope by Fr Groeschel, I utilize the wonderful St Ignatius Bible Commentaries by Scott Hahn. I have a varied and theologically sound library including writings of the Saints and Early Church Fathers. In fact go to www.ccel.org to get VOLUMES of writings by the Early Church Fathers for free download.
So to calm everyones nerves I do not base my faith entirely on what The Poem reads HOWEVER it is a wonderul supplement. SO as it is evening here I will kindly ask to be freed to continue on my my path to hell as some may suggest as I go read Volume 1.
So to calm everyones nerves I do not base my faith entirely on what The Poem reads HOWEVER it is a wonderul supplement. SO as it is evening here I will kindly ask to be freed to continue on my my path to hell as some may suggest as I go read Volume 1.
E
Eliza10
Guest
son of pio:
I love Fr. Benedict Groeshel’s Rosary on the radio. I love Hahn’s books, tapes, programs. I love Padre Pio, and I love all the St. Theresa’s - Of Liseaux - I have received a rose from her as answer to prayer, and answered prayer of course, and Avila - she is so wise, and of Calcutta - she was instrumental in my conversion because I read of the Memorare in a little gift book on her I recieved as a Protestant from a Protestant friend - she probably got it at Border’s - and the page were she told about praying the Memorare and the reprint of that prayer just stuck in my mind and one night I finally prayed it and that was the beginning of the end of my Protestant life!
I am on Volume Four - the third year of ministry. I did not want to go back until I got thru them all, but finally Mike’s assertions about Eve and the serpent made me go back this morning to Volume One which I haven’t read since I was there. It was like seeing an old beloved friend! Or looking at your own old precious photo albums or letters from your past! I loved seeing the apostles again in the beginning when they were just getting to know Jesus - - and the quesitons they asked him then! They ask different questions now, and now there is a palor of fear on them, too, as Jesus keeps bringing up His misson being nearly accomplished in one way or another, and they are struck with fear because they dont’ want to think about that and don’t want to believe its going to be what it seems He says its going to be. They are wearing themsleves out denying it to themselves. I love looking back on volume one at the beginning of their formationn while I also love reading now of their continued formation.
Anyway thats a very respectable list you have!
Thank you Pio or generously sharing your credentials! i guess I am holding back, saying, I shouldn’t need to!Okay I have spent soemtime catching up on these postings. What a topic of contention! To calm the nerves of the critics here I thought I might give you a brief desription of my daily journey of faith. I awaken 1 hr before I am due at work and spend 30 minutes of that time reading scripture. I use the wonderful The Word Among Us as my guide. During my luch break I read these boards for guidance and direction and links to other interesting sites. In the evening I read The poem of the Man God Vol.1. I have Vol 2 on order ( now all the detractors here can launch hellfire and brimstone in my direction) I follow that up by reading a passage from 1 of 2 books on my FAVORITE saint Padre Pio (The Secret of a Soul which is a collection of his letters to his spiritual director OR Praying in the Presence of our Lord with Padre Pio edited by Fr Groeschel.) In the past I have read The Rosary Chain of Hope by Fr Groeschel, I utilize the wonderful St Ignatius Bible Commentaries by Scott Hahn. I have a varied and theologically sound library including writings of the Saints and Early Church Fathers. In fact go to www.ccel.org to get VOLUMES of writings by the Early Church Fathers for free download.
So to calm everyones nerves I do not base my faith entirely on what The Poem reads HOWEVER it is a wonderul supplement. SO as it is evening here I will kindly ask to be freed to continue on my my path to hell as some may suggest as I go read Volume 1.
I love Fr. Benedict Groeshel’s Rosary on the radio. I love Hahn’s books, tapes, programs. I love Padre Pio, and I love all the St. Theresa’s - Of Liseaux - I have received a rose from her as answer to prayer, and answered prayer of course, and Avila - she is so wise, and of Calcutta - she was instrumental in my conversion because I read of the Memorare in a little gift book on her I recieved as a Protestant from a Protestant friend - she probably got it at Border’s - and the page were she told about praying the Memorare and the reprint of that prayer just stuck in my mind and one night I finally prayed it and that was the beginning of the end of my Protestant life!
I am on Volume Four - the third year of ministry. I did not want to go back until I got thru them all, but finally Mike’s assertions about Eve and the serpent made me go back this morning to Volume One which I haven’t read since I was there. It was like seeing an old beloved friend! Or looking at your own old precious photo albums or letters from your past! I loved seeing the apostles again in the beginning when they were just getting to know Jesus - - and the quesitons they asked him then! They ask different questions now, and now there is a palor of fear on them, too, as Jesus keeps bringing up His misson being nearly accomplished in one way or another, and they are struck with fear because they dont’ want to think about that and don’t want to believe its going to be what it seems He says its going to be. They are wearing themsleves out denying it to themselves. I love looking back on volume one at the beginning of their formationn while I also love reading now of their continued formation.
Anyway thats a very respectable list you have!
T
trustmc
Guest
I would be happy if you could just type the paragraph in question in your next post. I don’t know how I could get a copy of the book myself at this point as I am quite certain that the book is not offered at my church’s library since they only carry authentic Catholic literature.
It’s obvious from your response above that you’ve read my previous post regarding Bishop’s letter pertaining to the failure of “offices of the Church” to retract incorrect statements. From this letter you somehow conlcuded the following:
Eliza 10:
I’d still like to know how you could conclude that “the offices of the Church” were direct references to the CDF and L’Osservatore Romano; and more importantly, how you could develop a line of reasoning that misconstrues “common failure” to mean established “tradition.” The word failure implies not living up to an established standard, so when the Bishop described the failure to retract erroneous statements, he obviously meant that retractions of this nature are part and parcel with established procedures. Your silence on this so far is quite telling.
Mike
T
trustmc
Guest
Eliza 10:
Eliza 10:
And finally, regarding then-Carl Ratzinger’s letter on the Church’s difinitive position on Valtorta you keep whining about:
Eliza 10:
Mike
And while you’re at it, since you seem to fancy yourself quite adept at divining the “voices” of others through the internet, you can explain to us lesser mortals how the same could not be said of your own comments on this post, to wit:
Eliza 10:
I woldn’t exactly call such comments “good fruit.”
And finally, regarding then-Carl Ratzinger’s letter on the Church’s difinitive position on Valtorta you keep whining about:
Eliza 10:
I’m currious at how your miraculous powers to divine the tone of others on this thread could have allowed you to characterize official Church pronouncements as “dirt.”
Mike
T
trustmc
Guest
Dear Eliza10,
Regarding:
Eliza10:
Well, Diane happens to be a former supporter of a similar controversy already mentioned on this thread with striking parallels: Medjugorje. I know this from reading her posts from just a few months ago on another thread dedicated to that subject, and this information is now available for public review.
I encourage pio and other Valtorta supporters to read Diane’s previous threads in their entirety before passing further judgement on her character. I also encourage you to conduct a search of all of her posts and browse through her more than 400 letters showing how orthodox and charitable she in fact is.
But I especially encourage you, Eliza, to read the ones I reference below and take note of all that she has in common with you in addition to just the obvious gender.
You can read her entire testimony here in her own words:
Lux_et_veritas:
Lux_et_veritas:
In Christ,
Mike
Regarding:
First, I apologize for being the cause of any lost sleep and robbed peace. Please allow me to explain our vitriole (mine and, presumably, Diane’s) against Valtorta. But before I do, let me remind you of what you previously mentioned on this thread. You said, as I recall, that what would convince you that Valtorta’s work isn’t what her supporters claim them to be – that is, of a benevolent and supernatural origin – is if you could read the testimony of a former supporter of Valtorta.
Well, Diane happens to be a former supporter of a similar controversy already mentioned on this thread with striking parallels: Medjugorje. I know this from reading her posts from just a few months ago on another thread dedicated to that subject, and this information is now available for public review.
I encourage pio and other Valtorta supporters to read Diane’s previous threads in their entirety before passing further judgement on her character. I also encourage you to conduct a search of all of her posts and browse through her more than 400 letters showing how orthodox and charitable she in fact is.
But I especially encourage you, Eliza, to read the ones I reference below and take note of all that she has in common with you in addition to just the obvious gender.
You can read her entire testimony here in her own words:
For more on her insights, read here where you will find some of the following thoughts:
On another thread on Catholic.org, you can see Diane’s previous arguements in favor of Medjugorje as she debates a gentleman with as much vitriole as you, Eliza, do here; and also with as many appeals to loopholes, emotionalism, character assisnations, and the like. The parallels between the two of you are amazing. I hope you take the next few days to examine her testimony regarding Medjugorje before you judge further her motives for warning you, pio and others about Valtorta. After all the accusations you make against her, I think you owe her that much.
In Christ,
Mike
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
I have answered all questions asked and have come to the conclusion that it is fruitless to spend any further time in this thread.
I will close with a few last comments and notes:
The Catholic Church’s Position
I have done my best to bring forth the position of the Catholic Church itself. Several here refuse to acknowledge whether they believe or do not believe that the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Bishop Boland and the letter of Bishop Boland to Mr. Tony Colafrancesco represent the Church’s position (as so stated in those letters). This is why they are repeated so often because it is not my position, but, “the position of the Church”. Supporters in this thread have been unable to answer the question why Mr. Colafrancesco, who is publishing the book, sent his letter to Cardinal Ratzinger in the first place, if Cardinal Ratzinger did not have authority. They continue to side-step the issue.
Some here think that we should find the points we agree on. I cannot agree with what a supporter says about the Valtorta work and not be in conflict with Holy Mother Church who has deemed this work to not be good for us. If one disagrees with Holy Mother Church, then they need to take it up with Her, not me. In addition to many others trying, Bishop Danylak has attempted to do this three years ago, and nothing has come of it. No response out of the Vatican says alot. They get priests and even bishops who disagree with their decisions who continue to press the given issue (as seen below).
I would urge anyone with regards to private revelations to be cautious about anyone claiming to have received private approvals from people within the Holy See. We see this with Medjugorje, Bayside, Valtorta, and many others which have not been approved. True support from the Holy See comes in writing. I’m inclined to suggest you run the other way when you begin to see these kinds of “support”.
The Link to Medjugorje
If it weren’t for Medjugorje, many of todays supporters of Valtorta’s works would not even know of the work. From the Michael Davies book on Medjugorje which the Bishop of Mostar, Ratzko Peric encouraged me personally via email, and encourages people in his speeches to read. Of course, many Medjugorje supporters are too wrapped up in slamming the local Bishop (always considered a “bad fruit” when discerning authenticity) to want to bother to read what he asks us to read (and found at his website). You can find on page 68 the connection between Poem of the Man-God and Medjugorje.
mdaviesonmedj.com/
Lastly, I wish to address Medjugorje one last time by providing links to posts I’ve made in other threads. One was initiated by me.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=59439&highlight=medjugorje
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=60177&highlight=medjugorje
Supporters will have us believe that at some point the Pope will approve this. History shows the Pope trusts those whose job it is to discern such apparitions, which falls to the local Ordinary. Bishop Zanic made that decision, which was later supported by Bishop Peric, and affirmed by the 34 member Bishops Conference of the former Yugoslavia. Out of 34 Bishops, one abstained, and one voted positively on Medjugorje. Medjugorje supporters continue to hinge their hope on one Bishop out of 34 that the Pope will somehow intervene. It simply will not happen any more than the pope will somehow change the church’s position on the Valtorta work in light of what has been said already.
To think that the 1 bishop out of 34 is worth even quoting or reason to have hope, is to have hope that the US Supreme Court will overturn a decision at some future date because one out of 7 justices wrote a dissenting opinion. There was a decision and an opinion. The opinion is not in the law, the decision is.
Supporters of Valtorta and Medjugorje just don’t get it.
End of my involvement in this thread
I will close with a few last comments and notes:
The Catholic Church’s Position
I have done my best to bring forth the position of the Catholic Church itself. Several here refuse to acknowledge whether they believe or do not believe that the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Bishop Boland and the letter of Bishop Boland to Mr. Tony Colafrancesco represent the Church’s position (as so stated in those letters). This is why they are repeated so often because it is not my position, but, “the position of the Church”. Supporters in this thread have been unable to answer the question why Mr. Colafrancesco, who is publishing the book, sent his letter to Cardinal Ratzinger in the first place, if Cardinal Ratzinger did not have authority. They continue to side-step the issue.
Some here think that we should find the points we agree on. I cannot agree with what a supporter says about the Valtorta work and not be in conflict with Holy Mother Church who has deemed this work to not be good for us. If one disagrees with Holy Mother Church, then they need to take it up with Her, not me. In addition to many others trying, Bishop Danylak has attempted to do this three years ago, and nothing has come of it. No response out of the Vatican says alot. They get priests and even bishops who disagree with their decisions who continue to press the given issue (as seen below).
I would urge anyone with regards to private revelations to be cautious about anyone claiming to have received private approvals from people within the Holy See. We see this with Medjugorje, Bayside, Valtorta, and many others which have not been approved. True support from the Holy See comes in writing. I’m inclined to suggest you run the other way when you begin to see these kinds of “support”.
The Link to Medjugorje
If it weren’t for Medjugorje, many of todays supporters of Valtorta’s works would not even know of the work. From the Michael Davies book on Medjugorje which the Bishop of Mostar, Ratzko Peric encouraged me personally via email, and encourages people in his speeches to read. Of course, many Medjugorje supporters are too wrapped up in slamming the local Bishop (always considered a “bad fruit” when discerning authenticity) to want to bother to read what he asks us to read (and found at his website). You can find on page 68 the connection between Poem of the Man-God and Medjugorje.
mdaviesonmedj.com/
Lastly, I wish to address Medjugorje one last time by providing links to posts I’ve made in other threads. One was initiated by me.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=59439&highlight=medjugorje
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=60177&highlight=medjugorje
Supporters will have us believe that at some point the Pope will approve this. History shows the Pope trusts those whose job it is to discern such apparitions, which falls to the local Ordinary. Bishop Zanic made that decision, which was later supported by Bishop Peric, and affirmed by the 34 member Bishops Conference of the former Yugoslavia. Out of 34 Bishops, one abstained, and one voted positively on Medjugorje. Medjugorje supporters continue to hinge their hope on one Bishop out of 34 that the Pope will somehow intervene. It simply will not happen any more than the pope will somehow change the church’s position on the Valtorta work in light of what has been said already.
To think that the 1 bishop out of 34 is worth even quoting or reason to have hope, is to have hope that the US Supreme Court will overturn a decision at some future date because one out of 7 justices wrote a dissenting opinion. There was a decision and an opinion. The opinion is not in the law, the decision is.
Supporters of Valtorta and Medjugorje just don’t get it.
End of my involvement in this thread
T
trustmc
Guest
son of pio:
With all the charity I can muster at 4 o’clock in the morning, I must encourage you and other Valtorta supporters to please respond in kind and read what I have to say now.
Your posts, along with Kirt G.'s, worry me, for they remind me of a very good friend of mine who is in the mission field, heading to the Phillipeans with the Protestant fundamentalist New Tribes ministry. This college buddy was largely responsible for nurturing my then-newfound faith in the Lord, and we have kept in touch for more than a decade through my eventual return to Rome from evangelicalism.
In one exchange we had a few years back, he exhorted me to leave the Catholic Church over the doctrine of justification by faith and works. For him, belief in and adherence to his doctrine of faith alone was, according to his personal testimony, pivitol in setting him free from bondage to pornography and other sexual sin. This “fruit” in his life was proof enough that his doctrine must be true.
Like you, his believe in error was based solely on the fruit he though it bore. To make matters worse, this same belief was what motivated him to uproot his family and dedicate his life to spreading that error in the name of Jesus to many others. He sincerely believes that he is being fruitful and is only following the Lord’s will. To his credit, he truly loves the Lord as I am sure you do too. He, like you, has a well-developed devotional life to the scriptures, and reads scholastic volumes to build up his faith. He is a devotee of God’s grace, prays multiple times a day, and has a great love for all of God’s family. But none of this can excuse him for believing in error. I’m sure that you would agree that my buddy has placed his faith in Christ in jepardy by holding on to an erroneous belief.
I quoted a couple of verses from Matthiew on an earlier post that is worth repeating in context this time for a better understanding:
As pleased as I am for his deliverance and good fruit in my buddy’s life, you and I know that he has attributed his good fruit to a bad tree. In the same way, I must exhort you to consider that you have done the same with Valtorta’s work. I have no recourse but to applaud you for your devotional life. But as with my buddy, your fruits come from a differnt tree – the good tree of God’s grace, not Valtorta, or Medjugorje for that matter. I could say the same for Kirt’s fruit, Diane’s fruit, Eliza’s fruit, and my own fruit.
But mixed in with your own good fruit is what appears to me to be bad fruit. And I say this as a Christian brother with the Lord-given right to correct a brother I see in need of correcting. Valtorta, like Medjugorje, has sown seeds of contempt for proper Church authority among their respective supporters. You may say this contempt is very select, or not even call it contempt, but it’s contempt for authority nonetheless. I have no contempt for you or Eliza, just concern as demonstrated by my vehement opposition to your dangerous persuit of Valtorta.
Please drop the Poem. Stick with the bible and your other supplemental readings. I don’t deny your good fruit. Like with my buddy whom I love dearly as a brother, I just deny the source to which you attribute them. Now I must get ready for Mass.
In Christ,
Mike
Dear pio,
With all the charity I can muster at 4 o’clock in the morning, I must encourage you and other Valtorta supporters to please respond in kind and read what I have to say now.
Your posts, along with Kirt G.'s, worry me, for they remind me of a very good friend of mine who is in the mission field, heading to the Phillipeans with the Protestant fundamentalist New Tribes ministry. This college buddy was largely responsible for nurturing my then-newfound faith in the Lord, and we have kept in touch for more than a decade through my eventual return to Rome from evangelicalism.
In one exchange we had a few years back, he exhorted me to leave the Catholic Church over the doctrine of justification by faith and works. For him, belief in and adherence to his doctrine of faith alone was, according to his personal testimony, pivitol in setting him free from bondage to pornography and other sexual sin. This “fruit” in his life was proof enough that his doctrine must be true.
Like you, his believe in error was based solely on the fruit he though it bore. To make matters worse, this same belief was what motivated him to uproot his family and dedicate his life to spreading that error in the name of Jesus to many others. He sincerely believes that he is being fruitful and is only following the Lord’s will. To his credit, he truly loves the Lord as I am sure you do too. He, like you, has a well-developed devotional life to the scriptures, and reads scholastic volumes to build up his faith. He is a devotee of God’s grace, prays multiple times a day, and has a great love for all of God’s family. But none of this can excuse him for believing in error. I’m sure that you would agree that my buddy has placed his faith in Christ in jepardy by holding on to an erroneous belief.
I quoted a couple of verses from Matthiew on an earlier post that is worth repeating in context this time for a better understanding:
My very bible-literate college buddy pointed to these very same verses during our correspondence and said: “See how I’ve overcome my sins because of justication by faith alone? These are good fruits that can only come from a good tree. So my doctrines are true and yours aren’t.” As a former evangelical, I’m sure even Eliza 10 could testify how logical this line of reasoning was for her, as a good Christian no doubt, to base her belief in error based on the fruit borne from grace, but attributed to false doctrines. We are all prone to ascribing good fruit to bad trees out of deception.
As pleased as I am for his deliverance and good fruit in my buddy’s life, you and I know that he has attributed his good fruit to a bad tree. In the same way, I must exhort you to consider that you have done the same with Valtorta’s work. I have no recourse but to applaud you for your devotional life. But as with my buddy, your fruits come from a differnt tree – the good tree of God’s grace, not Valtorta, or Medjugorje for that matter. I could say the same for Kirt’s fruit, Diane’s fruit, Eliza’s fruit, and my own fruit.
But mixed in with your own good fruit is what appears to me to be bad fruit. And I say this as a Christian brother with the Lord-given right to correct a brother I see in need of correcting. Valtorta, like Medjugorje, has sown seeds of contempt for proper Church authority among their respective supporters. You may say this contempt is very select, or not even call it contempt, but it’s contempt for authority nonetheless. I have no contempt for you or Eliza, just concern as demonstrated by my vehement opposition to your dangerous persuit of Valtorta.
Please drop the Poem. Stick with the bible and your other supplemental readings. I don’t deny your good fruit. Like with my buddy whom I love dearly as a brother, I just deny the source to which you attribute them. Now I must get ready for Mass.
In Christ,
Mike
E
Eliza10
Guest
Believe me, it was only weariness with this war of words. Sorry I left you hanging with these questions. What you say he meant, “that retractions of this nature are part and parcel with established procedures.” is good enough for me - and certainly the accurate words. My use of the word “tradition” was wrong - because when we Catholics use that word tradition in relation to Church teachigs we mean something more solid and grave than the way I meant it. I was using in a casual way, as in, “people traditionally call in sick the day before a vacation”. Not really the proper use of the word tradition.
What the Bishop confirmed for me was what I suspected all along - that it was quite possible the office could make statements in error and they do not neccesarily go back and retract the errors. So it would not be unusual to not issue a retraction after a statement they made had been shown to be wrong.
For anyone who has read The Poem of the Man-God, calling it a “badly novelized fiction” is a gross mischaracterization. Saying, “we think this is fiction, although a most brilliant one” is going to have some impact on those who have read it. It truly is amazing. The characters are so well-developed. It is deeply thought provoking.
I know there was something wrong with that statement, and I would need some more discussion of the reasons why this is a truth, just as the Church always provides when she declares a truth. Traditionally, Our Holy Mother Church does not just tell a truth - she teaches it.
I also believe the reports of Pope John Paul II and MOther Theresa and Padre Pio being Valtorta supporters. It rings very true for me. I cannot discount it, although a fuller verification obviously is needed. Anotherwords, I would disbelieve it with some really solid proof that they thought otherwise.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Any public library could order it for you to borrow. I think pulling out the one short paragaph that has the sentence in it that can be misconstrued and prinitng it here divorced of the text surrounding it for Valtorta detractors to pick apart andlikely further misconstrue. I can see it opening up another whole can of worms! If you want to get the book and we are both looking at the same page, then, I guess, sure. I am not a theologian. It would become quite a discussion with the people who are more theological, as well as the people who are looking for quick “proof” of its being a fake. Something akin to walking alone into an assembly of Baptists and inviting a discussion about the Church’s teachings on indulgences. It would be really awesome if you loved to argue! I skimmed over it the firsttime thinking I was not that ready for a deep reading. I read it yesterday morning and it meaning became more clear. There were enough comments in the rest of the surrounding text about it being “metaphorical” fruit to explain it for me. ut as far as writing it out here I can see myself typing and typing to show the rest of the context, as no one else critiquing it has the book and its all on my to type it out so they can see the rest of the context. Getting into that is more than a bit overwhelming to me. But I’d have to, since I was the one who wrote the quote! And for what? The original poster here just wanted to know about the book. Now she has plenty on both sides, and can surely make a decsion now. At least confirm where she was already leaning, if she was.
I see there are more posts here and I will get back to them. I have been tending to this thread quite faithfully and need to restore some balance by getting faithful with some more mundane things.
T
trustmc
Guest
The more important point you missed is that when Bishop Danylak spoke of “offices of the church” he in the very next sentence specified that those “offices” consisted of bishops and pastors, not agencies such as the CDF and *L’Osservatore Romano. *In other words, the failure to retract erroneous statements falls on errant bishops and priests, which means you will likely not find any retractions from former Valtorta supporters from among the clergy. They are the ones who traditionally remain silent upon discovering that they are wrong.
Please don’t repeat that the CDF, or L’Osservatore Romano for that matter, does not retract erroneous statements as a matter of common practice. They do and they have as in the case with Padre Pio. In fact, it is in the CDF’s best interest to retract errroneous statements so that it may maintain its credibility, allowing the faithful to expect future retractions when it is wrong. That it hasn’t realeased a retraction of its prior conclussions pertaining to Valtorta’s credibility since its most recent statement in 1993 by then-Carl Ratzinger says a whole lot.
Mike
T
trustmc
Guest
I’ll have to take your word then that the serpent does not have sex with Eve, but that instead – as you mentioned on a previous post – that she allowed the serpent only to “caress” her naked body. However, even with a toned down interpretation of this event, the point is that the scenario depicts Eve’s temptation as being predicated on the pre-existence of lust. As Diane and I have pointed out before, lust did not exist before the fall.
Lust was not the cause of Original Sin, but the result of it. Such a scenario, given its vulgar imagery coupled by theological error against Church teaching, would have more likely originated from within Satan’s mind and his darkest fantasies rather than from within a mentally ill nun like Valtorta. I point to it as evidence to discredit the Poem, not for its shock value, but because this should be an easy to understand example of erroneous Church teaching.
In Christ,
Mike
T
trustmc
Guest
Yes, please read them before you post your next rebuttals (I finally spelled it correctly), as they pertain to Diane’s credibility and the character assisination she has suffered on this thread, which I suspect played a major part in her decision to leave this discussion.
Diane knows her stuff as a former Franciscan religious candidate for a number of years before she was forced to leave the convent due to illness prior to taking her final vows. And her testimony as a former Medjugorje supporter once mired in disobedience to the local bishop there has given her the wisdom to recognize the same pattern in Valtorta’s supporters.
In Christ,
Mike
K
Kurt_G
Guest
Hello, Mike. Your level of forum participation looks similar to mine, we’ve both been members for a while, and our postings are few, but come in batches… probably work related, no doubt. I’ll try to make this short…
- I really do appreciate your concern for both me and son of pio. I am sure that concern is from your heart. But rest assured, I plan and pray to stay “as Catholic as the Pope!”
- If Diane (Lux) had hardness in her heart toward Bishops Zanic and Peric, then to make amends and repent of the hardness was the proper thing to do. During her early history there, Bishop Zanic did still have all authority over St. James parish.
- I hope Diane is not implying that the many, many Catholic faithful who go to Medj. are being disobedient to the Church. She, and you, would be in error to suggest that. Here is why…
Zanic, as the Archbishop of Mostar, was even instructed by the CDF not to offer any more public comments on the Medjugorje events. Both Zanic, and now Peric, have violated that order on numerous occasions since 1986.
In Peric’s and Zanic’s defense, I have heard that there may have been no precedence in Church history for the Vatican or similar office taking authority (over a parish issue) away from the local Bishop. But the very fact that Ratzinger and the CDF assumed to “take Medjugorje away” from the local bishop speaks a lot about what “The Church” really feels about Medjugorje.
The bishops’ list of Medjugorje supporters would be long (200 by name through year 2000, more incognito). Just as a local example, Archbishop Frane Franic, of Split diocese (right next door), had made 61 pilgrimages to Medjugorje beginning Christmas 1981. As recently as June 27, 1997 this Archbishop published a letter entitled “The Bishops did not say ‘no’ to Medjugorje!”. His aim is not to be disobedient to his Church, but to stand firm when he sees his fellow Bishop claiming a “negative” decision, rather than properly claiming “no decision”.
So, Mike, and Diane (if you’re still there), if we are being disobedient to anyone for our trips to Medjugorje, we do not see it or feel it that way. Yes, it is a divisive issue at the moment, but it is also an ongoing event, surpassing in length anything which we have previously experienced, whether it’s authentic or not.
We must all seek our path to holiness, and that path must not be contradictory to Holy Mother Church. If you currently believe private pilgrimages to Medjugorje are contradictory to Holy Mother Church, I believe you are mistaken. I don’t know how else to say it, except God Bless Us All!
- Status