I Need Help with Poem of the Man-God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Atanatar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Point 2
Code: 
                                               Most Reverend Eminence,
With a letter of 18 May [1984], Father …] asked of this Sacred Congregation a clarification about the writings of Maria Valtorta, collected under the title of “The Poem of the Man-God”, and if there exists any evaluation of the Church’s Magisterium on the publication in question with the corresponding bibliographical reference.
**
The Magisterium has never spoken on the matter**. The Holy Office’s authority is pastoral unless its decree (or other scriptum) specifically states that it is authorised by the Pope. IOW, the Holy Office’s decrees are to be respected because they are performing a pastoral function of the Pope. The Index has never been considered Magisterial.

The fact that it was placed on the list in the first place, weighs heavily for me and my interpretation of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter tells me we ought to be giving it serious weight. I would not so easily disregard even “pastoral” authority on an issue with so much controversy. This to me is like a parent saying, “stay away from this - it could harm you”. It’s far more virtuous to respect that pastoral authority, than to disregard it. If so many of todays scholars have written negatively about the text and there are opposing scholars who write positively about it, I am even more inclined to say - find a book which has full approval and leave the debates to them. In the meanwhile, take up a good book which has no such controversy.

Point 3

and defined by “L’Osservatore Romano” of 6 January 1960, as “A Badly Novelized Life of Jesus.”

The Osservatore has no authority to “define” anything. This is a sneaky attempt to make the Osservatore opinion sound authoritative.

While I agree that L’Osservatore Romano does not issue anything official such as decrees, Cardinal Ratzinger, the man this priest says is “no wimp” chose to refer us to the opinion stated in that periodical. If this priest can speculate that Ratzinger was only following some kind of protocol for any book on the index, then it is my right to speculate that Cardinal Ratzinger chose to simply refer us to a statement already thought out and explained in the L’Osservatore Romano. When he quotes that periodical as calling it a badly novelized life of Jesus, I take it that he wants us to see it that way too - from a pastoral perspective that is. I see what is in black and white as a hefty caution - one worth heeding in favor of approved books.

I’m amazed at how supporters of Valtorta’s work were quick to attack Fr. Mitch Pacwa earlier in the thread, the same opinion brought to us again in a link by Bear06. At the same time, supporters are quick to accept the words of another priest. Both are priests and I am fully aware of the educational credentials of Fr. Mitch Pacwa. I do not doubt the sincerity of the nameless priest quoted by Character_zero, but I respectfully retain my right to accept what Fr. Pacwa and many other theologians and scholars have written.
 
I only found this thread now. Of course there is a link between Valtorta and Medjugorje. The Gospa of Medjugorje in person recommends the reading of Valtorta. So fans of Medjugorje have no choice. They have to swallow Valtorta too. There is a parallel.And Valtorta has been condemned by Rome in 1949, 1959, 1960, 1985, 1993.What more do people want?
In this thread already many reasons are given not to believe in Valtorta. The answer of Ratzinger in 1993 was clear enough. Like his answer about Medjugorje on July 22 (not 28!)1998 was clear enough too(cited in this thread by Diane on December 1 3.47pm)
Later, fanatics of Medjugorje said that this letter was fake, so a friend of mine asked in a letter to Ratzingers office for confirmation of the authenticity of this letter. The answer came on February 5 2002 in german,signed by the secretary of Ratzinger, Dr. Josef Clemens :
" Im Auftrag von Herrn Kardinal Ratzinger teile ich Ihnen mit, das die übersandte Kopie eines Briefes Seiner Eminenz von 22 Juli 1998 dem Original entspricht." what means :
" Cardinal Ratzinger ordered me to tell you that the copy of his letter of July 22 1998 that you sent me, is an authentic copy of the original letter."
 
Truth and Love:
I only found this thread now. Of course there is a link between Valtorta and Medjugorje. The Gospa of Medjugorje in person recommends the reading of Valtorta. So fans of Medjugorje have no choice. They have to swallow Valtorta too. There is a parallel.
Click to expand...
No Catholic has to “swallow” any private revelation… any well informed Catholic knows this.
And Valtorta has been condemned by Rome in 1949, 1959, 1960, 1985, 1993.What more do people want?
Click to expand...
For the nth time, it has NEVER been condemned by the Church! The Holy Office has a pastoral role, not an infallible one; it is not the Magisterium.
 
40.png
Lux_et_veritas:
While I agree that L’Osservatore Romano does not issue anything official such as decrees, Cardinal Ratzinger, the man this priest says is “no wimp” chose to refer us to the opinion stated in that periodical. If this priest can speculate that Ratzinger was only following some kind of protocol for any book on the index, then it is my right to speculate that Cardinal Ratzinger chose to simply refer us to a statement already thought out and explained in the L’Osservatore Romano. When he quotes that periodical as calling it a badly novelized life of Jesus, I take it that he wants us to see it that way too - from a pastoral perspective that is. I see what is in black and white as a hefty caution - one worth heeding in favor of approved books.

I’m amazed at how supporters of Valtorta’s work were quick to attack Fr. Mitch Pacwa earlier in the thread, the same opinion brought to us again in a link by Bear06. At the same time, supporters are quick to accept the words of another priest. Both are priests and I am fully aware of the educational credentials of Fr. Mitch Pacwa. I do not doubt the sincerity of the nameless priest quoted by Character_zero, but I respectfully retain my right to accept what Fr. Pacwa and many other theologians and scholars have written.
Click to expand...
I understand your points here. And no one is trying to argue you into reading these. And it is completely in your right to take Fr. Pacwa’s opinions over my uncle’s. And you are also right that pastoral judgements should not be taken lightly.

But I would just like to reemphasize, that if 2 “camps” are set up here, the one being Ratzinger, Pacwa, Groeschel etc… there is another one with Pope Pius XII, Pope John Paul the Great, Padre Pio, and Mother Theresa. And on this non-binding private revelation which has never been condemned by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, I choose to follow the opinions of the latter group.

Lux et Veritas, I will take up your other issues with my uncle and post his reply when I get it.
 
Character Zero:
I understand your points here. And no one is trying to argue you into reading these. And it is completely in your right to take Fr. Pacwa’s opinions over my uncle’s. And you are also right that pastoral judgements should not be taken lightly.

But I would just like to reemphasize, that if 2 “camps” are set up here, the one being Ratzinger, Pacwa, Groeschel etc… there is another one with Pope Pius XII, Pope John Paul the Great, Padre Pio, and Mother Theresa. And on this non-binding private revelation which has never been condemned by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, I choose to follow the opinions of the latter group.

Lux et Veritas, I will take up your other issues with my uncle and post his reply when I get it.
Click to expand...
On the Mother Theresa and JP II, you would need to show me written documentation, not hearsay to prove they said anything. On controversial subjects, I do not trust the flow of words from person to person, and what was said in private meetings. If JPII had something to say positively on the Valtorta works, then I’d like to see the letter or other transmission.
 
Character Zero:
I understand your points here. And no one is trying to argue you into reading these. And it is completely in your right to take Fr. Pacwa’s opinions over my uncle’s. And you are also right that pastoral judgements should not be taken lightly.

But I would just like to reemphasize, that if 2 “camps” are set up here, the one being Ratzinger, Pacwa, Groeschel etc… there is another one with Pope Pius XII, Pope John Paul the Great, Padre Pio, and Mother Theresa. And on this non-binding private revelation which has never been condemned by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, I choose to follow the opinions of the latter group.

Lux et Veritas, I will take up your other issues with my uncle and post his reply when I get it.
Click to expand...
On the Mother Theresa and JP II, you would need to show me written documentation, not hearsay to prove they said anything. On controversial subjects, I do not trust the flow of words from person to person, and what was said in private meetings. If JPII had something to say positively on the Valtorta works, then I’d like to see the letter or other transmission.
 
Do you know what I wish? I wish I could sit down and talk with Pope Benedict and find out if he has read the Poem and if there would ever be a reevaluation of putting the book on the condemned list in the first place. I would just like to go right to the source on this one rather than listening to everyone rant and rave about having the “right” viewpoint. I personally have read 3 of the volumes before knowing there was any controversy. It has drawn me to become more catholic than I’ve every thought possible. My yearning for “truth” has grown immensely and so has my love of the catholic church. I, of course, want to do what’s right but I constantly think about scripture, ‘judge a tree by the fruit that it bears’ and I keep coming back to this work is not inherently evil. Is there a place to pose questions to theologians at the vatican??
 
lvande said:
Do you know what I wish? I wish I could sit down and talk with Pope Benedict and find out if he has read the Poem and if there would ever be a reevaluation of putting the book on the condemned list in the first place. I would just like to go right to the source on this one rather than listening to everyone rant and rave about having the “right” viewpoint. I personally have read 3 of the volumes before knowing there was any controversy. It has drawn me to become more catholic than I’ve every thought possible. My yearning for “truth” has grown immensely and so has my love of the catholic church. I, of course, want to do what’s right but I constantly think about scripture, ‘judge a tree by the fruit that it bears’ and I keep coming back to this work is not inherently evil. Is there a place to pose questions to theologians at the vatican??
Click to expand...
This has already been done and this is why it was put on the index in the first place all those years ago. Since your thought move to scripture don’t forget that the wolf will at times come in sheeps clothing.
 
So, are you telling me that in all of church history the church has never changed it’s mind?? I think not. And so far the wolf in sheep’s clothing, as you call it, has only led me to both relevant radio and this forum. Be careful on being to sure.
 
I have read these things before, but thank you for pointing them out to me again. It still seems to me that in all of the words written by Valtorta there is very little that people have found to dispute. For example, the part about Jesus using screwdrivers before screws were invented - could this not have been an error in translation or simply something that Valtorta thought was a screwdriver? I know, I should just let it go. It just keeps nagging me though. Does anyone have thoughts on “Through the eyes of Jesus”?? Can’t remember the author, it seems very much along the lines of Valtorta’s work. Thoughts??
 
Eliza10 said:
Just the title page of that link tells you something about that writer. Valtorta is Medjagorie’s gospel?

Commenting on the above quote you pulled from that offensive website as “proof”: Yes, taking this passage completely out of context can possibly get one to imagine all kinds of sexual images. But doing so is dishonest (I know you do this out of ignorance, having never read the book), since clearly, in context, it is not at all what is happening.

God is love. Jesus was loving. We also know that different cultures have different standards for touching. In our highly charged sexually-immorral culture, any form of touching is suspect. If you look at the touching in Jesus’ time and culture in the light of ours, one might misread into it. Unless you read the whole thing, (or just any of those passages in their entire context), you cannot see the obvious truth that it is not sexual.

So, yes, quotes pulled out of context can make it appear sexually exciting, and by repeating the most exciting quotes you can find from such a provocative website here, you can get some people to think you have found some real dirt!

The quote of from the excerpt on John’s “wedding of love” had to do with a prayer retreat he took, and his “wedding vow” of love to God - similar to the vows nuns take, and the ecstatic intimacy he experienced we can see also in the lives of Saints, like St. Theresa of Avila. It was too much for the others to understand at the time, and John, like the Saints, wanted to keep the expereince between him and God.

You should know that initimacy with God is not sexual intimacy! There are similarities, but it is different. The website author you quote tries to change the meaning of intimacy here, making it into something blasphemous. Why do people do that? They prefer to be accusors rather than beleivers it seems.

That website takes tons of qutoes out of context and piles them together one after another to make it appear as if Valtorta has presented something that she hasn’t.

I really take offense to that. It particularly bothers me as a former Evangelical who was taught all kinds of bad things about Catholic beliefs in the very same manner that the author of this website uses to denounce Valtorta.

I’m familiar with that routine. Perhaps you are not.

Here are a couple of examples of “scandelous” quotes from Valtorta’s books that that website author pulls, to make my point. I could discuss many but that webwriter is not worth the time:

Page 462 Valtorta’s John: “Yes, it is Master” who has taken his habitual posture with his arm round the Master’s neck and his head reclined on His shoulder.

We know from scripture that John, “the Disciple whom Jesus loved” liked to recline with his head resting on Jesus’ chest. Doesn’t the author of that webste know this? So why does he find this proof of homosexuality?

Page 490 Valtorta’s dream: The Zealot, on whose chest Jesus’ head is resting, bends to kiss His hair saying: “We love You so much!”

The author seems to find something tantilizing about kissing someones head or hair. God is love. Jesus was love. He was Lord, Master, Father to his Disciples. Why does the author find a problem with these fatherly, loving gestures?

I am thoroughtly disgusted with that website you quoted. I don’t see how you would want to associate with it any way. I am sorry, Dreadvandal, that you fell for the author’s slanderous suggestions and accusations, and that you yourself think you have discovered some blaspheme.

Don’t you want to be sure, before you call blaspheme something that reputable Catholic authorities say is of God?
Click to expand...
Thank you for offering the other viewpoiont - I have viewed so many websites offering nothing but hatred toward Valtorta’s work, in fact, so much hatred that I felt repulsed by it. Thank you for offering these insights.
 
lvande said:
I have read these things before, but thank you for pointing them out to me again. It still seems to me that in all of the words written by Valtorta there is very little that people have found to dispute. For example, the part about Jesus using screwdrivers before screws were invented - could this not have been an error in translation or simply something that Valtorta thought was a screwdriver? I know, I should just let it go. It just keeps nagging me though. Does anyone have thoughts on “Through the eyes of Jesus”?? Can’t remember the author, it seems very much along the lines of Valtorta’s work. Thoughts??
Click to expand...
As you may have read here in other posts the issue of error is not about accidental historical errors but rather theological and/or philosophical errors. Sometimes there are things in a work or in a group or in an anything that the Church condemns that we don’t see for one reason or another. However, we can trust that with such a consistent negative discernment of theologians that the judgments made are certain.
 
Hi,
Code: 
 I really enjoy reading Maria Valtorta’s writings, but could not understand how the Church could be so blind in discerning this wonderful gift from God.  After conducting many searches, I found a great site that meticulously explains how the Church fumbled this discernment, thoroughly supporting their documentation with excellent footnotes and powerful references:
advancedchristianity.com/Pages/Father%20Vernard%20Poslusney/011%20The%20Poem%20of%20the%20Man-God.htm
Code: 
 There are also recorded explanations by the late Father Vernard Poslusney, a famous Roman Catholic Priest who conducted conferences and seminars with Archbishop Fulton Sheen:
advancedchristianity.com/Pages/Father%20Vernard%20Poslusney/010%20Private%20Revelation.htm
Code: 
 After listening to just a few of these recordings, I think Father Vernard could enlighten even the most steadfast Valtorta critic.
Greg
 
I’ve read numerous stories of Apparitions and alleged apparitions and private revelations over the past number of years to last me a life time.

Those that conflict with Church teachings go in the bin, those that promote disobedience go in the bin, those I’m not sure about go on the back burner.

This one your referring too, goes in the bin, not worth considering.

Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima ect; are the only ones I give any of my time too.

Is it Catholic ? as you can see the Church disapproves it.
 
Regarding Apparitions.org, whoever put the little red “x” instead of a yellow star is ignoring a Papal Imprimatur that was witnessed by three highly credible Roman Catholic Priests and logged as such by a Cardinal at the Vatican. The Code of Canon Law: Book II, Part II, Section I, Chapter I, Article I, gives the Pope full and supreme power over all levels of the Church and free use to exercise this power. Canon law clearly requires that this Papal order be embraced with unconditional acceptance and submission.
Code: 
 Furthermore, the condemnation and the placing of Maria Valtorta’s writings on the index of forbidden books was done by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who is the originator of the Roman Catholic Church Pedophile scandal, as detailed by CBS News and disclosed in an August 6, 2003 article entitled, "Sex Crimes Cover Up by Vatican".

 The choice is simple: Pope or Pedophile.  For me, I choose the Pope.
Greg
 
In correspondence with Catholic Answers, the current Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan, pointed out that, although the Index was abolished in 1965, it still retains its moral force, and faithful Catholics should heed the reservations and cautions expressed in it. Source

Anyway my last word on this, regardless, it don’t do anything to enhance my faith, we aren’t obliged to believe in it, we don’t need it, we already have enough in the Church.

Came across this article, and it seems to pitch Cathrine Emmerich’s work against Maria Valtoria, not a good sign if it’s true.

Then again it’s from Unity, also this.
 
Since Maria Valtorta’s writings were put on the Index by Pedophile, deliberately subverting a Papal Imprimatur that was witnessed by three distinguished Priests and logged at the Vatican by Cardinal Edourd Gagnon, I think our dear Archbishop needs to get his priorities straight. How’s this for an axiom; no one protects a pedophile but another pedophile.
Code: 
 The following is a quote from AdvancedChristianity.com: “A few documents reference differences in accounts given by Maria Valtorta and some other prevalent visionaries who have revealed the life of Jesus, particularly that of Anne Catherine Emmerich.  Comparisons between the writings of these two visionaries do exhibit differences, as do the four Gospels, which also have slight variations.  When Maria's text is compared, it shows more precise illustration, and her details pose much more logical sense.  Maria Valtorta's writings are so accurate when compared to the shroud, that books have been written on this one subject alone, for example, “The Holy Shroud And the Visions of Maria Valtorta, by Monsignor Vincenenzo Cerri"
Greg
 
If the Church has a position on this book why can’t people show humility and obedience and accept the Church’s view. If they don’t show obedience because of a private revelation then it is certain such revelation is false.
 
But I am showing obedience to the Church’s view, the first view, the Papal Imprimatur given by Pope Pius XII, witnessed by three Priests and logged at the Vatican by a Cardinal.
Code: 
 I'm disregarding the subversion of this Papal Imprimatur by a wayward Cardinal who was offended at being circumnavigated in the process, putting these Holy writings on the index after Pope Pius XII past away.  The same Cardinal whose policy mandated that the Church Hierarchy, under the penalty of excommunication, protect pedophile priests that repeatedly molested young children.  Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani's policy imposed an order of absolute silence on the violated child victims, their aggrieved families and witnesses to the crime, also under penalty of excommunication. Furthermore, it served as a guide to insulate pedophile priests from civil authorities by moving them from parish to parish. Many investigating agencies concluded that this Cardinal Ottaviani policy was the single greatest cause of the recent child molestation scandal in the Roman Catholic Church.

 As I previously stated, the choice is simple: Pope or Pedophile. For me, I choose the Pope.
Greg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top