I Need Help with Poem of the Man-God

[Love4Mary2]

Hi Adrift, whatever the reason is for the change, I am told by the webmaster of the ordering site that they will be going back to the original title that Maria Valtorta used soon: “The Gospel As It Was Revealed To Me”. That should null your first objection as outlined in posting #404.

“It is impossible to give an imprimatur in a private audience, not even if we were told that it was given by Pope Saint Pius X! A nihil obstat is required by any bishop, since he has not read the book, to assure us readers that nothing, in the book, is contrary to our Holy Faith.”

A nihil obstat was given by Bishop Roman Danylak. Anyhow, where in Cannon Law does it say that a Pope cannot give an imprimatur?

“What the Church did was to insist that this theory was still unproven in Galileo’s time”

They did slightly more than that, they burned his written observations and tried to burn him at the stake. He only survived by withdrawing his ideas regarding the earth being round and orbiting the sun. He was brutally compelled to sign retractions stating that the world was actually flat and located at the center of the universe.

Let’s take a look at one of many such cases, Blessed Gabriel Allegra, the ONLY Scripture scholar beatified by John Paul II. He was a tenacious outspoken supporter of Maria Valtorta’s writings. According to Pope John Paul II he is a Saint. It seems that according to you he was disobedient and in violation to the Church. How could you possibly expect anyone to consider your opinion over Pope John Paul?

 

[adrift]

A nihil obstat was given by Bishop Roman Danylak. Anyhow, where in Cannon Law does it say that a Pope cannot give an imprimatur?

He can’t give one orally it has to be written.

Let’s take a look at one of many such cases, Blessed Gabriel Allegra, the ONLY Scripture scholar beatified by John Paul II. He was a tenacious outspoken supporter of Maria Valtorta’s writings. According to Pope John Paul II he is a Saint. It seems that according to you he was disobedient and in violation to the Church. How could you possibly expect anyone to consider your opinion over Pope John Paul?

Going from Blessed to Saint? He isn’t either he has only been venerable. All “venerable” means is that there is an open causes for canonization. Nothing more than that, no miracles are needed for this.
Even if he were declared a saint, it would not mean that he was infallible. So you can list as many as you wish who support this the only one that matters is those who have jurisdictions. Even an imprimatur does not prove infallibility.
The Church has ruled that it is fiction. They have asked the publisher to so state that it is fiction when it prints it.

Galileo was never tortured that comes from anti-catholic bias. He was under house arrest until his death but it was his own house.

 

[Love4Mary2]

I noticed that you were silent on the nihil obstat that was given by Bishop Roman Danylak. Im looking, but I can’t find anything in Canon Law that says a Pope cannot give a verbal imprimatur. I contacted a few sources, who tell me that a verbal imprimatur by a reigning Pope is quite valid.

The original Papal Order by Pope Pius XII is a formidable Church approval. He analyzed Maria Valtorta’s writings for one year and pronounced his Papal order at an official meeting with the three Priests before the Vatican Recording Cardinal. This took place before it was condemned by Cardinal Ottaviani.

A Cardinal who did it out of meanness to chastise the three Priests for going over his head.

A Cardinal who ordered the excommunication of child victims of pedophile priests if they didn’t remain silent.

A Cardinal who was known for going off on tirades at the pulpit, one in which all the Priests listening to him turned their chairs around facing away from him. (Posting 307).

A Cardinal in which when they cut off his microphone and the whole congregation applauded. (Posting 307)

Its not hard to validate this stuff with a few web searches. I have difficulty considering Cardinal Ottaviani infallible in the area of faith and morals. I think a lot of people rightfully do. You can now see why the posting # 398 by Liz101 makes so much sense:

“Sometimes I feel like placing our faith and morals in the hands of the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani may be like placing our faith and morals in the hands of John Carr, Pee Wee Herman or Michael Jackson.”

I feel much more confident with placing faith and morals in the hands of those who were able to recognize the finger of God in Maria Valtorta’s writings, such as: Padre Pio, Mother Theresa, Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, Blessed Gabriel Allegra, OFM., Father Gabriel Roschini, OSM, etc

Furthermore, consider Padre Pio who was ordered not to say Mass for about 15yrs and obeyed. But he drew the line with Valtorta’s writings in which he found it impossible to shun.

 

[adrift]

he original Papal Order by Pope Pius XII is a formidable Church approval. He analyzed Maria Valtorta’s writings for one year and pronounced his Papal order at an official meeting with the three Priests before the Vatican Recording Cardinal. This took place before it was condemned by Cardinal Ottaviani.

This is not true. As they say the story grows with the telling.

What you are leaving out is

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
However, when Fr. Berti tried to have the Vatican Press publish the work, it was rejected by two commissioners of the Holy Office who had studied the works.
Pope Pius XII did nothing to stop this rejection, which was followed later by a condemnation, when Fr. Berti went to a lay publisher to publish the works (even though he had signed an agreement not to publish the works).

If the Pope had supported this writing, it would make no sense that he did not stop the rejection or the condemnation. You keep harping on Cardinal Ottaviani(i think uncharitably so). But it wasn’t him who first condemned the work.

I noticed that you were silent on the nihil obstat that was given by Bishop Roman Danylak.

I wasn’t silent. I guess you missed it

Even an imprimatur does not prove infallibility.

An imprimatur does not mean that it is not fiction nor does anything else you provide. The Church has ruled it is fiction. I have seen imprimaturs removed. This Bishop doesn’t impress me as being prudent.
Many things are claimed. Web sites can and do claim that which is not true. Just take a look at what is said about the Catholic Church. I have seen Father Pio used to support other things. As I have said, it doesn’t matter because he was not infallible. There are saints who said thing that were wrong. Thomas Aquinas believed the soul didn’t enter the body until a boy was seven days old a girl 14. Saints can and were wrong. You cannot booster your argument by appealing to people who have no authority. The Church has ruled. You don’t like that ruling. There is nothing more to say.

 

[Love4Mary2]

You already know the answer to that from previous postings. Msgr. Giovanni Pepe and Father Berruti, O.P did not condemn the Poem. They only read Cardinal Ottaviani’s verdict to the Priests who were forbidden to speak so they could not tell of the Papal Order. Quite typical of Cardinal Ottaviani. Pope Pius XII knew nothing about this and the Priests were blocked from gaining another audience. I like the Church ruling, but the first one by Pope Pius XII, not the spiteful reversal by Cardinal Ottaviani. This Cardinal doesn’t impress me as being prudent.

“The advice given to Father Berti by Monsignor Carinci and Reverend Bea to bypass the levels of Church hierarchy and go straight to the Pope came at a great cost. Apparently this circumnavigated Papal Imprimatur snubbed those heading the Holy Office, who considered it their responsibility to discern the nature of this private revelation, and evidently considered it an evasion of the authority of the Magisterium. As any person in a bureaucracy is well aware, going over a supervisor’s head to the CEO can often have dire consequences. One year later, in 1949, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani who then headed the Holy Office, summoned Father Corrado Berti and Father Andrew Cecchin to the Holy Office. Furthermore, during this meeting both Priests were forbidden to speak or communicate in any way. Monsignor Pepe and Father Berruti, officials of the Holy Office were entrusted with informing both Priests of the new judgment that reversed and undermined the Papal Imprimatur. This reversal commanded Father Berti to deliver to the Holy Office all of Maria Valtorta’s manuscripts and typescripts to be destroyed or kept shut away forever. Although Father Berti brought all the typescripts in his possession; he could not deliver all the copies, because some were in the possession of other people who declined to be deprived of them. The Holy Office, headed by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, forbade the publication of these writings and threatened to place them on the Index of forbidden books in the event of a publication. The order of silence cleverly restricted Father Berti from informing Monsignor Pepe and Father Berruti of the Papal Imprimatur given by Pope Pius XII.”

 

[adrift]

Where is your proof?

Where is the papal order.

You ignored

The song changes into a prayer:‘Mary’ asks God to send Christ into the world; she offers herself; she repeats ‘Send the Redeemer to your maidservant…Come, come, O Spirit of the Lord…Come, Prince of Peace!’ F.J.L. summary.]
In summary: Valtorta has her “Mary” singing, in Hebrew (which Valtorta does not understand) a word which did not exist until later Christians mistakenly and erroneously used for the name of God - but, in Jesus and Mary’s time, for Jews to utter it was a capital offense!!!
Then, for the convenience of Valtorta’, “Mary” switches to a language that Valtorta can understand - very probably, to Italian!

 

[Like]

Love4Mary2, Please read the website below. I posted this yesterday in another forum.

PLEASE READ! A very respectable Site!
catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=1605

 

[adrift]

Love4Mary2, Please read the website below. I posted this yesterday in another forum.

PLEASE READ! A very respectable Site!
catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=1605

I think it is very charitable for you to try. I am afraid it will fall on death ears. No matter what is brought fourth they want to substitute their judgment for that of the Church’s. The Church has ruled that no supernatural event has occurred. They don’t want to accept that. So they malign those who say that the book is fiction and make claims that cannot be backed up. This is the fruit of this book.

 

[thistle]

Not very smart. Pope Benedict XVI never studied and made his own Condemnation. He only upheld Cardinal Ottaviani’s condemnation. He may have been reluctant because he served directly under Cardinal Ottaviani. He was personally groomed by him, and eventually became Cardinal Ottaviani’s successor.

Don’t be ridiculous. You do not uphold a condemnation if you have not studied the subject and then agree with the condemnation.
These are very derogatory remarks you are making about the Pope. You should apologise immediately.

OFFENSES AGAINST TRUTH

CCC 2475 Christ’s disciples have “put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” By “putting away falsehood,” they are to “put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander.”

CCC 2476 False witness and perjury. When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity. In court it becomes false witness. When it is under oath, it is perjury. Acts such as these contribute to condemnation of the innocent, exoneration of the guilty, or the increased punishment of the accused. They gravely compromise the exercise of justice and the fairness of judicial decisions.

CCC 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

CCC 2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

 

[Eliza10]

Pretty stupid comment on Judas!!
.

Why??

Thats a pretty hasty jdgement you made about what I said. Its a strong, negative opinion – just like your judgement on these books. Just like your judgement on the people who read the books.

Just think about that comment a bit, and you will see it is not so “stupid”, as you say.

Just because someone at Medjugorie reccommends the books, doesn’t mean that’s proof they are bad (since the writer thinks Medjugorie is bad). Its not logical. What if those at Medjagorie also reccommend reading the Bible? Or praying the rosary? Does that make those things bad?

 

[Eliza10]

Hi Eliza10, did you catch the Mary Angela Nangini program last night? If not, a recording of it will usually be on AdvancedChristianity.com in a few days.

advancedchristianity.com/Pages/Mary%20Angela%20Nangini/Mary_Angela_Nangini.htm

No, I bookmarked that site and I am going to look at it another time. I was sick, my son was sick, and I am trying to stay on top of things. I have not been writing here but have been thinking about this argument and will write something before I go offline for Lent.

 

[Eliza10]

I go along with Pope Benedict XVI who condemned the writings when he was Cardinal Ratzinger and who has not retracted his condemnation.

I, too, side with Cardinal Radzinger, now our Pope - because of his support of Poem of the Man-God. I agree with the explanation offered that the earlier Radzinger comment was made when he was under the authority of that highly questionable Cardinal. I have not seen proof anywhere that Cardinal Radzinger read the books at the time of the published comment.

Bishop Danylak wrote that Cardinal Radzinger supported the writings in 1993, and I have no reason to think he would lie. He wrote:

• "The repetition of the notions of the earlier censors and maligners of Maria Valtorta reveals that whoever continues to invoke this index is not aware of the response of Cardinal Ratzinger to the bishop of Birmingham, Alabama in 1993**; **and of the statements of the Conference of Italian Bishops over the past several years. These acknowledge that there is nothing against faith or morals in the Poem of the Man God and the other writings of Maria Valtorta. " *

 

[Like]

I think it is very charitable for you to try. I am afraid it will fall on death ears. No matter what is brought fourth they want to substitute their judgment for that of the Church’s. The Church has ruled that no supernatural event has occurred. They don’t want to accept that. So they malign those who say that the book is fiction and make claims that cannot be backed up. This is the fruit of this book.

I believe you are right about that!

 

[Love4Mary2]

We are going in circles again, you already know from Posting #361, that Father Corrado Berti’s sworn signed testimony is posted on the internet. Father Migliorini’s, Father Cecchin’s and Cardinal Edourd Gagnon’s original handwritten signed testimony is in Isola del Liri Italy, and have not been translated from Italian or posted on the web. These documents are also available for viewing at The Basilica of the Annunciation in Florence Italy, where Maria Valtorta’s mortal remains are buried under the altar. Cardinal Edourd Gagnon, who was the Official Vatican Recorder sitting in on the meeting, wrote in his sworn signed testimony that Pope Pius XII’s action was an official Papal imprimatur granted before three reliable Priest-witnesses. And you have not produce anything in Canon Law that says a verbal imprimatur by a sitting Pope is invalid.

I ignored the quote because there is no reason to explain, all other visionaries that you would consider Church approved heard them in their own language. I see nothing odd about God translating. It would be absurd to continue in a language she did not understand.

Hi Like, thank you for your posting. Please look over my previous postings on pages 6 through 9, I think each of these points is discussed thoroughly.

Hi Eliza10, I hope your son feels better, my youngest, who will be 2 next month came down with strep. Mary Angela Nangini will be on again Monday at 6:00pm, unless it is cancelled for President’s Day.

 

[adrift]

I ignored the quote because there is no reason to explain, all other visionaries that you would consider Church approved heard them in their own language. I see nothing odd about God translating. It would be absurd to continue in a language she did not understand.

Oh my goodness that was not the point. The point was Valtorta has her “Mary” singing, in Hebrew a word(Jehova) which did not exist until later Christians mistakenly and erroneously used for the name of God - but, in Jesus and Mary’s time, for Jews to utter the name of God was a capital offense!

 

[adrift]

I, too, side with Cardinal Radzinger, now our Pope - because of his support of Poem of the Man-God. I agree with the explanation offered that the earlier Radzinger comment was made when he was under the authority of that highly questionable Cardinal. I have not seen proof anywhere that Cardinal Radzinger read the books at the time of the published comment.

Bishop Danylak wrote that Cardinal Radzinger supported the writings in 1993, and I have no reason to think he would lie. He wrote:

• "The repetition of the notions of the earlier censors and maligners of Maria Valtorta reveals that whoever continues to invoke this index is not aware of the response of Cardinal Ratzinger to the bishop of Birmingham, Alabama in 1993**; ***and of the statements of the Conference of Italian Bishops over the past several years. These acknowledge that there is nothing against faith or morals in the Poem of the Man God and the other writings of Maria Valtorta. "

Here is what EWTN says about that same letter.

In 1993 Bishop Boland of Birmingham, AL wrote the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about “Poem” on behalf of an inquirer. Cardinal Ratzinger responded by letter, which the bishop then quoted in his response to the person, who shared it with us. The response noted that because of continuing interest in the books the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had requested the Italian Bishops Conference to ask the publisher (who as I noted never in the past has complied with Roman decisions) to have a disclaimer printed in the volumes that “clearly indicated from the very first page that the ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in it 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.” Whether this has been done I don’t know.

The then Cardinal Ratzinger, now pope, reiterated in the letter that it is fiction not supernatural.

 

[Love4Mary2]

I believe you are referring to posting #416, you didn’t specify the word Jehova (I think you mean Jehovah). I know Jews presently use the word God, but cannot write it, they do something like *od. I’ll be busy today, but I’ll try to look into it. I’ll be doing this by e-mail, I have a pretty good source, but it usually takes a few days to get a reply. It’s tuff to figure out what Jews think nowadays, let alone thousands of years ago. And the addition to taking Hebrew words into account.

We are down to this now, so it looks like we established that there is a valid imprimatur from a Pope and a valid nihil obstat from a Bishop. You haven’t offered anything to substantiate the claim that a verbal imprimatur by a reigning Pope is invalid.

One thing interesting in your conversation with Eliza10, I noticed that Church excepted works such a Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda have a “disclaimer printed indicates on the very first page that the ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in it 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." It looks like the Church does this with everything. With all the persecutions the Church has been giving the publisher, I think I know where that letter went.

 

[adrift]

And you have not produce anything in Canon Law that says a verbal imprimatur by a sitting Pope is invalid.

I never said Canon Law did what I said was that this is not the procedure and that it was not done this way. Not all is in Canon Law. What you need to do is prove that it has ever been done this way before and no you can’t use this book as an example. Your the one claiming the Pope does this prove it.

We are down to this now, so it looks like we established that there is a valid imprimatur from a Pope and a valid nihil obstat from a Bishop. You haven’t offered anything to substantiate the claim that a verbal imprimatur by a reigning Pope is invalid.

No this is not established. The Pope never did this it was made up by those who where trying to get around the index at the time. You have failed to show that the Pope did this. Even if you were right, and your not, latter popes could nullify it. Latter Popes condemned it so they would supersede what ever order you think was given.

One thing interesting in your conversation with Eliza10, I noticed that Church excepted works such a Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda have a “disclaimer printed indicates on the very first page that the ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in it 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." It looks like the Church does this with everything. With all the persecutions the Church has been giving the publisher, I think I know where that letter went.
Reply With Quote

The Church does this with things that are not to be considered supernatural in origin. In other words, they are fiction.
As for the Bishop, he is totally unreliable. I see he also favors another unapproved apparition that has been rejected by the local authorities.

(I think you mean Jehovah). I know Jews presently use the word God, but cannot write it, they do something like *od. I’ll be busy today, but I’ll try to look into it. I’ll be doing this by e-mail, I have a pretty good source, but it usually takes a few days to get a reply. It’s tuff to figure out what Jews think nowadays, let alone thousands of years ago. And the addition to taking Hebrew words into account.

Yes that is what I meant. But you missed the point again. The word was a mistake and never existed. However she would not have known that and why she made such an error. But again it doesn’t matter because there is no Church approval of this book. The Church says its fiction and you say its not. Who should I follow? It is not tough to figure out what Jews thought. Hebrew words can be difficult that is why Jehovah came about in the first place. But if this vision had been from God, He would have known.

 

[Love4Mary2]

Pope Pius XII never did this? There is the testimony of three distinguished Priests and the Vatican Recording Cardinal (an unbiased observer not affiliated with the Priests, fundamentally a Vatican Stenographer), who sat in on the meeting. All of them testified via sworn signed statements. If what you are stating is true, you are proclaiming all of them to be the most audacious liars that ever lived. I think most would consider such a proclamation to be bizarre.

No, I was in a Catholic Book store and was surprised that some of the books by Church approved visionaries had the same disclaimer on the first pages. I don’t know why, I’m guessing that the Church can only say that there is nothing against faith or morals. I think the disclaimer is some sort of extra safeguard.

I sent off an e-mail to a family friend who is noted Rabbi regarding the Jehovah contention.

 

[Love4Mary2]

Hi Adrift, my Rabbi friend returned my e-mail. Brace yourself, this is a real long one.

Greetings

I’m delighted to hear from you again! Let me give you first a little background information before I respond to your specific question.

The actual word is not “Jehovah”. The Tetragrammaton, as it is known in English, consists of the four Hebrew letters “yud”-“heh”-“vav”-“heh” and, as it appears in the Hebrew Bible, it has two different sets of vowel points. The most common of the two sets of vowel points have it pronounced as “A-DO-Na-I” *. The other gives it the pronunciation of “E-LO-HIM”.

In both cases, the Hebrew Bible also contains actual words, spelled differently from the Tetragrammaton, that are pronounced in the respective ways. The actual word for “A-DO-NA-I” is made up of the Hebrew letters “alef”-“daled”-“nun”-“yud”, and bears the same vowel point markings as the Tetragrammaton that is pronounced in the same fashion. The actual word for “E-LO-HIM” is made up of the Hebrew letters “alef”-“lamed”-“heh”-“yud”-“mem sofit” “mem-sofit” is the letter “mem” in the form it appears at the end of a word, which is different than its form at the beginning or middle of a word], and it bears the same vowel poin markings as the Tetragrammaton that is pronounced in the same fashion. Of these two words, the latter is the
more common one found in the Hebrew Bible.

According to Jewish tradition and belief, the actual pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was “lost” following the destruction of the 2nd Temple by the Romans. It was actually used by the High Priest once a year when he entered the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) when he called out to G-d.

According to my understanding, the consensus among scholars is that the Tetragrammaton was not used in ordinary speech from at least the time of the return from the Babylonian exile and onward. There is some disagreement regarding its usage prior to that time. Fr. William G. Most elaborates on this in his online book “Basic Scripture” - geocities.com/Athens/7273/scr525p1.htm - [see Chapter 10.
The Exodus]: “After the Exile, the Jews developed so great a respect for the sacred name, that the ordinary person never would pronounce it. Instead he would say Adonai, Lord. When the Masoretes centuries later invented the vowel points, they used the points for Adonai with the consonants for Yahweh, so no one by forgetting would pronounce the sacred name. To answer your question, the word does actually come out as Jehovah, even as far back as two thousand years ago.”

Today we still use the pronunciations that I described above, but only in worship service, prayer, and Bible study. For all other communications we use “pseudonyms” in the place of these and other sacred names of G-d. There are various such pseudonyms. Some are completely different, others just have a different letter substituted for one of the letters in the name. This is done in respect of the Third Commandment in the Decalogue, which prohibits the use of G-d’s name in vain.

I hope this is helpful information. If you have any other questions, please don’t hesitate to ask, and I shall do my best to give you the answers to them.*