I Need Help with Poem of the Man-God

[Eliza10]

Diane I haven’t been ignoring these posts of yours. I just have been so troubled, by many of the things you have said, that its hard to know where to begin to respond.

I did start a whole long posts in response to them, and put it away to cogitate on all of this for a few days. I will have to get it out and see if I can do something with it pretty soon. Meanwhile I just want to comment on your recent posts.

Lux_et_veritas:

Welcome to the Forums, Son of Pio

I’m afraid that your comment shows you need to do some homework to learn certain facts before you get carried away with what you think the Church teaches.…

It sounds to me that Pio is very aware of what the Chruch teaches. What you here said sounds harsh and judgemental.

Lux_et_veritas:

Case in point: The sin committed was not biting an apple, nor was it sexual. It was the sin of pride. Eve wanted to do things her way, not God’s way. God forbid them to eat of the fruit, but she chose to listen to the serpent, and Adam chose to listen to Eve and take it from her to eat. They disobeyed God and disobedience is rooted in pride (my way, not God’s way). …

What about the old Catholic way - both/and?

Don’t most sexual sins involve disobedience? Does the Bible exclude sexual sins with Eve’s sin of disobedience? No it doesn’t. It seems open for speculation and thought to me.

What about the fact that they felt naked and ashamed? What was so bad about being naked now? Could it be their lust made them ashamed? Makes sense to me. Children are innocent of lust and as long as they have a normal upbringing they have no shame of nakedness.

Lux_et_veritas:

It comes down to discernment of spirits. Somewhere along the line someone felt Valtorta was engaged in supernatural experiences that led to these writings. There are three possibilities: They are of supernatural origin, of human origin, or are the work of Satan. In posts 128 and 129, you will see that the Church has ruled against any possibility of supernatural origin. That leaves human and satanic.…

You are right, it is about discernment of spirits. Discernmnt is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the faithful.

I should also add, for point of information, that discernment is a gift of the Holy Spirit that He has not restricted to the Church heirarchy and denied to the lay faithful.

And I should also add that the Holy Spirit has also not restricted His gift to only those lay faithful who have the proper credentials and theological degrees from Catholic Universities.

Lux_et_veritas:

Satan is very capable of appearing as the Blessed Mother. What makes you think he can’t inspire a woman to write a “badly fictionalized novel” about Jesus Christ? …

I think we can all agree on the point that Satan is capable of inspiring a women to write a badly fictionalized novel about Jesus Christ.

Lux_et_veritas:

Why would this book cause people to attack the Church itself, which has already spoken about the concerns she has with people reading it? …

And my question is what would cause detractors of this book to attack the faithful of the Church?

End of part one - continued in next post…

 

[son_of_pio]

Okay Lux. You know Christ said once that we would be persecuted for what we believe. Seems to ring so true.
So to give you a little history about myself as it seems you desire. I have been a Catholic for 10 years. I converted from UCC.
As far as the Protestant jab if you were as well versed as you claim you would know that many Catholic leaders (and thisis strictly for example purposes) including the Pope are pushing Lectio Divinia. Guess what the basis of that is??? Clearing your mind and opening your thoughts to what the scriptures are revealing to you.
Now what you are basically saying is that the only source of divine revaltion is the Bible.
So since this seems to be the underlying theme in all of your post thus far I sincerely hope that you do not following any of the following:

1. Fatima
2. wear a Brown scapular
3. believ in Divine Mercy

After all none of these were mentioned in the Bible however the heirarchy of our Catholic Church has approved them. And as far as going against the Holy Church she never really offiicially shunned reading this volume. If you are going to pick the text apart be sure to reflect what it actually states. Never once do they pertain to tell anyone to not read this.
Also keep in mind the all knowing all seeing “List of Bad Books” no longer exists. My question is if this list was so great to begin with…why is it no longer in existence???

And last but not least perhaps you need to dig a tad deeper on Medjugorje as well. A certain Cardinal by the name ratzinger went there incognito once…never has he officially spoken neagtively of the place. Also our beloved Pope John Paul has been quoted as saying 'If I were not Pope I would be in Medjugorje everyday"

 

[Eliza10]

Son of Pio wrote: *“3) ANd lastly for now…Jesus portrayed as homosexual? What is the Jesus like in your mind? He is the Son of God part of the Holy Trinity. Does not God love each and everyone of us as his very own. If your Mother or Father on earth shows you compassion and love are they gay? If it is accepatble for your earthly parents to love you tenderly why not your heavenly Father?” *

Lux_et_veritas:

I won’t even address this…

Did you just get tired of writing? That okay. My concern is that you were insulting it, saying it was not wroth addressing. Its a good point. Maybe you didn’t get it.

Diane, your posts do repeat the same things a lot. Maybe you are thinking people didn’t hear them the first time so you are trying again. Maybe its my fault because I have addressed so few of them. I have meant to - I have just been putting it off as it they are difficult for me.

The same things I am seeing are as follows. Please correct me if I am reading you wrong:

1. You are accusing me and other readers of The Poem of being too Protestant in the way we do things. You are questioning that we are really Catholic.
2. You are reminiding us that the Holy Mother Church is our guide, and you think we are disregarding her.

I think we have written back assuring you of our love and regard for Her but you ignore this and continue to try to teach us that She is our guide.

1. Therefore you seem to assume that if we believe Our Holy Mother Church allows room to read/believe in whats written in The Poem then we are not what we say (faithful Catholics). You feel we are in need of scolding and/or chastizing. And you feel thats your calling.
2. You keep asking for our “credentials”, therefore implying that “credentials” are associated with capacity for discernement.

If you are interested in credentials, what about those of the Valtorta supporters who are linked here. It seems to me you are ignoring them.

I am an educated person, but I don’t think my education or anyone else’s in this thread is a factor in this discussion.

5)You think some people are “taking on” Mitch Pacwa in spite of the glowing things said of him by those who disagree with his opinion on The Poem.

1. You are assuming readers of the Poem are unaware that Satan can fool people in various ways. You assume Satan is fooling us and we are unaware. So you are telling us.
2. You have a strong opinion against Medjagorie. I think you assume that suppporters of The Poem are automatically supporters of Medjagorie?
3. You accuse readers of The Poem of the Man-God of disregarding Holy Mother Church.

Is this what you think? I have summerized the points you have made. And now I see why I have been so troubled with your posts!

No wonder why threads about Poem of the Man God are always so short. A humble person makes favorble comment and they get bombarded with accusations and condemnations. The readers just quietly withdraw, grateful for their rich and peaceful meeting with God when they read The Poem. The thread ends.

The accusations made against the readers do not make sense and are many, many. They remind me very much of the arguments against Catholics that fill the Protestant bookstores. Many many accusations cast out one after another makes it very difficult to respond.

Then I make the effort to respond, because i think it is fair and right that the book and readers of it be defended against untrue things said. But you, Diane, seem to ignore my answers to the things you bring up. You respond by repeating yourself, and repeating yourself, and repeating yourself, as if I had not already responded to what you said.

At least this is how it all seems to me. I hope I haven’t been uncharibable and I hope I have not misread what you wrote. I can testify for certain that I have found the correspondance to be very trying.

 

[Eliza10]

Diane, One point you made that I was pondering concerns a letter you have quoted and reprinted many many times in this thread. It concernes the 1984 letter you quoted from Cardinal Radzinger, where he says, " that in fact the Work in question was placed on the Index on 16 December 1959 and defined by “L’Osservatore Romano” of 6 January 1960, as “A Badly Novelized Life of Jesus.”

It sounds here to me that Cardinal Radzinger did not even read the books, but was just restatting what was said in 1960 by “L’Osservatore Romano” – and I don’t even know waht “L’Osservatore Romano” is, do you??)

This statement that you have repeated here several times and also is in some of the links that you and other Valtorta detractors have linked here is part of what makes me find your argument so faulty.

How in the world can anyone call this a badly novelized life of Jesus? I only see this one statement said in 1960 repeated and repeated, as if the statement had much authority because Radzinger quoted it in a 1984 letter.
For anyone who has read these books, “badly fictionalized novel” is so false it sounds like a bold-faced lie.

This statement sounds just like other bold-faced lies that have also been repeated here and in links linked here, such as saying that in the books Jesus is homosexual, based on “shocking!” unrelated sentences quoted without any context from many different places in the books.

I’m sure the intention of those repeating these lies is not to lie. I am sure anyone who has repeated them here thought they must be true. As far as those who originated them, perhaps it came from their own fears and insecurities and I hope nothing worse than that.

When something sounds everything like a lie, and its presented you as infallible Catholic teaching you are to obey - despite everything what your conscience, logic, and common sense are telling you, then you start to look and see - is Rome REALLY saying this?? Or does is it just someone’s opinion that Rome has spoken infallibly on this?

That this is a teaching I am supposedly morally obligated to follow sure sounds like an opinion to me. And it doesn’t sound like the Holy Catholic Chruch I have come to know.

when i was converting I had to face so many issues that were obstacles for me. Such “ridiculous” things the Catholic Chruch taught that I was supposed to believe. But when i researched these difficult things I found that the Cahtolic Church doesn’t just tell you to beleive things, She tells you why to beleive them. I would learn why and then I would see the great beautiful wisdom of the Church.

On my journey I hear things aobut the Chruch that just didn’t fit with all else I was learning aobut the Catholic Chruch. I would research them and I was always able to find some intelligent discussion inthe Chruch to explain why She taught a thing.

Where is the intelligent discussion about Valtorta? How can it be badly novelized? It is brilliant! No one could write this well! If it is just a novel - its a great one. If the CDF had said that its a fascinating, brilliantly creative piece of fiction, I think they would have our attention!

But the comment was said about a book coincided with telling no one to read it. I guess anything can be said a bout a book you don’t read. Who can refute it?

But now that so many have read it, where is the intelligent discussion? The CDF doesn’t discuss it, because apparently like so many apparitions they are leaving it to our discernemnt. We can believe it or not.

Well, I just don’t know why there is such vehemence against the Poem by those who haven’t read it. To me its just like the vehemance against Catholicism from those who don’t know what it is to be Catholic. The similarities are so strong. I am just speaking out of my own experience.

 

[allhers]

Eliza10:

Wow, Allers, I’m sure Son of Pio feels very welcome on CA Forums now with your answer to his first post.

This reminds me of the scripture-hurling that one experiences from certain members of the Evangelical community.

It reminds me of some of the scriptures that were hurled at me by them when I decided to be Catholic.

Maybe you were just in a hurry and wanted to send off a quick one, but I think you should know how it sounds. When somone comes on for the first time and then writes such a thoughtful post, its better not to write at all than answer with a thoughtless one.

Apparently I didn’t think his post was all that thoughtful when he asked us to disregard what Fr. Mitch said. (or for that matter what St. Padre Pio, Pope John Paul II and Blessed Mother Theresa said). But thank you for your opinion.
Also, when the Church has spoken as it has about this book and people like you keep thinking that it’s o.k. to read it anyway, then I speak up.
By the way, for those who think that Medjugorje is off limits, the Church hasn’t said that either. Perhaps if you would read what the Church says about these things you would be better off, instead of telling us faithful, life long Catholics who do read and know what the Church says about these things how wrong we are now that you deceided to convert. I mean really, please consider that you could be wrong. If I were wrong, I would admit it, not call you judgemental.

 

[son_of_pio]

For those who seem to get severe heartburn due to my lack of great theological credentials please read the quoted material below.

FATHER ROSCHINI

"On January 6, 1960, the Osservatore Romano published an article about Il Poema dell?Uomo-Dio as well as a stern censure against it. However, in the article it frankly admitted that we could find in this work ?lessons in Marian Theology which show a complete knowledge of the latest studies by present day specialists on the matter … These theological lessons are written in the very terms which a professor of our day would use.?

Seems someone forgot to mention this when they quoted the article

Listen to the testimony of the noted Mariologist, Fr. Roschini, who availed himself of the writings of Valtorta for his course in Mariology in the 1970s at the Pontifical Gregorian University. His course notes became the basis for his final and definitive book on Mariology, The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. Fr. Roschini had been initially very standoffish to the writings of Valtorta. He had a change of heart, overcame his initial reserve, and discovered an immense treasure of insight into the mystery of Mary. He comments in the introduction to this, his last book on Mary (pg. 21 of the English translation), as follows: "On January 6, 1960, the Osservatore Romano published an article about Il Poema dell?Uomo Dio as well as a stern censure against it. However, in the article it frankly admitted that we can find in this work ?lessons in Marian theology which show a complete knowledge of the later studies by present-day specialists on the matter ? These theological lessons are written in the very terms which a professor of our day would use??

Oh and by the way Fr Roschini has a mountain of credentials.

Father Roschini, formerly Professor at the Pontifical Lateran University of Rome, was a philosopher, theologian, writer of saints? lives, and a mariologist of great renown. An author of over 125 books, he said that his most important one was The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. He died in 1977.

See its just as easy for me to jump out onto the web and cut and paste information as well. But please if you choose to do so quote the entire piece and do not drop out the lines that do not support your cause.

 

[son_of_pio]

And more evidence. Man I see why you throw quotes around all the time. What fun and how educational it is to research something you have actually read…oh sorry you haven’t. You chose to base your opinion on what every else says.

This is a response to EWTNs masterful condemnation. It was written by Bishop Roman Danylak

Bishop Roman Danylak

Titular Bishop of Nyssa

Parish of Saints Sergius and Bacchus

00184 Roma. Italy

The Editorial Board
EWTN
Birmingham, Alabama

To Whom It May Concern:

Your column Questions and Answers was recently brought to my attention; specifically your response to a question from your listeners and readers concerning the writings of Maria Valtorta.

I don?t know who Mr. Bill Bilton is, or his relationship to EWTN, but I wish to advise you that his answer to your listener is a splotch and a blotch on the good name and authority which EWTN rightly enjoy among Catholic listeners, not to mention the failure to investigate the status of the question.

As I read his answer my blood boiled at this arrogating to oneself the authority that belongs only to the magisterium of the church.

It is true that the first edition of the Poem of the Man God was placed on the index of the Roman Catholic Church. This index was scrapped by the authority of Pope Paul VI in 1965. As the authoritative explanation of the accompanying document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith explains, the old index may retain the moral, but not canonical, authority as a guide to Catholic readers. The documents of 1965/6 acknowledge that not every work that had been placed on the index was necessarily against morals and faith.

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. They further acknowledge the current legislation of the Catholic Church in the Code of Canon law, that no longer require the nihil obstat of ecclesiastical authorities for writings purporting to alleged messages or revelations (CIC cann. 823-4, 830, 832)

To continue the scurrilous witch-hunt against Maria Valtorta and her writings reminds me of the theologians and canonists who burned Saint Joan of Arc at the stake, of those who excommunicated Saint Thomas Aquinas, of the detractors of Blessed Padre Pio. It reminds me of the high council or synedrion [Sanhedrin] of the Jews who condemned Christ. Unfortunately one of the failings of the offices of the Church is the fact that these offices do not make formal retractions of their own accusations when it has been brought to their attention that they have made mistakes. This is a common failing of bishops and pastors and of many in authority.

This is what happened with Maria Valtorta. The Osservatore Romano was made aware of the falsity of the innuendos of writers maligning Maria Valtorta in their articles, published in the Osservatore in 1961. They were informed by the Servite fathers who had presented the volume of the Poem of the Man God to Pope Pius XII. Pope Pius XII commended her writings: “Publish them as they are, taking nothing away, nor adding to them. Who will understand, will understand.” The Osservatore stopped printing negative comments. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of others.

See next post for Part 2

 

[son_of_pio]

Bishops letter Part 2

Fortunately there is another remedy in the Catholic Church. The Popes have raised Saint Joan of Arc, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Blessed Padre Pio to the altars of the Church. The Eternal Father raised His Son from the dead and seated Him at His right hand. Hopefully some day the Church will recognise the sanctity of this chosen victim soul.

Although the first Italian edition of the Poem of the Man God did not carry a nihil obstat, and this is the reason why the Poem of the Man God was placed on the index, several bishops have subsequently given their nihil obstat and imprimatur to the writings of Maria Valtorta over the past years. Her writings have been translated into French, English, Portuguese, Spanish, Polish, Ukrainian, Malayalam and other languages. Several bishops, including myself, have given their imprimatur to these translations so that Catholic readers may not hesitate to take these writings into their hands They are truly a gift from Our Lord. I wish to refer Mr. Bilton to what I have written. I have included several of my articles in defense of Maria Valtorta in my website at www.heartofjesus.ca. I especially commend the masterly website, and the extensive research of a Catholic monk, who has collected many articles and papers of various authors and included them in his website. Cf. bardstown.com/~brchrys/index.html

The present editor and publisher of the works of Maria Valtorta, Dr. Emilio Pisani, has compiled the arguments of various writers pro and contra of the writings of Maria Valtorta in a new book. In a cursory glance at the Google listings on the Internet, you will find more than 200 websites dedicated to the writings of Maria Valtorta, in a variety of languages.

You owe a retraction to your reader(s)

Respectfully yours in Christ and the Blessed Mother,

• Roman Danylak

 

[son_of_pio]

Wow even more! Lux you’ll be so proud of my cut and paste ability

BOLLETTINO VALTORTIANO
January-June 2002, No. 63

On April 23rd, 2002, at the Vatican and in the presence of the Pope, the Decree was promulgated which concludes the Cause for the Beatification of Gabriel M. Allegra, O.F.M.: great Franciscan figure, missionary in China, translator of the Bible into Chinese, reader and admirer of the Work of Maria Valtorta.2

How had he known Valtorta’s Work? What did he think of it?

The chapter which we have reserved for him from pages 63 to 88 of the book Pro e contro Maria Valtorta3 “For and Against Maria Valtorta”] relates biographical hints of this new “Blessed” and all that he wrote with regard to [Valtorta’s] Work, about which he gave the following conclusive opinion: “Gifts of nature and mystical gifts harmoniously joined explain this masterwork of Italian religious literature, and perhaps I should say [a masterwork] of the world’s Christian literature.”

We hold that Father Allegra saw in the Work of Maria Valtorta a “masterwork” both for its literary form (which is explained with his words “gifts of nature”, cultivated in study) and for its content (which is explained with his words “mystical gifts”, acquired in ascesis), noting that the former and latter “gifts” are “harmoniously joined.”

I don’t know about you but I cannot beleive that Pope John Paul 2 beatified someone so severely misled let alone the fact that he was totally in disregard of the teachings of the Church

At least up till the end of 1970 many pages of Father Allegra’s diary are dedicated to the Work of Maria Valtorta, and in the end he draws up a true and proper account of it. The reader will find all this in the book Pro e contro Maria Valtorta. We take some passages from it here and there:
“Certain of the Lord’s discourses, whose principle subject is only hinted at in the Gospels, are developed in this Work with a naturalness, with a linking of thought so logical, so spontaneous, so coherent with the time, the place and the circumstances, as I have never found in the most famous exegetes…”
“In this Work I find so many ‘revelations’ which are not contrary to, but which instead complete the Gospel narrative…”
“Regarding Valtorta’s exegesis, it would be necessary to write a book; here I limit myself to reaffirming that I find no other works of eminent scripture exegetes which complete and clarify the Canonical Gospels so naturally, so spontaneously, with such liveliness as does The Poem of Valtorta.”
“What amazes me more is that Valtorta never falls into theological errors; on the contrary, she renders revealed mysteries easier for the reader, transposing them into a popular and modern language.”
“The dogmas which the Church continues defending in the course of the ages…are a solemn affirmation of the faith of the Apostles. Through an ineffable charism, Valtorta had been plunged again into the tender, moving, spontaneous faith of the Apostles, especially of St. John.”
“After the Gospels, I do not know another life of Jesus that can compare to the Poem, as I do not know any other lives of St. Peter and St. John which make the characters of these two Apostles so alive.”
“In treating the mystery of Mary’s Compassion, it seems to me that Valtorta through her breadth, profundity and psychological probing of the Heart of the Virgin, surpasses even St. Bonaventure and St. Bernard.”
“In her tragic destiny, a powerful and moving figure in the Poem is Mary of Simon, the mother of Judas, and who was so loved by Jesus. No poet or dramatist has ever thought up a profile so robust, so delicate and at the same time so pitiful, as that unfortunate and gentle woman.”
“Worthy of note is the manner in which Jesus explains the Old Testament, applying it always to the present, to the messianic era already in progress, and which is about to be fulfilled.”
“From the time that I read and reread the Poem of the Man-God of Maria Valtorta, I have no more taste for biblical-gospel novels.”
“I would say that in this Work the Palestinian world of the time of Jesus comes out before our eyes; and the best and worst elements of character of the chosen people ? a people of extremes and slaves of every mediocrity ? leap out vividly before us.”

 

[son_of_pio]

And even more from this future saint.

"...I invite readers of the Poem to read the pages consecrated to the Resurrection, to the reconstruction of the events of the day of the Pasch, and they will ascertain how all is bound together harmoniously there, just as so many exegetes tried to do, but without fully succeeding..." 
"A book of great size, composed in exceptional circumstances and in a relatively very short time: here is an aspect of the Valtorta phenomenon." 
"In the dialogues and in the discourses which form the framework of [Valtorta's] Work , besides an inimitable spontaneity (the Dialogues), there is something of antiquity and at times of the hieratic (the Discourses); in a word, an excellent translation of a spoken Aramaic, or Hebrew, in a vigorous, polymorphous, robust Italian." 
"I hold that the Work demands a supernatural origin... ...] Now, without anticipating the judgment of the Church which to this moment I accept with absolute submission, I permit myself to affirm that, ... with the Poem producing good fruits in an ever increasing number of persons, I think that it comes from the Spirit of Jesus.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

son of pio:

Ahh yes the sin of pride…oh I do agree with that but again lets look at the whole picture.
God created Adam and as his companion he gave him Eve. God created having in mind a perfect love between the 2. Now the devil in his evil ways has Eve alone and seduces her into basically comitting adultery. Is it not pride that led Eve to break her bond with Adam? Did not Eve put her lustful thoughts ahead of the divine plan God had laid out before them.
Yes pride… Pride in the fact that her desires were more important than those of the Divine Creator. You hit the nail right on the head.

I can only respond to one thing at a time and so I can only take these posts sequentially, as I have time.

I would like to remind all who would respond to these kinds of posts to keep in mind that catechesis has been horrible, not to mention RCIA. There are many well-intended people, who have not been given the faith in its fulless, and in its accuracy.

That having been said, lets tackle the reason why “The Fall” could not have been sexual in nature.

Prior to “the fall”, Adam and Even had what is called sanctifying grace. This meant that, unlike us today, they were not prone to bad passions, such as anger and lust until they lost sanctifying grace through disobedience to God. Sanctifying grace protected them from lust. Furthermore, to suggest that sex was a sin for Adam and Eve means that they would have no way to procreate, which they did do. There was no one before them to marry them, so they were joined by God to each other, and they did procreate.

However, before “the fall” they did not experience pain, death, and the like. To suggest that the fall consisted of something sexual is to infer that Adam and Eve had no permission to engage in sex, which is required for procreation. How could God make only two people, only to “expect” them to live in chastity? Was God suppose to create a third person who would have the right to join them in marriage before they could do so?

Chew on that for a while. I do not have 3 hours to sit here and address all that you have pasted in, much of which has already been addressed in the short time I have now.

And, just to be clear, at no time did I ever suggest or infer sola scriptura was the rule of the day. Rather, it is Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Those things belong to the deposit of faith, not the Poem of the Man-God.

I cannot paste the whole section as I wanted, without going over the limit. If the first sin involved sex, the CCC would have said so, but it is not logical in light of the status of Sanctifying Grace before and after the fall. Full text is in the web link: From the CCC:

Man’s first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man *preferred *himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

If the Poem led you to believe sex was involved, it proves the point that it can lead unprepared people astray.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Here is an excerpt from that link I provided on Sanctifying Grace above. Fr. John A. Hardon writes (with references):

Dogmatic Value

It is defined doctrine, at least implicitly in Trent, that Adam possessed sanctifying grace before the fall.

Regarding Adam’s integrity, theologians distinguish between immunity from carnal and spiritual concupiscence. They say it is implicitly defined in Trent (DB 792) that Adam was free from sense concupiscence; or according to others it is proxima fidei. Immunity from spiritual concupiscence is said to be at least theologically certain; or the composite of integrity as such may be called *proxima *fidei.

Adam’s immortality of body has been defined by the Church, and is found in a series of documents: DB 101, 174, 788.

The possession of infused knowledge is held to be *common *and certain doctrine, though some assign a higher dogmatic note.

 

[son_of_pio]

True however God it is a fundamentally known fact that God created man with free will. If not than you may as well succomb to the theory that we evolved from apes. God also joined Adam and Eve as you say in he marriage covenant. Part of that convenant as today is a duty to procreate and be open to life. Eve through her own **free will **chose to disobey this covenant established by God through the act of adultery.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

son of pio:

True however God it is a fundamentally known fact that God created man with free will. If not than you may as well succomb to the theory that we evolved from apes. God also joined Adam and Eve as you say in he marriage covenant. Part of that convenant as today is a duty to procreate and be open to life. Eve through her own **free will **chose to disobey this covenant established by God through the act of adultery.

Good heavens where did you ever come up with this? Do you even know what adultery is? Remember, it is just Adam and Eve now. There could not have been adultery nor fornication. While one can commit sins against purity in their mind through lustful thoughts, you must understand Sanctifying Grace before you can grasp why Adam and Eve would not be engaged in “lustful” sex or thoughts.

From the CCC:

2380 *Adultery *refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.171 The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely.172 The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.173

2353 *Fornication *is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

I ask again, did the Poem put this into your head or did you come up with it on your own or read it elsewhere. If so, what is your source?

You ignore the entire issue of sanctifying grace, as if Adam and Eve could gravitate toward’s lust or anger before “the fall” itself. It was not until after the fall that lust and anger would occur (anger demonstrated through Cain and Abel).

If someone can’t get this right, then it is all the more reason to call out the unpreparedness cited by Ratzinger when he replied: "when its condemnation was not taken superficially, but after weighing its purposes, to the end of neutralizing the damages which such a publication could bring to the more unprepared faithful. "

Pio, I would say you are a poster-child with these comments as to why “unprepared” Catholics should not be reading this book. And, I say this with all love and charity. Many life-long Catholics have been deprived of good catechesis and even moreso, of those who converted and went through shoddy RCIA programs which did not even come close to teaching the basics. This issue of Adam and Even would have been cleared up for you in a good, authentically taught catechism class.

 

[trustmc]

Lux_et_veritas:

Pio, I would say you are a poster-child with these comments as to why “unprepared” Catholics should not be reading this book. And, I say this with all love and charity. Many life-long Catholics have been deprived of good catechesis and even moreso, of those who converted and went through shoddy RCIA programs which did not even come close to teaching the basics. This issue of Adam and Even would have been cleared up for you in a good, authentically taught catechism class.

Good stuff, Lux. I just wanted to offer a few seconds of support as I continue to monitor this debate. I’ll rejoin it when I have more time.

Pio, welcome to the debate. However, I must say that Lux has given yet again some well-supported arguements for our case. Just for your information, I don’t support Valtorta, and yet I – like you – still have the spiritual desire for more prayer, confession, Eucharistic adoration, and evangelizing. But unlike you, another gift I have also is an unwavering and unqualified obedience to the Church – a gift so conspicuously absent from Valtorta’s supporters on this thread.

Mike

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

I came back in here to respond to more of the posts made following the one I responded to earlier.

However, it is an unfortunate reality that if people choose to believe the forbidden fruit was sinful sex itself, then I don’t see the point in responding to anything else. My reasoning is simple. It is not that I don’t like to debate. However, when something as fundamental as sanctifying grace is disregarded within the discussion of the fall of man, then it is simply a waste of time to try to debate the finer points of why we should use prudence by not reading the Poem of the Man-God.

This would be like trying to define brown before those involved fully understand red and green. Let me rephrase this a little. I would be like trying to define brown to someone who wants to redefine red and green to their liking. Modify the green to blue, and the end result is not brown, it is purple. So, there is no good reason to define brown in this scenario.

I’ll think about whether I want to engage myself any further in this thread.

By all means, there are some very well catechized people in this forum and I hope to see some of them jumping in here responding to some of the non-Catholic ideas that have been raised in this thread and backing up their arguments with links to the CCC or other valid documents.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

And a comment about why I would say that someone is taking a “protestant” view of something.

It’s one thing that protestants are notorious for their sola scriptura approach to things. However, there is something else that is more protestant like: That is, when one disregards the teaching offices of the Church over their own personal feelings or opinions.

Why have a Catholic Church at all, if one is going to override Her authority whenever it suits them? Protestants don’t really have anyone one thing, like a Magisterium, which bind them together. Maybe this is why there are over 3000 different Protestant sects now and their identity is blurring faster by the day.

A mother will give a child absolutes - like, “don’t touch the stove - it’s hot” and if the child goes ahead and touches it anyway, they learn the hard way they should have listened to mother. However, sometimes mother gives advice like, I don’t want you to eat two donuts, its not good for you - have only one.

The first case can do immediate damage. In the second case it may seem harmless now, but we all know the implications, especially with time and repeated abuse of mom’s admonishment.

Cardinal Ratzinger did not provide something dogmatic or even doctrinal. Holy Mother Church, through Cardinal Ratzinger, provided an admonishment pertaining to this book. Disregarding it is potentially harmful and the more you indulge in reading this book, the more harmful it can get.

 

[trustmc]

son of pio:

Oh I forgot to mention that only those who have read the volumes can answer in an educated manner. How can anyone claim to understand if they have not experienced/read this? Do not take Fr. Mitch Pacwa’s word on it. He is human and can err. As a matter of fact do not even take into consideration what Padre Pio, Pope John Paul 2 and Mother Theresa proportedly said. Open the book, clear your mind and read.
If the Lord speaks to you through these volumes than how can you claim this is of Satan? If you feel an urge to attend Mass more regularly, how can you claim this is of Satan? If you are drawn to regular confession, how can you claim this is of Satan? If you are drawn to increased prayer with the Lord, how can you claim this is of Satan?

This is Satan’s oldest trick in the book. Satan, the Great Deceiver, would do quite well allowing those whom he has deceived to puff themselves up with a sense of righteousness as a way to convince them of his lie.
son of pio:

Please keep an open mind. If anything, Satan is most pleased with those shunning these volumes.

Already we see here in this statement that, while pio dismisses those who refute Valtorta’s work as a satanic lie as unqualified to make such a judgement, he still nonetheless deems himself qualified to know the heart of Satan himself. If pio is qualified to know what pleases Satan, then I’m qualified to know his lies.

As for your first statement above, I have mentioned before that I don’t have to read books like the Satanic Bible to “answer in an educated manner” praises for such rubbish. Pio would like for us to take his word that Valtorata’s books are valid because he’s read them and he says so; but would like for us to ignore others, like Fr. Pacwa, who have read them and said they are invalid. I wouldn’t be surprised if such reasoning may likely be the result of a deceptive spirit that has taken root in pio’s heart.

Mike

 

[Eliza10]

Bravo, bravo, Son of Pio! Very nice cut and paste! But if you really want to be in Lux’s league with with the scissors and the glue, you need to color coordinate and use your bold button. I will try to demonstrate below.
son of pio:

… You chose to base your opinion on what every else says…

You know its not always a bad thing to base opinions on the opinions of others. What is bothering me is that Lux is basing opinions on just parts of what was said, not the whole thing - -choosing to compile the negatives out-of-context and completely ignore the compelling positives that are tied in with the negatives. An example is below from your clipping.
son of pio:

It is true that the first edition of the Poem of the Man God was placed on the index of the Roman Catholic Church. This index was scrapped by the authority of Pope Paul VI in 1965. As the authoritative explanation of the accompanying document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith explains, the old index may retain the moral, but not canonical, authority as a guide to Catholic readers. The documents of 1965/6 acknowledge that not every work that had been placed on the index was necessarily against morals and faith.

Thank you. Diane, do you see this? Because you and others have been strongly accusing faithful Catholic readers of the Poem of the Man-God of putting their faith and morals in jeodardy because it was on that now extinct list for a few years.

*Not everything on that list was against faith and morals!!! *Just because some were does not mean they are all guilty by association. You have it on official church authority now. This I said before, as it is logical, but it was ignored.
son of pio:

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. **

Cardinal Radzinger has spoken!!! There is noting against faith or morals in Poem of the Man-God!
son of pio:

To continue the scurrilous witch-hunt against Maria Valtorta…It reminds me of the high council or synedrion [Sanhedrin] of the Jews who condemned Christ.

Yes, it is a scurrilous witch-hunt! That is exactly what I think when I read this thread and the links. I wonder why??? Why are Catholics attacking Catholics over this? It does remind me of the Pharisees.

[next post for PART 2]

 

[Eliza10]

(PART 2 of previous post)
son of pio:

Unfortunately one of the failings of the offices of the Church is the fact that these offices do not make formal retractions of their own accusations when it has been brought to their attention that they have made mistakes. This is a common failing of bishops and pastors and of many in authority.

This one need to be shouted a bit, IMO. I did not have this info, but I was not willing to shut my mind of and say it wa said in 1960 and virtually nothing has been said since, in spite of millions of more copies in print, I just need to be an ignorant sheep and accept what makes no sense and ask no questions. The Catholic Church I have come to know does not seek asking questions and coming to understanding.

So this explains it. When the CDF issues incorrect statements, they do not retract them. This is the tradition of the CDF, says this genuine authority of the Church.

So if an official statement sounds incorrect in every way, don’t go looking for a retraction, because it won’t exist.

I hope you noticed this one Diane.
son of pio:

This is what happened with Maria Valtorta. The Osservatore Romano was made aware of the falsity of the innuendos of writers maligning Maria Valtorta in their articles, published in the Osservatore in 1961. They were informed by the Servite fathers who had presented the volume of the Poem of the Man God to Pope Pius XII. Pope Pius XII commended her writings: “Publish them as they are, taking nothing away, nor adding to them. Who will understand, will understand.” The Osservatore stopped printing negative comments. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of others.

Yes. The others are here on this thread!

So we see clearly now: you can’t count on the Obsservatore or the CDF to retract negative statements they made about something after they have been proven untrue. The longstanding tradition is: they don’t retract them.

But there is one way to tell if they may have made a mistake: They stop printing negative comments!

So this explains it! I have been asking here - why, if these books are around so long is there a great absense of any intelligent discussion, at all, on why they are wrong, if they are supposed to be so wrong? They have been out for 50 years and millions are in print, so, where is the discussion???

Oh I see then - when the official offices of the Church make the wrong statements, they never retract. But they do stop making further negative stements about a thing they have been prioved wrong on. That explains why they have said so little.

What I want to know is why this is not acknowledged by the “experts” on the mechanisms of the Church on this list. Tell me if I am wrong, but iot seems to me that Diane you are coming across to me tht you are an expert who needs to inform me who you feel is ignorant of the workings of the decison making process of the Church. You have told me how the Church works and you urge me to violate my conscience on the basis that I am beign disobedient to something you think the Church has decided and I do not. I want to ask you, Diane, and others here - did YOU know when the offices of the Church issue wrong statements on a thing, they don’t retract, they just stop talking aobut it?

I think that is a pretty important piece of information about how these offices work. Because when you come to such a divide with such very stgrong authoritative Church authories on both sides of an issue, you cannot assume YOUR side is the Church’s side and accuse others of being diobedient and in all manner of jeopardy.

I think the facts should be straight before the accusing begins.