I Need Help with Poem of the Man-God

[Love4Mary2]

I couldn’t agree with you more completely. St. Padre Pio was a great advocate of Maria Valtorta’s writings, and known to recommend reading the Poem on many occasions. One year before Padre Pio’s death, a woman named Mrs. Elisa Lucchi asked him if he advised reading Maria Valtorta’s writings. He replied, “I don’t just advise you, I insist that you read them!”.

 

[Love4Mary2]

“You are correct but no official recognition has been given to the attested statement and so juridically the statement is null.”

First of all juridically is not a word. Secondly the Pope is a recognizable official of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Love4Mary2]

I apologize, juridically didn’t look correct, and I couldn’t find it in my small dictionary. I checked again in a larger Webster and found it. Rereading your statement:

“You are correct but no official recognition has been given to the attested statement and so juridically the statement is null.”

It is also possible that you were referring to the witnesses of Pope Pius’s statement. I wasn’t sure because it was repeated so many times, in addition to the three Priests, there was the Official Vatican Recorder, Cardinal Edourd Gagnon, who further testified with a signed sworn statement in the form of a letter.

 

[mosher]

I couldn’t agree with you more completely. St. Padre Pio was a great advocate of Maria Valtorta’s writings, and known to recommend reading the Poem on many occasions. One year before Padre Pio’s death, a woman named Mrs. Elisa Lucchi asked him if he advised reading Maria Valtorta’s writings. He replied, “I don’t just advise you, I insist that you read them!”.

Again you miss the point. Blind guides do not serve well in the kingdom of God.

“You are correct but no official recognition has been given to the attested statement and so juridically the statement is null.”

First of all juridically is not a word. Secondly the Pope is a recognizable official of the Roman Catholic Church.

First, it is a word and if you had a basic understanding of the law then you would know its context. Second, the Pope has not given approbation to the statement. In these matters it is irrelevant have many witnesses there are and their station whether they be Bishops or Cardinals or Priests. According to the law only the Holy Father himself or a succeeding Holy Father can approbate a Pontifical statement.

 

[lumendelumine]

If one reads even part of this thread, one almost wishes back the old days of the Index… then at least it would be clear that Valtorta is (or would be still) on the Index!

People here seem so confused here about **opinions ** of individuals (whether they are high Church officials, bishops or even a Pope) and of official pronouncements of the Church. The latter is to be followed with assent. Period. The former is not. Period.

An Pope’s opinion on Valtorta, expressed orally, never even written down and not ultimately provable, is of no more consequence to the believer than his preference of football clubs - especially if this preference is only known about by word of mouth and by a handful of witnesses who are fans of the club the Pope purportedly likes themselves…

But assent of obedience to the Church is quite a different matter.

Consider the following: I know an undoubtedly holy priest who also knew Mother Teresa very well. He is also a fan of Medjugorje and of the seers from there. That’s his opinion. I can take his opinion as the basis of my own opinion on Medjugorje, but I don’t have to.
But: if the Church makes an official pronouncement on the place and condemns it (as is well possible), I cannot go on telling people: “But that holy priest approved of it!” Because well, then the opinion of the priest is officially overruled by the Church.

The same applies to Valtorta. There, the Church has pronounced herself on the matter. The answer was: NO.

Roma locuta, causa finita. There’s nothing more to discuss about it.

 

[Love4Mary2]

“Blind guides do not serve well in the kingdom of God.”

How is St. Padre Pio a blind guide?

“In these matters it is irrelevant have many witnesses there are and their station whether they be Bishops or Cardinals or Priests.”

What you are saying doesn’t make any sense. Every Papal Order and Statement is irrelevant unless there is another Pope to authenticate that it is relevant? “No matter how many witnesses”? If Pope Benedict was to study and declare Valtorta authentic, now on National Television, it would be irrelevant? “whether they be Bishops or Cardinals or Priests”? If Pope Benedict was to study and declare Valtorta authentic, now in front of a multitude of Priests, Bishops and Cardinals, it would be irrelevant? What a clever way to nullify the Pope’s supreme authority over all levels of Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, as outlined in Canon Law. That was Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani’s goal. The Cardinal who spearheaded Maria Valtorta’s writings, attempted to overturn a Papal Order and placed Maria Valtorta’s writings on the Index.

“If one reads even part of this thread, one almost wishes back the old days of the Index… then at least it would be clear that Valtorta is (or would be still) on the Index!”

As pointed out in posting #289, the Index was abolished for a good reason, because no one in their right mind could possibly take it seriously any longer.

“One example would be how Roman Catholic Church hierarchy placed Galileo’s writings on the forbidden book list. They burned his written observations and nearly burned him at the stake in order to force him to retract 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”.

In 1966, Pope Paul VI took the action of suppressing the Index of Forbidden Books, which liberated the Poem from ecclesiastical restriction. There are many people who argue that this action was taken specifically to liberate the Poem, allowing Church compliance to the original Papal Order by Pope Pius XII. As a note Pope Paul the VI is the same Pope who endorsed “The Virgin Mary In The Writings of Maria Valtorta” by Father Gabriel Roschini, OSM. A book that enthusiastically supports Valtorta’s writings. The first two pages contain a letter of endorsement by Pope Paul VI. One page is a photocopy of the original letter complete with Vatican insignia, the other is the English translation. Father Gabriel Roschini was commissioned to discredit Valtorta’s works. He was like Saul who saw the light and became St. Paul.

 

[shannyk]

You are correct but no official recognition has been given to the attested statement and so juridically the statement is null.

No, I’m just tired of people not following the juridical process of the Church. I am well aware of the discussion on all its levels and it has become tiresome. The point is that we must be obedient to not only the theological and moral teachings of the Church but also the juridical proclamations under its proper form as given in canon law. As Catholics we must assent internally and externally in obedience to Her. In this aspect it seems that people feel that their feelings about the issue are more valid than the canonical form. This is not the case. Nor is it the case that an attested statement overrides the juridical right of a latter pope or even a current pope. Rather recognition must be given or else it is null. Also, I strongly doubt that the evidence that has been here presented is something that has not been given the competent authorities. I am sure they are aware of all the arguments and as of yet not change in Vatican disposition has been made even after a number of new popes have been reigning.

We must learn to be more like the Saints and in this case St. Pio is a perfect example. Submission to juridical authority until the same authority lifts its judgment.

Thank you, thank you, and 1000 times thank you. A wise and well written post.

lumendelumine If one reads even part of this thread, one almost wishes back the old days of the Index… then at least it would be clear that Valtorta is (or would be still) on the Index!

People here seem so confused here about opinions of individuals (whether they are high Church officials, bishops or even a Pope) and of official pronouncements of the Church. The latter is to be followed with assent. Period. The former is not. Period.

An Pope’s opinion on Valtorta, expressed orally, never even written down and not ultimately provable, is of no more consequence to the believer than his preference of football clubs - especially if this preference is only known about by word of mouth and by a handful of witnesses who are fans of the club the Pope purportedly likes themselves…

But assent of obedience to the Church is quite a different matter.

Consider the following: I know an undoubtedly holy priest who also knew Mother Teresa very well. He is also a fan of Medjugorje and of the seers from there. That’s his opinion. I can take his opinion as the basis of my own opinion on Medjugorje, but I don’t have to.
But: if the Church makes an official pronouncement on the place and condemns it (as is well possible), I cannot go on telling people: “But that holy priest approved of it!” Because well, then the opinion of the priest is officially overruled by the Church.

The same applies to Valtorta. There, the Church has pronounced herself on the matter. The answer was: NO.

Roma locuta, causa finita. There’s nothing more to discuss about it.

:clapping:

Thanks to you both for your very well written posts.

 

[childofmary1143]

If one reads even part of this thread, one almost wishes back the old days of the Index… then at least it would be clear that Valtorta is (or would be still) on the Index!

People here seem so confused here about **opinions ** of individuals (whether they are high Church officials, bishops or even a Pope) and of official pronouncements of the Church. The latter is to be followed with assent. Period. The former is not. Period.

An Pope’s opinion on Valtorta, expressed orally, never even written down and not ultimately provable, is of no more consequence to the believer than his preference of football clubs - especially if this preference is only known about by word of mouth and by a handful of witnesses who are fans of the club the Pope purportedly likes themselves…

But assent of obedience to the Church is quite a different matter.

Consider the following: I know an undoubtedly holy priest who also knew Mother Teresa very well. He is also a fan of Medjugorje and of the seers from there. That’s his opinion. I can take his opinion as the basis of my own opinion on Medjugorje, but I don’t have to.
But: if the Church makes an official pronouncement on the place and condemns it (as is well possible), I cannot go on telling people: “But that holy priest approved of it!” Because well, then the opinion of the priest is officially overruled by the Church.

The same applies to Valtorta. There, the Church has pronounced herself on the matter. The answer was: NO.

Roma locuta, causa finita. There’s nothing more to discuss about it.

First off when a Pope talks about an alleged private revelation, it is NEVER JUST HIS OPINION.

Secondly to compare his comments to comments one would make about football are very odd. Private revelation is very serious and can involve people’s souls. Football doesn’t and to compare it with it is stupid.

Thirdly It seems that we are more concerned with legal form than with the spirit of the law. What makes something provable? On paper? A Seal even? In this day and age anything can be dummied up to make it look real. It should be noted that nobody has disproved the 3 priests from meeting with Pope Pius XII.

 

[Love4Mary2]

Hi ChildOfMary1143,

I am so happy you are back as well as Eliza10. As I stated in posting #357 to Eliza10, when Valtorta detractors are unable to respond to indisputable logic or reasoning in a posting, they simply pad it away. As so clearly demonstrated here again in Shannyk’s retort. Posting #377 only restates Mosher’s and Lumendelumine’s postings, even stretching them with large font interjections and pictures in an attempt to produce a large posting to bury irrefutable rational. As I said to Eliza10, Valtorta detractors are not simply arguing for the sake of argument, they are burying evidence! There is no desire to get at the truth of the matter, but only to conceal it. That is clearly why this thread is so incredibly long, eight pages!

 

[childofmary1143]

Hi ChildOfMary1143,

I am so happy you are back as well as Eliza10. As I stated in posting #357 to Eliza10, when Valtorta detractors are unable to respond to indisputable logic or reasoning in a posting, they simply pad it away. As so clearly demonstrated here again in Shannyk’s retort. Posting #377 only restates Mosher’s and Lumendelumine’s postings, even stretching them with large font interjections and pictures in an attempt to produce a large posting to bury irrefutable rational. As I said to Eliza10, Valtorta detractors are not simply arguing for the sake of argument, they are burying evidence! There is no desire to get at the truth of the matter, but only to conceal it. That is clearly why this thread is so incredibly long, eight pages!

Thank you love4mary2. However while I truly believe in the authenticity of Poem of the Man-God I refuse to get personal with those who are opposed to it. I can’t speak about the others but I do know shannyk quite well and I can attest that there is nothing about her that I don’t admire about her. While I do disagree with her about this it doesn’t change my respect for her.

 

[Love4Mary2]

Hi ChildOfMary1143

Thank you for the check, I’m a little passionate on the topic. You are quite right, it shouldn’t progress to a personal level, and I’ll try to curb such progressions. I also have similar friends who I admire.

 

[Love4Mary2]

I would like to attempt in an objective way, to address some of the contentions that kind of get under my skin. Posting #353 states that Mary “wished that she might sin mightily in order that He could forgive her more!” This is an example of how quotes are taken out of context to fool the reader into believing something contradictory to the truth. For example, in the writings of Maria Valtorta, this took place when Mary was a 3yr old little girl and was just told that the Messiah was coming to save sinners. She was then eager to be saved by the Messiah. She didn’t quite grasp at that age how someone could be saved by the Messiah, if they never sinned. Immediately afterwards, Her father, Joachim explains. There are dozens of misquotes like this that are being used against Maria Valtorta’s writings.

There are three ways to take a text out of context and thus distort its meaning.

First there is verbal or literal context. The Bible has these words: “there is no God" (Ps. 52), and “Christ died in vain” (Gal. 2:21). No one can say that the Bible says (affirms) these statements, because in context we have:”…The fool says in his heart, there is no God”; and “If justice comes by the law, then Christ died in vain”. Yet the verbal context could also be made clear somewhere else, e.g. St. Paul saying "I would wish to be anathema from Christ”, in Rom 9:3, can only be understood rightly in the light of verses 38/9 of the previous chapter, and the rest of Chapters 9, 10 and 11.

Second is the cultural and temporal context. It comes as a surprise for some to realize that Christ our Saviour was truly human, and with other characters of the Gospel, was of quite a different cultural stock (from ourselves). Jewish first century styles and customs greatly differ from Western twentieth century ones. Even today, what is normal and proper in Palestine or Italy might be considered queer and sinful in America or England. In these latter countries we know it is not proper for men to kiss each other unless they are of close family, or they are enthusiastic U.K. soccer players kicking a goal. Yet in the East it is entirely proper and even expected. Sometimes they even may kiss on the lips as a sign of special affection without any unnatural or sexual connotation. Recall Our Lord at the house of Simon the Pharisee rebuking him for not giving the customary kiss (Luke 7:45). Another example would be how we read in our bible about Judas kissing Jesus in the garden in order to identify Christ, to the mob. The Bible is not referring to a lewd act, but to a customary greeting of the era. There was no long separation in this instance. Jesus had recently participated in the Last Supper with Judas only a few hours before. It would be calumny in trying to impute evil motives in the chaste, loving and manly kisses revealed in The Poem. No one who has read it in context entertains any suspicion on this score, even if they are surprised.

Thirdly, the most important context is the doctrinal or faith context. This is the norm for interpreting Sacred Scripture consistent with the unanimous view of the early Fathers or the analogy of faith. i.e. we must always interpret in conformity with the Magisterium of the Church. The Vatican newspaper in 1960 hinted at an error in Valtorta’s account of the sin of Eve. Fr. Roschini O.S.M. exposes the falsity of this charge in his book “The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta” (Kolbe., Sherbrooke, Canada. 1986, pp. 276 9). He points out that The Poem teaches precisely what St. Thomas taught; that the first sin was a complex one involving pride, disobedience, gluttony and finally lust ('fuerunt plures deformitates " Summa 1 li 9.82. a.2, ad 1).

 

[Love4Mary2]

Furthermore, there are contentions that are total fabrications. For example, Fr. John Loughnan, posted an article dissuading people from reading the Poem because Maria Valtorta gives Mary’s birthday as August 26, and ten other recognized visionaries have given a date of September 8. Maria never provides an exact birth date for Mary, although she does clearly indicate the month of September on page 23 of book 1. Nowhere in the Poem is there a reference to Mary being born in the month of August.

Another example can be the quote in L’Osservatore Romano on Jan. 6, 1960 that was signed anonymously: “Badly fictionalized novel” and “A Badly Fictionalized Life of Jesus”. Notwithstanding that some of the greatest advocates of Maria Valtorta’s writings are prominent scripture scholars, such as the Blessed Gabriel Allegra, who is the ONLY Scripture scholar beatified by John Paul II. Or Father Gabriel Roschini, professor at “Marianum”, Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome, famous Mariologist, author of 130 books and advisor to the Holy Office. The Maria Valtorta Reader’s Group in Australia published “A Pilgrim’s Guide To Maria Valtorta’s The Poem Of The Man-God”, in which there are over 2,000 cross-references with the Bible with no doctrinal are scriptural errors! How could the words “Badly Fictionalized” be any further than the truth?

 

[childofmary1143]

Furthermore, there are contentions that are total fabrications. For example, Fr. John Loughnan, posted an article dissuading people from reading the Poem because Maria Valtorta gives Mary’s birthday as August 26, and ten other recognized visionaries have given a date of September 8. Maria never provides an exact birth date for Mary, although she does clearly indicate the month of September on page 23 of book 1. Nowhere in the Poem is there a reference to Mary being born in the month of August.

Another example can be the quote in L’Osservatore Romano on Jan. 6, 1960 that was signed anonymously: “Badly fictionalized novel” and “A Badly Fictionalized Life of Jesus”. Notwithstanding that some of the greatest advocates of Maria Valtorta’s writings are prominent scripture scholars, such as the Blessed Gabriel Allegra, who is the ONLY Scripture scholar beatified by John Paul II. Or Father Gabriel Roschini, professor at “Marianum”, Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome, famous Mariologist, author of 130 books and advisor to the Holy Office. The Maria Valtorta Reader’s Group in Australia published “A Pilgrim’s Guide To Maria Valtorta’s The Poem Of The Man-God”, in which there are over 2,000 cross-references with the Bible with no doctrinal are scriptural errors! How could the words “Badly Fictionalized” be any further than the truth?

FYI I read what Father John Loughnan said and he based that on some Medjugorje message that said Our Lady’s birthday was August 26. Yet it was through the Medjugorje messages that people were told to read Poem of the Man-God. With this much confusion over who said what, when that its any wonder why some have trouble believing.

 

[Tominellay]

I think you’re both a little confused; John isn’t a priest.

 

[Love4Mary2]

That may be so, as posted, the article says by Fr. John Loughnan.

 

[shannyk]

Valtorta detractors are not simply arguing for the sake of argument, they are burying evidence!

What ‘evidence’ exactly do I have that I am burying??

I don’t take it upon myself to gather ‘evidence’ on unapproved private locutions or apparitions. There are a plethora of Holy, God appointed men to do that, who can gather ‘evidence’, and decipher it with much more accuracy and insight than I or anyone on this thread could ever hope to.

If you want to believe Poem of the Man God is ‘authentic’, go ahead! Why do you need everyone on this thread to believe it too? Even if it WAS an approved private revelation no Catholic would be bound to believe it was authentic. We have all the salvific information we need through the Gospels, safeguarded by the Church. To try to convince everyone of Poem’s authenticity does no one any good.

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0011bt.asp"]Catholic Answers has a good article on this.

As one would expect, Cardinal Ratzinger points out that “the teaching of the Church distinguishes between ‘public Revelation’ and ‘private revelations.’” What might be surprising to some is what he then notes: “The two realities differ not only in degree but also in essence” (emphasis added). This tells us that the difference between public and private revelation is not simply that public revelation is given to or binding on all whereas private revelation is given to or binding on only some (restricted by time, place, or identity). More than that is involved: Public and private are two different kinds of revelation.

Cardinal Ratzinger is quoted here in the article as saying…

Private revelation is different from public revelation in several important respects: “The authority of private revelations is essentially different from that of the definitive public Revelation. The latter demands faith; in it in fact God himself speaks to us through human words and the mediation of the living community of the Church. Faith in God and in his word is different from any other human faith, trust, or opinion. The certainty that it is God who is speaking gives me the assurance that I am in touch with truth itself. It gives me a certitude which is beyond verification by any human way of knowing”.

Private revelation serves as a help to this divine and Catholic faith but does not itself demand this faith: "In this regard, Cardinal Prospero Lambertini, the future Pope Benedict XIV, says in his classic treatise, which later became normative for beatifications and canonizations: ‘An assent of Catholic faith is not due to revelations approved in this way; it is not even possible. These revelations seek rather an assent of human faith in keeping with the requirements of prudence, which puts them before us as probable and credible to piety.’

Because of the compression, the symbolic nature of the visions, and the fact that they are not protected by divine inspiration the way Scripture is but are dependent on the seer’s capacity to receive the revelation, “not every element of the vision has to have a specific historical sense. It is the vision as a whole that matters, and the details must be understood on the basis of the images taken in their entirety.”

FYI I read what Father John Loughnan said and he based that on some Medjugorje message that said Our Lady’s birthday was August 26.

There is no way to ever confirm this, whether or not Medjugorje is ever approved. Also this is clearly not information that is important to our salvation. If it was it would have been presented to us through Public revelation.

Yet it was through the Medjugorje messages that people were told to read Poem of the Man-God.

Through an unapproved appartion people are told to read an unapproved locution. Sound problematic to anyone else??

With this much confusion over who said what, when that its any wonder why some have trouble believing.

There need not be confusion if people were to listen to the Church who has our best spiritual interest at heart above and beyond anyone. Priest, seer, or otherwise.

It’s true, I do have trouble believing things that are not approved by the Church. It’s not Catholic until She says it is. This is called prudence which we are ALL told to have.

Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758) stated, “No private revelation is ever to be believed with Catholic faith.”

 

[Love4Mary2]

“Why do you need everyone on this thread to believe it too?”

It is the topic of the thread. Basically those who support Valtorta’s writings present arguments in favor, those who do not, kind of propose arguments in opposition. The idea is to persuade readers to their respective opinion or standpoint.

“Even if it WAS an approved private revelation no Catholic would be bound to believe it was authentic. We have all the salvific information we need through the Gospels, safeguarded by the Church.”

True, no argument there.

“To try to convince everyone of Poem’s authenticity does no one any good.”

It leads to a more personal relationship with God.

Before the 2003 CBS Sex Crimes discovery, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was approached several times to review the Church’s position on Maria Valtorta’s writings, but he refused to overturn the condemnation under Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. 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. However, after the 2003 CBS Sex Crimes discovery that placed Cardinal Ottaviani as the origin of the shocking pedophile scandal, Cardinal Ratzinger’s position on Maria Valtorta’s writings seems to have vacillated. It has been divulged by the bishop of Birmingham, Alabama, that Cardinal Ratzinger has now acknowledged in a private letter that there is nothing against faith or morals in the Poem of the Man God and the other writings of Maria Valtorta. This change of position is further supported by statements made by Cardinal Ratzinger at a Conference of Italian Bishops, as testified by Bishop Roman Danylak. Now that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has become our reigning Pope, those who have been able to recognize the finger of God in Maria Valtorta’s writings are optimistic about a reversal of the Church’s stance. Hopefully, one day the Church may officially acknowledge the original Papal Imprimatur given by Pope Pius XII in 1948 before three distinguished priests that was overturned in 1959.

 

[Tominellay]

Your argument doesn’t convince:

Was then-Cardinal Ratzinger really personally groomed by Cardinal Ottaviani?

Was Ottaviani the origin of the shocking pedophile scandal?

Did a German cardinal really say such and such to a Conference of Italian Bishops that can be attested to by a Ukrainian bishop from Canada?

Oh, my!

 

[Love4Mary2]

That is why God created Google and Yahoo. This is kind of well-known information. It shouldn’t be too hard to confirm that Cardinal Ratzinger succeeded Cardinal Ottaviani.

Cardinal Ottaviani is the highly controversial author of the scandalous 1962 secret Vatican policy that stunned the world. This policy was uncovered by CBS News and disclosed in an August 6, 2003 article entitled, “Sex Crimes Cover Up by Vatican”. This Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani policy mandated the Church Hierarchy, under the penalty of excommunication, to protect pedophile priests that repeatedly molested young children. The document 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.

This 2003 CBS Sex Crimes discovery, coupled with the knowledge that it was under this same Cardinal Ottaviani that a Papal Imprimatur was surreptitiously reversed, gives new light to the grievous persecutions of Maria Valtorta and her writings.

It is amazing that some people will give more weight to the condemnation of Maria Valtorta’s writings under this wayward Cardinal, than to a Papal Imprimatur that was witnessed by three priests with signed statements and logged at the Vatican by Cardinal Edourd Gagnon, the Official Vatican Recorder. Try the following link:

cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml