I Need Help with Poem of the Man-God

[Eliza10]

Satanic Mimicry…
Fr. Groeschel cites the case of the Franciscan nun, Magdalena of the Cross, She succeeded in deluding a large number of Spanish theologians who prided themselves on not being easily taken in. … She physically levitated or floated above her bed - something some saints did when in ecstasy. However, the devil is just as capable of causing levitation in people.

You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. I’m sure there were some around her who were not fooled at all. Because I really believe if you “hold Jesus’ hand”, and trust in HIM to show you - not your own pride, your own eyes - then he will show you what is true and what is not.

Yes the devil can imitate many things. We know from the Moses story the magicians performed many of the same signs. But the Devil can’t do everything. And we have the promises of Christ who said the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. We can trust in Him - not in our own understanding.

And of course, the Holy Spirit speaks thru the Church and doesn’t contradict Himself. He doesn’t tell us personally one thing and the Church another. And the Magisterium has not yet settled this Valtorta matter. The Church has only settled on the fact that it is okay to believe in private revelation.

 

[bear06]

Wow, this is an incredible conversation. It would seem that the authority of the Magisterium is greatly misunderstood. You gave an example of Padre Pio. Guess what He submitted to the authority of the Church. He didn’t say “God revealed to me that you are wrong so I will disobey.” He obeyed.

This was already pointed out. The Church put it on the banned book list. Until SHE says it’s a mistake, we are to obey. She is the competent authority in this matter and until she says otherwise, we are bound by this judgment. If someone is telling you otherwise acting on behalf of Satan. Should anyone in the Curia make a judgment, unless the Pope contradicts that judgment, we are bound by it. Once again, the Pope is the competent authority in this matter and he has let the ban stand. You have yet to provide evidence the the ban was lifted? If you have it, please provide a link. Many links have been provide to you already showing the ban still in force.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

bear06:

Wow, this is an incredible conversation. It would seem that the authority of the Magisterium is greatly misunderstood. You gave an example of Padre Pio. Guess what He submitted to the authority of the Church. He didn’t say “God revealed to me that you are wrong so I will disobey.” He obeyed.

Precisely. Those claiming to see the BVM, Jesus or are having supposedly divine locutions end up destroying the authenticity of their case without realizing it when they say something such as what you said above. And, it has happened. The seers of Medjugorje for example, have defied the local Bishop which was instrumental in his ruling, and in the subsequent conference of Catholic bishops.

This was already pointed out. The Church put it on the banned book list. Until SHE says it’s a mistake, we are to obey. She is the competent authority in this matter and until she says otherwise, we are bound by this judgment. If someone is telling you otherwise acting on behalf of Satan. Should anyone in the Curia make a judgment, unless the Pope contradicts that judgment, we are bound by it. Once again, the Pope is the competent authority in this matter and he has let the ban stand. You have yet to provide evidence the the ban was lifted? If you have it, please provide a link. Many links have been provide to you already showing the ban still in force.

Now, the book was not removed from the banned book list, just to be clear. Rather, the banned book list was eliminated in 1966. That is why Cardinal Ratzinger addressed it in that letter above by saying that it still holds relevance that it was on the list. His concern was that the average person out there reading this, might actually believe it to be of divine origin. But this is clarified in 1993 when, through Bishop Raymond Boland. Here it is once again:

In the light of the recent recurrance [sic] of interest in the work, the Congregation has come to the conclusion that a further clarification to the “Notes” previously issued is now in order. Thus it has directed a particular request to the Italian Bishops’ Conference to contact the publishing house which is concerned with the distribution of the writings in Italy in order to see to it that in any future reissue of the work “it might be 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**.” **

The implications of this most recent decision of the Holy See (Prot.N. 144/58 i, dated April 17, 1993) are obvious insofar as those who use, publish or sell the writings in question should know and clearly express the judgment of the Holy See as indcated in the underlined section of my previous paragraph.

Now, I don’t know how much clearer it could get.

The Holy See does not issue a “cannot be considered supernatural in origin” if they may possibly reverse it later. This simply means that some part of the work did not meet some piece of criteria.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Eliza10:

Diane, you wrote, “Well, Pope Benedict XVI has spoken…” We can’t overlook the fact that he was not speaking as Pope here. Of course we would all see it differently if he had. You only want us to see his statements as if he said them as Pope, but that is not the fact.

No, it was Josef Ratzinger who made the decision as CDF Prefect and declared that the visions and dictations were NOT of supernatural origin.

A pope will not address all the hundreds, if not thousands of controversies such as this. That is why there is a CDF and the CDF spoke.

I think you may mistakenly believe that he will sit in his throne and make some kind of declaration or condemnation from that chair. This is simply not how these things are handled.

Also, you misrepresented what I was stating when you inferred that I was saying this book was banned. I don’t recall ever saying the book was banned. I emphasized and highlighted the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger specifically stated that these “revelations” in Poem of the Man-God were not of supernatural origin. And, he also pointed out that because the reasons were beyond “superficial” as to why it was banned, the lifting of the list does not mean the original ban on this book lost its teeth.

Once again, that is highly significant.

One of the dangers is becoming so convinced of something you become blind to the possible dangers. With every apparition that is investigated there will always be followers long after a condemnation takes place. These people use “private judgment” to guide them - a very protestant approach.

 

[allhers]

Clear back on post #2 mosher gave the web site for the following: (which is what good, faithful, devout Catholics believe.
“The ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in the work, “The Poem of the
Man-God,” 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.”

The best that can be said for “The Poem of the Man-God” is that it is a
bad novel. This was summed up in the L’Osservatore Romano headline, which
called the book “A Badly Fictionalized Life of Jesus.”

At worst, “Poem’s” impact is more serious. Though many people claim that
“Poem” helps their faith or their return to reading Scripture, they are
still being disobedient to the Church’s decisions regarding the reading of
“Poem.” How can such disregard for Church authority and wisdom be a help
in renewing the Church in these difficult times?

When Catholics insist on reading “Poem,” despite Church condemnation, I
make these requests: First, read three hours of Scripture for every one
hour spent in the “Poem.” The Church guarantees that the Bible is God’s
Word, inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Church has judged the “Poem” to be
a poorly done human work. Second, read solid Catholic theology books in
addition to Scripture. G.K. Chesterton, Frank Sheed, Archbishop Sheen’s
“Life of Christ” and many other works are excellent starts. Third,
maintain a strong prayer life, drawing closer to Christ Jesus, Our Lord,
at Mass and at eucharistic adoration, and to our Blessed Mother Mary,
especially in the Rosary.

If sheep insist on bad pasturage, at least let them take antidotes. —

Some people believe that what they want to believe is alright Eliza, however, they still remain wrong!!(and Eliza, it’s you who is wrong.)

 

[bear06]

It cracks me up that Bishop Williamson of the SSPX is also a fan and promoter of Poem of the Man-God. It would seem that those that have a problem with who is the arbiter of what seem to love this series. I think they should all read Pastor Aeternus:
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare **that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. ** And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

 

[dcdurel]

trustmc:

I suspect the reason no one has wasted their time on this thread trying to answer your critique of the New American Bible commentary is because the issue has nothing to do with the Poem of the Man-God.

Yes it does. The only reason people are condemning the Poem is that it would lead to some kind of danger to the faith of Catholics, even though no one has been able to find any heresy in it. Thus the real issue is danger to the faith of Catholics.

Now I point out errors in the introductions to the Gospels in the New American Bible which are definite dangers to the faith. Actually they are not heresies, but are even worse. Heresies deny some truth of divine revelation. The introductions deny that we can even know any kind of divine revelation at all. Because they deny that the four Gospels were written by the authors assigned to them. In other words, they claim the four Gospels are forgeries. Well, if they are correct, and the “faith community” knew that the Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses, and thus the Gospels were not historical, since they claim to be written by eyewitnesses, or they deny historical tradition that says two gospels were written eyewitnesses then how do we know that Jesus gave authority to the apostles? We don’t. If we don’t know that Jesus gave authority to the apostles and that He founded His Church on the apostles, then how can we know Scripture is inspired? How can we know that Jesus said anything attributed to Him in these Gospels? We don’t. How do we know that Pope has any authority at all? We don’t. How do we know that the Holy Office has any authority? We don’t.
Thus it is a free for all. Thus all your supposed acceptance of some vague “teaching” authority of the Holy Office is so much nonsense if these introductions are true.

  Thus historical truthfulness of the four Gospels and of historical tradition is the foundation of Divine Revelation. If the four Gospels are not truthful, and if historical tradition is not truthful, they we have no way of knowing if Jesus founded the Catholic Church and if He gave any authority to the Catholic Church.  Then your religion is based on your opinion, instead of historical facts.

Of course this is the real reason the traditional authors of the Gospels are denied in the introductions. This idea that we can determine authorship by internal evidence was made up for the sole reason to deny the truths handed down in the Gospels and in historical tradition. An excellent book that defends the Church teaching on this is “The authenticity of Sacred Scripture” by Father Haggerty.
Of course ordinary Catholics don’t know these introductions go against science, go against all secular methods of determining authorship and are condemned by the Church in the ways I mentioned before. So many believe that the Gospels are not historical and thus they lose their faith or it is weakened entirely.

These introductions that deny that we can even know that Jesus gave authority to His Church is worse than any heresy, and it is far worse than any supposed difficulties in the Poem of the Man-God.

The errors in the introductions to the Gospels in the New American Bible have been condemned by the highest teaching authority of the Church, the Popes themselves and an infallible Church council in the section the “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation” or Dei Verbum, which is the product of the infallible Church teaching authority. I repeat, the Infallible Highest Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church, the Popes, the representative of Jesus Christ, Son of God, condemns these introductions and the methods they use.

There is NO infallible teaching authority that said the Poem had any heresies or anything contrary to Church teaching.

Why is it that NO ONE complains about these introductions which are worse than any heresy, which are extremely widespread and are read by almost all english speaking Catholics, which have NO redeeming value, which do NOTHING to increase our faith, but the only influence they have is to harm our faith, allowed to go unquestioned by the same people who jump on any chance to condemn the Poem of the Man-God, though it has never been condemned by any official teaching authority, that is the Pope and bishops in union with the Pope, and has never been found to have any errors in it while at the same time it has increased the faith of Catholics around the world?
This does not make sense to me at all. All I can conclude is that the only reason the Poem is really condemed by some is because it increases the faith of Catholics, and the introductions are NOT condemned by some people is because it decreases the faith of Catholics.

 

[Eireann]

Approved Apparations >catholicdoors.com/isit/approved.htm

Private Revelations > catholicdoors.com/isit/isitchur.htm

 

[dcdurel]

At worst, “Poem’s” impact is more serious. Though many people claim that
“Poem” helps their faith or their return to reading Scripture, they are still being disobedient to the Church’s decisions regarding the reading of “Poem.” How can such disregard for Church authority and wisdom be a help in renewing the Church in these difficult times?
When Catholics insist on reading “Poem,” despite Church condemnation,

How can you say the Church condems the Poem, when Ratzinger implied that is ok to use and publish the work, with the stipulation that it not be considered supernatural.
Obviously it is not condemned, as you claim over and over.
This is the quote:

"In the light of the recent recurrance [sic] of interest in the work, the Congregation has come to the conclusion that a further clarification to the “Notes” previously issued is now in order. Thus it has directed a particular request to the Italian Bishops’ Conference to contact the publishing house which is concerned with the distribution of the writings in Italy in order to see to it that in any future reissue of the work “it might be 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.
The implications of this most recent decision of the Holy See (Prot.N. 144/58 i, dated April 17, 1993) are obvious insofar as those who use, publish or sell the writings in question should know and clearly express the judgment of the Holy See as indcated in the underlined section of my previous paragraph.”

Notice it says those who “use”, publish or sell the writings. Obviously the Poem is no longer “condemned” if the Holy See sees nothing wrong with using and publishing the work. And since this Congregation has NOT a teaching authority, and thus NOT infallible and has known to be in error many times, and since Ratzinger relied on others and didn’t even read the book, then we must base this answer on the same type of theologians who condemned Padre Pio and many others in error. Since they do nothing about the introductions to the Gospels of the New American Bible, even though these have been condemned by the Highest Infallible teaching authority of the Church, the Popes and an Infallible General Council, (Vatican II) and even though these introductions are now on the Vatican’s own web site thus extremely widespread, well that tells me about the judgement of these “theologians” . They strain at the gnat and swollow the camel. We must remember, that Jesus was not using this statement with the ordinary Jewish priests, but with the scholars of the law, similar to “scripture scholars and theologians”, the same type who don’t like the poem of the Man-God. Seems like nothing has changed in 2000 years.

If there is nothing to prevent it from being re-issued and used, then we can use the work, as long as we take into account the opinion of the Congregation (who miraculously sees nothing wrong with the introductions to the Gospels in the New American Bible), which shows what I think of their opinion.

 

[pnewton]

Character Zero:

Yes, what my uncle told me is “hear-say.” I heard it when he said it. And like I said before, I would not expect opponents of Valtorta to believe me? Why would you? Anecdotal evidence doesn’t hold up in arguments. But I know these facts to be true, if you do not want to believe them, so be it.

Mitch Pacwa is a great priest, but I respect the opinions of Padre Pio, John Paul the Great, Gabriele Roschini, and Mother Theresa much more.

Lest anyone else by tempted to spread this as if it is some sort of Catholic urban legend, let me point out what is here of substance:

An internet poster is saying he heard someone else say that they heard these people support this.

One can choose to believe this, or the quotes and links posted that are not in dispute.

 

[Eliza10]

bear06:

It cracks me up that Bishop Williamson of the SSPX is also a fan and promoter of Poem of the Man-God. It would seem that those that have a problem with who is the arbiter of what seem to love this series…/QUOTE]

So you are making a sweeping gereralization - that all those who see God’s hand in Poem of the Man-God have a “problem with who is the arbitrator of what?” ( and it “cracks you up”??)

Just for the record, not all those who are in SSPX are into Poem of the Man-God. Apparently, some of them are with it some are against it. I say this because I have deeply devout friends who have unfortunately united thmeselves with SSPX, and they don’t feel the work has Vatican approval so they wouldn’t read it. They site other approved works that would be good to read. Of course there are many! But I don’t think its either/or - its both/and, in this case, IMO.

And for the record, standing with Valtorta’s work does not meaning standing with SSPX, if thats the implication here.

 

[Character_Zero]

pnewton:

Lest anyone else by tempted to spread this as if it is some sort of Catholic urban legend, let me point out what is here of substance:

An internet poster is saying he heard someone else say that they heard these people support this.

One can choose to believe this, or the quotes and links posted that are not in dispute.

As if they are mutually exclusive?

By the way, the “Someone else” was my uncle, a faithful Catholic priest who studied at the Angelicum for a number of years, worked in the Vatican, and was even friendly with then Cardinal Ratzinger, and very friendly with Bishop Shoenborn, as well as extremely close with his own Bishop Hnilica, who was a great friend of John Paul the Great. I have known my uncle since I was born, he is the only force in my life who kept me somewhat attached to the Catholic faith during my morally bankrupt years in college, and since I have decided to make good on my confirmation vows, he has instructed me. So while to you it is “some anyonymous person,” it is much different for me. Like I said, I really do not care if you believe me, this is a private revelation after all, which is never binding on the faithful, but I’d wish you would not paint me or my uncle in such a light. I provide anecdotal evidence, no more, no less. The mere fact that it is anecdotal does not mean it is more or less likely to be accurate. Unfortunately my uncle didn’t have a video camera all the time recording private conversations at the Vatican.

 

[Eliza10]

dcdurel:

Yes it does. The only reason people are condemning the Poem is that it would lead to some kind of danger to the faith of Catholics, even though no one has been able to find any heresy in it. Thus the real issue is danger to the faith of Catholics.

Now I point out errors in the introductions to the Gospels in the New American Bible which are definite dangers to the faith. Actually they are not heresies, but are even worse…

…The errors in the introductions to the Gospels in the New American Bible have been condemned by the highest teaching authority of the Church, the Popes themselves and an infallible Church council in the section the “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation” or Dei Verbum, which is the product of the infallible Church teaching authority. I repeat, the Infallible Highest Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church, the Popes, the representative of Jesus Christ, Son of God, condemns these introductions and the methods they use.

There is NO infallible teaching authority that said the Poem had any heresies or anything contrary to Church teaching.

Why is it that NO ONE complains about these introductions which are worse than any heresy, which are extremely widespread and are read by almost all english speaking Catholics, which have NO redeeming value…[but these] people… jump on any chance to condemn the Poem of the Man-God, though it has never been condemned by any official teaching authority, that is the Pope and bishops in union with the Pope, and has never been found to have any errors in it while at the same time it has increased the faith of Catholics around the world?
This does not make sense to me at all. …

ddurel-- Thank you for an excellent explanation. I think that many of the posters on this thread are apparently not following your argument.

You are saying that people are protesting Poem of the Man-God because they think it leads to danger in our faith.

Yet they are saying that the issue is an issue of submission to authority. Yet if that is truly their issue, why are they not more concerned about their Catholic brothers and sisters reading the New American Bible? Are they at least warning everyone they know that the introductions are heresay?

If submission to authority is their issue, this should be a red alert for them. Why harp on Poem of the Man-God, when there is not condemanation by infallible teaching authority?

Is it because readers of it are so blessed by it, and say so, and the detractors are reacting to the faith and hapiness the readers express? The detractors don’t understand it, and are (understandably) afraid of reading something they fear might not be approved by the Church, so they vehemently condemn what they can’t reach themselves? Kind of like sour grapes?

 

[Character_Zero]

Notice it says those who “use”, publish or sell the writings. Obviously the Poem is no longer “condemned” if the Holy See sees nothing wrong with using and publishing the work. And since this Congregation has NOT a teaching authority, and thus NOT infallible and has known to be in error many times,

This bears repeating.

 

[Eliza10]

Lux_et_veritas:

…
One of the dangers is becoming so convinced of something you become blind to the possible dangers. With every apparition that is investigated there will always be followers long after a condemnation takes place. These people use “private judgment” to guide them - a very protestant approach.

Yes, its very Protestant to use “private judgement” as a guide.

Its also common for some Catholics to be completely out of touch with private judgement and their own consience, and only blindly follow rules as they see them, without understanding, and without ever establishing a personal relationship with Christ.

But the truly Catholic way is “both/and”. Obedience to the magisterium of the Chruch does not preclude private judgement - at least in the form of faithfulness to one’s conscience and personal relationbship with the Lord. Its not either/or - its both.

 

[Eliza10]

Character Zero:

***Notice it says those who “use”, publish or sell the writings. Obviously the Poem is no longer “condemned” if the Holy See sees nothing wrong with using and publishing the work. And since this Congregation has NOT a teaching authority, and thus NOT infallible and has known to be in error many times, ***

This bears repeating.

I agree! So I am repeating it here, lest anyone miss it!

 

[pnewton]

Character Zero:

but I’d wish you would not paint me or my uncle in such a light.

I did not mean to paint you or your fine uncle in any light. I only wish to point out that when dealing with the third generation of a statement (fourth if any one passes it on), that accuracy is inherently lost. If any people mentioned earlier had any substantial opinion, then it should be readily available for all to see so that antecdotal evidence is unnecessary.

We know, for example, how Pope John Paul II felt about St. Faustina. We do not have to rely on anything being heard in private conversations.

Eliza10:

But the truly Catholic way is “both/and”. Obedience to the magisterium of the Chruch does not preclude private judgement - at least in the form of faithfulness to one’s conscience and personal relationbship with the Lord. Its not either/or - its both.

Yes, but remember that there are two levels of private revelation, that which has been approved (St. Faustina, e.g.) and that which has not (Valtorta, e.g.). Even outside of approved revelation, your post refers to how God can deal with us each individually.

But we must remember that this would be considered a private and personal revelation, which should not be applied to the topic at hand, as it would be an individual matter. Surely no one is claiming to have received a vision or revelation about this Poem, are they?

 

[Eliza10]

pnewton:

I did not mean to paint you or your fine uncle in any light. I only wish to point out that when dealing with the third generation of a statement (fourth if any one passes it on), that accuracy is inherently lost…

I think you mean to say that accuracy CAN BE inherently lost. Many people outside our faith think that tradition handed down by the apostles thru many people over time of course must not be accurate, for example. If she heard it from her uncle whose character she knows, who heard it from someone else whose character he trusted, and her heart says this is true, she has no reason to believe otherwise. And her belief itself is a testament to me.

 

[pnewton]

Eliza10:

I think you mean to say that accuracy CAN BE inherently lost.

Yes, that is what I mean. It is the danger of oral testimony through a chain of people.

and her heart says this is true, she has no reason to believe otherwise.

The burning in the bosom argument has been used for other extra-Biblical “revelation.”

 

[Eliza10]

pnewton:

… The burning in the bosom argument has been used for other extra-Biblical “revelation.”

When a person claims to feel sure something is right, or have a conviction in their heart something is true, it can be a valuable signal that it is in fact true. God gave us feelings for a reason. We don’t have to ignore them. But yes, its true this is used wrongly. So it can’t be all the evidence for a thing, but it is an important piece of it.