I Need Help with Poem of the Man-God

[pnewton]

Eliza10:

God gave us feelings for a reason. We don’t have to ignore them…

I have to say your post made me laugh. Not that it was bad or “wrong” but that it reminds me of an on-going failure I have to see eye-to-eye with my wife.

Could we be having a little Venus/Mars failure here? Feelings? Who needs them? I would rather read St. Thomas or Peter Kreeft any day. (For some reason my wife does not care for these)

 

[mosher]

Eliza10:

What I meant was, basic, like foundational. Like not extras. I wonder what in the world you were thinking I meant by the word??

You also said: “To place any faith whatsoever in Valtorte’s work would be inconsistent with the counsel of reputable authorities to include, I might add, our current pope.”

To place faith in Valtorta’s work is also to be consistent with reputable authorites. See, you are choosing to ignore there are reputable authorities on BOTH sids of this issue.

So go ahead, and choose your side, and base your devotional life on what the Church teaches (She allows belief in private revelation) and where the Holy Spirit guides your conscience. But don’t be smug about it. Have considerations for differences of opinion, for which there is room.

Also, our Pope has made no comment on Valtorta in his office as Pope. When he does speak from his position of infallibility on faith and morals, of course we Catholics listen!

I’ve been out but I had to reply to this one point.

It is not necessary for the Pope to speak for or against private revelation (or reputed private revelation) such matters are placed with the proper dicastery in Rome to address. And as Fr. Pacwa has noted the Holy Office took a stace contra the poem and the existing “Index of Forbidden Books” while having no legal binding authority do still retains its moral significance. That is an important point. For instance, the previous revision of the Code of Canon Law specifically forbad catholics from beign members of Masonic organizations under pain of mortal sin. The revised canon law does not have masonry specifically mentioned. Later the CDF made a statement that said that membership in “English forms of freemasonry” should not pose a problem to catholics and this was recinded by the CDF under then Cardinal Ratzinger stating that while membership in masonic organizations are not illicit per the law there is still a moral issue that is in place and catholics that become members of masonic organizations should not approace Holy Communion. This same principle applies to the Index for the reasons cited.

 

[DreadVandal]

I have to say your post made me laugh. Not that it was bad or “wrong” but that it reminds me of an on-going failure I have to see eye-to-eye with my wife.

Could we be having a little Venus/Mars failure here? Feelings? Who needs them? I would rather read St. Thomas or Peter Kreeft any day. (For some reason my wife does not care for these)

Now I am going to get slammed for suggesting this; but it would be interesting to see what percentage of the followers of these kinds of visions (like the Poem of the Man God) are female. Scripture does teach that women are not to be in positions of authority because Eve was deceived. One interpretation of this is that it is more difficult for women to be rational and objective, since their nature is more emotional. Just a possibility . Let the rocks begin to fly. And btw, my wife and I occasionally have similar kinds of reason vs. emotion disputes though she is very intellectual herself.

 

[pnewton]

Someone on another thread has found a phenomenal link to Peter Kreeft’s website. After I posted the last comment I acutal peaked her interest in some of his stuff (although her initial reaction was “I’m glad you like it”)

 

[trustmc]

Eliza 10,

I have read all of your posts since my last response and I honestly don’t know where to begin. I will defer all academic arguments against Valtorta’s work to Diane (Lux_et_veritas) who has cited more than enough legitimate sources that support our case. As for your own arguments in support of Valtorta, there are too many to quote and address individually, so I will do my best to summarize them as best as I have understood them.

First, you say that the book is no longer banned, but this is a misstatement which implies that the book has been approved. This is not the case, and I suspect that you know that already. The abolishment of the list doesn’t mean that the book is not still considered harmful. The “Satanic Bible” was also on the list, but just because the list no longer exists doesn’t mean the book has been approved for spiritual guidance. And I don’t have to read the Satanic Bible myself in order to form a correct judgment of the work. In fact it is more responsible for me to reserve that judgment for the correct Church authorities lest I risk jeopardizing my faith.

You keep mentioning that personal feelings are useful in shaping one’s spiritual discernment, but this is also not the case. Witness the many Mormons who testify to their own feelings when they read the Book of Mormon that “prove” the book is true. You seem to be doing the same with Valtorta’s writings. The “peace beyond all understanding” that you refer to from scripture to legitimize feelings is not an emotion; it is a state of mind that underlies the feelings of a believer even when the believer is feeling anxious, distressed or sorrowful during times of trial. This peace is predicated on faith in Christ, not our emotions.

You say that since God led you to the Catholicism then he must also have led you to Valtorta’s work. This is dangerous reasoning. Witness the history of Catholics who have also fallen away even after having heard the voice of the Lord. Scripture says that even Satan can appear as “an angel of light” in order to deceive us with alleged benevolence, and that he roams the earth “as a lion to devour believers.” Individual bishops, priests and lay persons can be deceived by the devil, but the Church when she speaks through her legitimate voices (such as the CDF) is less prone to error. God surely led you to the Catholic Church in your quest for truth, but that doesn’t mean the devil is not trying to do as much damage to your newfound faith and witness. I suggest you reread the parable of the sower and consider the possibility that Satan has sent you crows and weeds to rob you of your faith.

You’ve made the repeated claim that the Church allows us to believe in private revelations, but fail to qualify this claim with which ones. Only the person to whom the private revelation was given is bound to believe in them in the absence of Church approval. The rest of us are morally bound to consider what the CDF has to say about them. In the case of Valtorta, there have been enough red flags raised by the CDF to err on the side of caution here. Also keep in mind that the Church can never claim that a private revelation is “true.” It can only say whether a revelation is deceptive, neutral, or worthy of pious belief. In this case, the Church has already discredited repeatedly Valtorta’s book.

You say that the bible and Catechism are “foundational” when they are in fact all-encompassing. Any subsequent revelations are to be judged against these sources. They are authoritative and inerrant, and are guarded by infallible interpreters. Mormons believe the bible is “foundational.” The Catholic Church believes the bible, like Tradition, is no less than the Word of God itself that is to be believed by all the faithful or risk condemnation. I would hardly call this “foundational.”

I do believe you when you testify that you are continuing to seek the truth in order that your faith may not fail you. That is why I believe that God is trying to reveal the truth to you regarding Valtorta’s work through this forum, giving you information though Lux_et_veritas, pnewton, DreadVandal, and others whose postings are not marred by immature appeals to personal feelings and skepticism towards legitimate Church authorities.

Finally, allow me to propose a Pascalian argument for you to ponder. You treat arguments for or against Valtorta’s work as morally equivalent. But consider this: if Lux_et_veritas, et al., are wrong and you’re right, then they have not merited any condemnation, while you have benefited from grace. However, if Lux and company are correct and you’re wrong, then they still have not merited any condemnation, while you on the other hand have placed your newfound faith in grave jeopardy. Given the choice between risking faith or not meriting any condemnation, I would say that moral equivalence here is a fantasy when only one choice has the potential to lead to spiritual destruction.

Mike

 

[trustmc]

dcdurel:

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.

Because this thread is about the Poem of the Man-God, not about the NAB commentary. If you were to post your concerns about the NAB on a new thread dedicated to that subject, you will be pleasantly surprised to find that many of your opponents here, me included, will agree whole-heartedly with you there. You seem to think that if we don’t support Valtorta, then we must agree with the NAB and vice versa. This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to mischaracterize us only so that you can claim to have discredited us. How intellectually dishonest of you.

Mike

 

[Eliza10]

Thanks Mike for that long response. i am going to answer it in pieces.

trustmc:

You keep mentioning that personal feelings are useful in shaping one’s spiritual discernment, but this is also not the case. Witness the many Mormons who testify to their own feelings when they read the Book of Mormon that “prove” the book is true. You seem to be doing the same with Valtorta’s writings. The “peace beyond all understanding” that you refer to from scripture to legitimize feelings is not an emotion; it is a state of mind that underlies the feelings of a believer even when the believer is feeling anxious, distressed or sorrowful during times of trial. This peace is predicated on faith in Christ, not our emotions.

With the Mormons, they resort to feelings alone when up against the wall when the intellectual arguments run out.

But this is feelings AND reason. For me feelings includes how I know God has spoken to my consience in the past - its the same as how he is speaking to me on this. Thats a pretty sacred place. One I am not going to dump overboard without real good reason!

ANd its reason because I look at your reasoning but I also see the reasoning of dcdurel and CharacterZero here. I also look at the experts presented by both sides of this issue.

And I can’t ignore that a bulk of the experts on your side are doing stupid things like accusing Valtorta as portraying a homosexual Jesus. Or they might say its too flowery. Well thats her writing style. Jesus in most parts of the books did not dictate words to her - He brought to to scenes in His life and she wrote what she saw - in her writing style. She had a gift for descriptive writing. Flowery some call it. Which is not a common way of writing now but in the 50s it was.

So reason tells me there is a lot wrong with the critics you are quoting.

So I conside your linked critics, and I consider the critics on this thread. You sound reasonable. But frankly you haven’t read it. You haven’t been in my shoes, reading and believing, and then asked to give up what you believed.

If there was someone who read and truly believed, was perhaps devoted to Valtorta’s books, rea dit with understanding, and came to believe that it wasnt of God the Church ruled it wrong and then they rejected it AND saw the reason and error in it, you can be sure that would be a much more powerful motivator.

This would be compared to the conversion story of a true beleiver in Mormonism who sorted out his beleifs through hard work over time and came to see the error of it and the truth of Catholicism.

If Valtorta is so wrong, there must be SOME out there who truly believed and loved it, and then with much learning and understanidng foudn point by point where they were wrong. Now that would be persuasive.

As a truly beleiving Evangelical Christian, I was swayed away from the very solid ground I thought I stood on when I read Scott Hahns story. He truly beleived like I believed - then he saw what was missing from it.

That kind of convincing would work for me. I need something that solid because saying Valtorta is not of God means ripping away that special God-place where he has spoken so powerfully to me before, and saying its wrong.

Do you understand why I need something more that what you can offer?

Your arguments are not falling on deaf ears. If the Church infallibly ruled against it - something that the Church would not do without a very serious examination, and would result in a good thorough teaching on why, as She always has done in the past, like a loving wise Mother, then of course I would have to choose between Valtorta and the Church and i would choose my Church. And your arguments that I could not except would be remembered and be a reinforcement.

But whereas you think one has to choose, I do not think at this point in time one has to choose. And I deeply do not beleive that there ever will be a time one has to choose, because I believe Poem of the Man-God is a gift of God and His Church will not ever infallibly deny that it is from God.

**

But I am not infallible, and could be wrong, and if the time of choice comes, I would chose as I stated.

 

[Eliza10]

trustmc:

…First, you say that the book is no longer banned, but this is a misstatement which implies that the book has been approved. This is not the case, and I suspect that you know that already. The abolishment of the list doesn’t mean that the book is not still considered harmful. The “Satanic Bible” was also on the list, but just because the list no longer exists doesn’t mean the book has been approved for spiritual guidance. And I don’t have to read the Satanic Bible myself in order to form a correct judgment of the work. In fact it is more responsible for me to reserve that judgment for the correct Church authorities lest I risk jeopardizing my faith…

There are all different reasons for things being on that old banned list. So much so that you can’t tie them together in any way, other than that they exist on the list. The Satanic Bible was there for obvious reasons! So when banned, one shouldn’t read it!

But there might be good reasons for reading even that. I once read a book along the lines of that book, actually. My sister-in-law, in exchange for reading a book on the Christian faith, did so as a deal I would read one of her “best” books. It was Messages From Michael - basically messages from some “spirit” from an Ouiji Board! I was sickened by this idea, and more sickened when I saw it was in the “Occult” section of the bookstore. But it was a way to get here to look at Christianity, and I asked myself, could I trust God, could I trust the Holy Spirit to guard my untrained mind while I read this to “find a point of agreement” as Paul urges us in the Bible, and yet not to pollute my own mind with this satanic stuff?

I decided to go ahead for the good purpose, and trust God in explicit prayer for protection and discernment. I prayed, then believed He would hear my prayer. I trusted. Then i read. Tons of information, “fascinating” “facts” about the universe (number relations and tons of other unusual pedantic info, which could be true, who can know [as, if it was Satanic it probably did have some truth in it as thats how he works], most having little to do with our lives but for someone excited about “secrets of the universe”, this might seem really neat.

I was having a hard time finding any profound points of agreement, and waded thru two thirds of the boring, confusing, unusual but important-sounding stuff, when finally I hit on all I needed to know about the book. The “wise” guru spirit in the Ouiji Board, Michael, was asked if Jesus was really God’s son. He round about answered, basically, “of course not!”

That was where I could finally stop reading, and report to my sis-in-law that it was probably full of true and unusual things but it was all told by a liar (based on the above), so Michael was in the wrong camp!

Well I still pray for my sis-in-law because she frequents various wrong camps still.

 

[trustmc]

Eliza10:

The Satanic Bible was there for obvious reasons! So when banned, one shouldn’t read it! But there might be good reasons for reading even that.

An urgent word of caution here from Romans 3:8: We are never to commit evil even if some good may come of it.

Look forward to your other responses.

Mike

 

[Eliza10]

trustmc:

…You say that the bible and Catechism are “foundational” when they are in fact all-encompassing. Any subsequent revelations are to be judged against these sources. They are authoritative and inerrant, and are guarded by infallible interpreters. Mormons believe the bible is “foundational.” The Catholic Church believes the bible, like Tradition, is no less than the Word of God itself that is to be believed by all the faithful or risk condemnation. I would hardly call this “foundational.”

I agree with you completely about the Bible and the catechism. I did not realize my word 'foundational" was also used by the Mormons and could therefore seem to diminishing, like their view is. To me it still seems like a good word, but thanks for the education that it doesn’t communicate that way.

trustmc:

…I do believe you when you testify that you are continuing to seek the truth in order that your faith may not fail you. That is why I believe that God is trying to reveal the truth to you regarding Valtorta’s work through this forum,…

Which nicely summerizes the two different views here - you think God is trying to reveal Valtorta is not God’s work, while I think it is God’s work.

trustmc:

…giving you information though Lux_et_veritas, pnewton, DreadVandal, and others whose postings are not marred by immature appeals to personal feelings…

Mars!

trustmc:

…and skepticism towards legitimate Church authorities.

I feel bad having skepticism towards legitimate Church authorities. We have a Bishop here in Rochester that inspires skepticism, too - in me and in so many others. And it makes me feel bad, too. He is a legitimate authority!

So it impells me to try to understand. And walk cautiously in my skepticism. But reason tells me that it is not unreasonable to have a skeptical question concering the CDF if they have been known to make wrong official judgements before.

trustmc:

…Finally, allow me to propose a Pascalian argument for you to ponder. You treat arguments for or against Valtorta’s work as morally equivalent. …

Yes, that seems fair.

trustmc:

…But consider this: if Lux_et_veritas, et al., are wrong and you’re right, then they have not merited any condemnation, while you have benefited from grace…

This is what I think is true.

trustmc:

… However, if Lux and company are correct and you’re wrong, then they still have not merited any condemnation, while you on the other hand have placed your newfound faith in grave jeopardy. Given the choice between risking faith or not meriting any condemnation, I would say that moral equivalence here is a fantasy when only one choice has the potential to lead to spiritual destruction.
Mike

I think you have summerized the motivation of the good critics here on this thread, yourself included. Your honorable goal is help us not put our faith in jeopardy. You think, as Cardinal Radzinger wrote in that letter, that I might possibly be one of those “unprepared faithful” he was warning could be mislead. Not just me, but other supporters and anyone reading here that might read Valtorta’s work.

I think I am not an unprepared faithful. I think I am equipped, because of Whom I am trusting.

And because I think it is from God, I trust that others who know the voice of God will hear His voice in it, too.

 

[Eliza10]

trustmc:

An urgent word of caution here from Romans 3:8: We are never to commit evil even if some good may come of it.

Look forward to your other responses.

Mike

I agree! Committing evil is never okay. It was a great moral dilema for me at the time. Was it evil to read an evil book? I decided no - it was only your intention in reading the evil book that was evil. My intention was to show her the respect for her opinions I wanted her to show me for mine. That was not evil.

But would the evil of the book rub off on me? That was my other concern.

I was not Catholic, but a very commited Christian seeking to do God’s will. There was no guidebook for this dilema, so I had my conscience and God’s Word to go on.

I went on Paul witnessing to other religions, telling us to find a point of agreement.

I also went on what His Word told us about prayer - - ask in prayer, and believe that you have recieved it.

And I went on where it says in Gods Word that if you seek wisdom He will give it to you, and in abundance.

So i asked for His guidence and protection, and trusted and believed He would give it to me.

 

[Eliza10]

(Mike’s comment to dcdurel):

trustmc:

…You seem to think that if we don’t support Valtorta, then we must agree with the NAB and vice versa…

no, no, no. dcurel was not saying that. To me she was quite clear. She was saying something is amiss in the strong protests about Valtorta based on it being rejected by the Church. She was saying such vigilancy should also be reflected elsewhere, like over the real problem with the NAB.

trustmc:

… This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to mischaracterize us only so that you can claim to have discredited us…

This is very naughty. You are claiming to read her heart and you judge she is deceitful. Trying to mischaracterize you.

trustmc:

…How intellectually dishonest of you.
Mike

And this is naughtier! :tsktsk:

 

[mosher]

It is odd to me that groups such as those who support the so called “Poem of the Man-God” continue to refer to the idea that it is necessary for the Church to use its infalliable office to condemn a work or private revelation or the like. This is never the case. An example is the reputted apparition at Bay Town. The events there have been condemned by the Church but not by an infallible office. Another example is the apparitions of Medjagoria which has not been met with any official approbation but has been condemned by particular Bishops who have made it particular law in their diocese that the lay faithful should nto make pilgrimage to the site. In the arena of of private revelation one would be hard pressed to find any case where a formal declaration is made. However, with negative treatment being made of the Poem of the Man-God by an official dicastery one should take it very seriously even if there is no longer a formal legal restriction placed upon said work.

 

[Eliza10]

I have to say your post made me laugh. Not that it was bad or “wrong” but that it reminds me of an on-going failure I have to see eye-to-eye with my wife.

Could we be having a little Venus/Mars failure here? Feelings? Who needs them? I would rather read St. Thomas or Peter Kreeft any day. (For some reason my wife does not care for these)

Yes! I think the Mars/Venus influence is a factor here!

 

[Eliza10]

mosher:

I’ve been out but I had to reply to this one point.

It is not necessary for the Pope to speak for or against private revelation (or reputed private revelation) such matters are placed with the proper dicastery in Rome to address. And as Fr. Pacwa has noted the Holy Office took a stace contra the poem and the existing “Index of Forbidden Books” while having no legal binding authority do still retains its moral significance. That is an important point. For instance, the previous revision of the Code of Canon Law specifically forbad catholics from beign members of Masonic organizations under pain of mortal sin. The revised canon law does not have masonry specifically mentioned. Later the CDF made a statement that said that membership in “English forms of freemasonry” should not pose a problem to catholics and this was recinded by the CDF under then Cardinal Ratzinger stating that while membership in masonic organizations are not illicit per the law there is still a moral issue that is in place and catholics that become members of masonic organizations should not approace Holy Communion. This same principle applies to the Index for the reasons cited.

Its hard for me to get beyond the comparison of Freemasonry with Poem of the Man-God. They are in two opposite camps.

 

[Eliza10]

DreadVandal:

Now I am going to get slammed for suggesting this; but it would be interesting to see what percentage of the followers of these kinds of visions (like the Poem of the Man God) are female. Scripture does teach that women are not to be in positions of authority because Eve was deceived. One interpretation of this is that it is more difficult for women to be rational and objective, since their nature is more emotional. Just a possibility . Let the rocks begin to fly. And btw, my wife and I occasionally have similar kinds of reason vs. emotion disputes though she is very intellectual herself.

Hmm. It would be interesting to see the percentages.

Its also interesting that women tend to be faster to believe the gospel when they hear it. At least I heard that concerning the early Church, and it seems to be true today, and in between.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Eliza10:

I feel bad having skepticism towards legitimate Church authorities. We have a Bishop here in Rochester that inspires skepticism, too - in me and in so many others. And it makes me feel bad, too. He is a legitimate authority!

I’m aware of some things taking place in that diocese and it is unfortunate that you must experience it. However, keep in mind that bishops themselves are human and fallible. Their individual actions do not give one reason to disregard the offices of the Church such as the CDF or the CDW.

So it impells me to try to understand. And walk cautiously in my skepticism. But reason tells me that it is not unreasonable to have a skeptical question concering the CDF if they have been known to make wrong official judgements before.

Can you please tell me specifically which kind of “wrong official judgments” the CDF has made before?

I was looking forward to your response about the Satanic Bible which was the ultimate example. The two cases are the same and I’m disappointed you chose not to address that part of it.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Eliza10:

I think I am not an unprepared faithful. I think I am equipped, because of Whom I am trusting.

This really sums things up. It tells me that you trust the Holy Spirit to guide individuals such as yourself, but you do not trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Holy See in its decisions and opinions.

This, to my mind, is quite protestant.

 

[JimG]

Eliza10:

That kind of convincing would work for me. I need something that solid because saying Valtorta is not of God means ripping away that special God-place where he has spoken so powerfully to me before, and saying it’s wrong.

Wow, I’ve been away, and was surprised to see how long this thread had gotten. But the above emphasized sentence struck me, because it highlights probably the one primary danger of all private revelations. One tends to get immersed in them long before the Church has rendered a judgment. And being immersed in a private revelation, like being immersed in a good novel, creates its own reality, its own worldview. It provides in a way, its own spiritual sustenance. The more immersed one becomes, the harder it is to let go.

And if the Church should subsequently issue a negative judgment, one is abruptly yanked out of that worldview, which had given so much comfort. Such an occurrence can lead one to doubt the Church. It can lead to disobedience. That is the danger with Medjugorge as with Valtorta, and any number of unapproved private revelations and visions and locutions.

The proper response to every alleged private revelation is skepticism.
Until the Church speaks favorably, skepticism is always in order. Because no private revelation is necessary. No private revelation adds to the fullness of the Faith.

I think that part of the reason the Gnostic gospels did, and still do, appeal to the popular imagination is that they purport to give details of Jesus’ life that the real Gospels do not. We think that the Gospel writers let us down by a lack of detail; we want more, and the Gnostics provide it. (As does the Quran, for that matter—Muslims take pride in the fact that the Quran provides interesting tidbits of Jesus life which are not found in the Christian Gospels—most of which probably come from Gnostic sources.)

But the four Evangelists provide us with what is necessary—not all the details we might have liked. It is somewhat dangerous to ask for more.

 

[mosher]

Eliza10:

Its hard for me to get beyond the comparison of Freemasonry with Poem of the Man-God. They are in two opposite camps.

Not necessarily … and the point is that the same principle must be applied concerning moral rectitude even if there is no longer a binding legal formulae.