I Need Help with Poem of the Man-God

[Eliza10]

Lux_et_veritas:

I’m aware of some things taking place in that diocese and it is unfortunate that you must experience it…

Yes it is unfortunate. I converted as a result of learning about the Church through channels outside of my diocese. Thank God for converts like Hahn who write their conversion story!! Thank God for all of EWTN and Journey Home who nurtured that insistent seed that was planted after I read Hahn’'s book! (in 1998) And lots of other apologetics books!

I did run into a handful of truly faithful Catholics here and there in my life (which had become for some time cloistered in my Evangelical community, like those of most everyone else I knew), but I thought they were strange flukes - a testament to the Glory of God that they could survive as true Christians within that strange institution.

And when I finally entered Catholic Churches around here I realized that if I had not read what I read and learned what I had learned beforehand, and had come into one of these Catholic Churches, I never would have been inspired to convert! Instead, I would have felt so sorry for them, not having Christ, like we did.

I had also never ran into a convert to Catholicism from Evangelicalism before - Hahn was the first one, by book. It took me a long while to run into any around here after I began my journey, too. Only recently, now that I’ve been Catholic awhile, am finding they exist offline around here. They are like little scattered seeds springing up here and there, all about, thriving on their own with the strength and vigor of odd weeds among the fields.

But I have met so many faithful Catholics. Daily Mass being one of the best place to find them. Mostly they are those who have been long faithful over many years, and they gratefully welcome the company of a convert. And they all express such gratitude for the company and support of EWTN. And I think they are a testament to the Glory of God - having survived as faithful Catholics in this diocese - after years of the worst of the post-Vatican-2 style leadership.

Lux_et_veritas:

…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…

I would never disregard any office of the Church. But my local experience, and my witness of what some Priests like Father O’Brien say and do, as well of what certain other Bishops say and do in their official capacity, all make me wary of openly accepting everything every Catholic Official says and does in their offices. When it clashes with what I know to be true, I am wary.

You yourself do not have this dilema with Valtorta, because the remarks of the CDF concerning it do not clash in anyway with what you personally have known to be true. You have no problem staying away from a book you haven’t read and haven’t come to know as being of God. For you there is no conflict at all.

Lux_et_veritas:

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

I’ll let Dcdurel answer this as she first said it here. I am a reader of Poem of the Man-God - not a student of Apologetics about it.

I repeated what Dcdurel said because i heard it before, and because it makes sense to me that they have made mistakes. Priests, Bishops and Cardinals have all been known to teach heresay at times, and I had never heard that the CDF was exempt from making mistakes, or that its past work of all the years represented an entire body of error-free infallibility. So when Dcdural highlighted they made mistakes in the past, I figured she know what she was talking about.

Lux_et_veritas:

…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.

Oops - I did. You missed it. Its post #108.

 

[Eliza10]

Lux_et_veritas:

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.

Yes, what you describe is very Protestant. But I am Catholic, and I have a Catholic view, which ios not the one you just described. I will try again to clarify it…

My belief - and the Catholic one - is that the Holy Spirit guides indivduals - leads us into all truth - and ALSO guides the Holy See in its decisions and opinions. When it is the Holy Spirit is leading both, they don’t conflict.

We individuals have a human nature that can get in the way of what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us. So can individuals who are speaking in their official capacity.

Should parishoners of Bishops teaching heresay - say for example the Gnostic heresay of the past - should they override their own conscience, the voice of the Holy Spirit within them, and just obey their Bishop and not speak/believe otherwise?

Fortuneately we have the Sacred Scripture and the infallible Magisterium to guide us when we have suvch confusing dilema. There is a lot that is infallibly true we can hold onto.

 

[Eliza10]

JimG:

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.

Yes, that can happen. And if the private revelation is a true one, its easy to get immersed when you hear your Shephard’s voice!

JimG:

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.

Thats when the real test comes in. I remember reading in Bob and Penny Lords book about Guardian Angels, a story they related about an apparent appiration of St. Raphael to a pilgrim there.

Before they related the story, they explained why they believe the appariations thre are true in spite of the two sides of controversy of which they are aware. They went as skeptics and came back believers. But they said that if the Church ever definitively ruled that it was not true, they would stand with the Church. This is where I stand, and I assume my stance is not uncommon.

JimG:

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.

Yes, you are right. But if you approach something with skepticism, yet are open - beware, you may surprise yourself by believing! That what happened when I read Scott Hahn’s book. I was totally skepical. I kept open that there might be *something *good in there. Had to be something. Was I ever surprised.

I certainly approached Valtorta’s book with skepticism, despite the glowing reports of the bystanders at the book table who saw me pick up the book and ask, “What’s this?” I knew it would be an enjoyable read as they said you would not want to put the books down - which can be a foreboding warning when each volume is at least 800 pages! I was looking for an easy quicker read, but those who had read it said it was the “one” book to choose - the best. Still, five big books! So I relented and bought volume one. As soon as i got home I proceeded to read, starting with the angels annunciation to the shephards.

What an exciting story! I skipped around to other exciting parts and could hardly put the book down. From the beginning, that which I was prepared to withhold judgement on till the end of the book shouted true, true, true to me.

It was awhile before I found someone to lend me volume two - but I didn’t mind rereading and rereading parts of volume one - it is so exciting!

I say if you don’t beleive it you will still learn so much about the archeology, topograpghy, weather, daily life and cultural customs of Jesus’s time, which is supernaturally on target according to experts. You will say, yes, yes, that is Jesus as you read about him and about Mary. All the characters that are woven throughout the story - like in real life where people are woven throughout your lives, you look forward to meeting agains and/or you want to see how they are growing in what the Lord has taught them. For example Mary Magdalene - her story is fascinating.

People like to imagine what happened in the rest of Jesus’s ministry, and how the apostles talked among themselves. Fiction novels are written to fill in the gaps. If you read this as a fiction novel you will still gain so much from it. You will find yourself saying, yes, I think it was very much like that. And yes, Jesus would have acted just thus.

[too long - Ill finish response on next post]

 

[Eliza10]

JimG:

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.)

You know, I don’t think they appeal to popular imaginations. I agree, they have a certain appeal as Da Vinci code does - a fascination with knowing “secrets”. But that sick novel has the advantage of being a fast paced fun read, I hear tell, where the gnostic gospels, not so.

i actually read (skimmed) some old paperback copy of a gnostic when I was a brand new born-again Christian back in college. My Christian friend shrugged and explained they were not “official” but were written “by the apostle” (I forgot which one - maybe Thomas). I was a little nervous but had learned that the Holy Spirit would lead me into all truth so I trusted him. I beleive when you truly trust God in this way He will not let you down. Anyway the novel was bor-ing. I searched it eagerly in the spirit that you mentioned - looking for privy info.

But you know what? That was not my shephards voice. I knew it from the first page. I was reading the Bible voraciously at the time, and that was not the same voice. I was bored with the Gnostic voice. It was hollow and empty.

There is a scripture verse that at some time in the future it will be difficult and decieveing times, “so that even the elect, if it were possible, might be decieved.”

Sorry I don’t know where this scripture verse is but I learned it back then and its become a part of me. I had come to understand this (I hope I am right! It seems right) to mean that the elect are Christian believers and that when united to the Holy Spirit, it is not p[ossible for us to be decieved.

As a Catholic, I realize that probably also means the infallible teaching authority, which is not possible to believe and be wrong about.

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.

Yes, we have all that is neccessary with the Gospels. It should be enough. It is enough.

At the end of the last Valtorta volume, Jesus dictates why He had her do this work. I dont’ have time to find it verbatim. But He says He does it as a gift, for people of our time, using the gift He gave Valtorta of writing word pictures, because we need pictures in our times. Words should be enough for us, but the unfortunate reality is they are not. I think He said we get bored with words, that it shouldn’t be so, but unfortunately it is.

And if I find the exact wording I’ll print it here. Unless someone already did because I heard it again either hear or on one of the websites I linked.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

I’m chopping from several different posts…

Eliza10:

Before they related the story, they explained why they believe the appariations thre are true in spite of the two sides of controversy of which they are aware. They went as skeptics and came back believers. But they said that if the Church ever definitively ruled that it was not true, they would stand with the Church. This is where I stand, and I assume my stance is not uncommon.

The Church has ruled negatively with regards to whether the writings are of supernatural origin or not. It has been ruled that they are not. If you are waiting for an ex cathedra proclamation from the Pope it doesn’t work that way.

You are playing with fire, Eliza, in disregarding that statement especially - that the Valtorta’s “visions” and “dictations” are not of supernatural origin, in favor of what you feel “your Shephard” is telling you. What you see in that Ratzinger letter to the bishop and the letter from the bishop to Mr. Colafrancesco, is typical of how the Vatican hands down these decisions. The Church has spoken - it is not of supernatural origin.

If you don’t believe the Church has spoken, then please explain to all of us how you would expect the Church to deliver the message to the faithful? What is the process?

My belief - and the Catholic one - is that the Holy Spirit guides indivduals - leads us into all truth - and ALSO guides the Holy See in its decisions and opinions. When it is the Holy Spirit is leading both, they don’t conflict.

We individuals have a human nature that can get in the way of what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us. So can individuals who are speaking in their official capacity.

Then you are saying that we are all fully capable of discerning whether or not the Holy Spirit is leading us, versus being led by our own emotions or even Satan?

Furthermore, you seem to feel that your position is not in conflict with the Holy See and yet it clearly is - you choose to believe the writings are of supernatural origin, the Holy See has said that they are not (among other comments which were not very favorable).

Eliza, I am fearful for you that you have become so engrossed and carried away with emotion. You are building a castle on a foundation of sand when you put so much stock into a story that has been labeled as a “bad novel” by more than one theologian and church authority. You dispute the likes of Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Mitch Pacwa in favor of your own take on the story and I ponder your educational background and your experience that makes you a better judge than these people. If you have to hunt down the names of other supporters in order to validate your position, all the while dismissing some of the most important names in the hierarchy, then I am equally afraid for you.

You are in my prayers. May God give you the grace to see that you don’t need that book to get close to Jesus and ever more sanctified through the Catholic Church. Mother Church provides for her children in abundance - things that are fully approved. Read St. Francis de Sales, Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. John Vianney, St. Louis de Montfort to name a few. You don’t need unapproved private revelations - revelations that will never be approved because the decision has already come down that “they are not of supernatural origin”.

In our Lord,

Diane

 

[Character_Zero]

Update: I spoke to my uncle this weekend about the Poem, Mother Theresa, and Bishop Hnilica. I was wrong in saying that Bishop Hnilica told him that Mother Theresa read Il Poema. It was actually Fr. Leo, her personal chaplain for 3 years. He noticed that she always carried 3 books with her, wherever she went. One was the Bible and the other was her breviary. He asked about the third, and it was Il Poema. He asked her what it was about. She told him" Read it" He asked again, same answer. (Anyone who has read the books knows that this is really the only answer that would do the books justice). So he read them - it changed his life. As a canon lawyer, he had been a bit on the legalistic side, but this book helped him deepen his spiritual life in ways he had never imagined. Now he talks about it all the time! I do not remember what Fr. Leo’s last name is, but it begins with an M and sounds Italian.
Anyway, I know some will accuse me of making up a story, but I know this is true, and so I want to set the record straight. While Bishop Hnilica also was devoted to these books, and a good friend of JPII, that is not how my uncle found out that Mother Theresa was devoted to them… he found out from her personal chaplain, a good friend of his.

 

[Character_Zero]

By the way, I would like to apologize to anyone I may have insulted in this thread. I was upset, and I spoke with a harsh tone. I do not know you all very well but I am assuming you are good Catholics who take it to heart tha “I am my brothers keeper.” And if you really believe something is bad for someone else, then you are doing your duty to protect them. I understand it and appreciate it. We are all on the same team after all, we are all sailing along in faith and grace on the Barque of Peter!

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Character Zero:

By the way, I would like to apologize to anyone I may have insulted in this thread. I was upset, and I spoke with a harsh tone. I do not know you all very well but I am assuming you are good Catholics who take it to heart tha “I am my brothers keeper.” And if you really believe something is bad for someone else, then you are doing your duty to protect them. I understand it and appreciate it. We are all on the same team after all, we are all sailing along in faith and grace on the Barque of Peter!

I feel pretty much the same way. There are things I could have said with more love and charity. But, we can only learn from each instance and move forward.

I’m going to try one last time to draw everyone’s attention to key points from Bishop Boland’s letter to Tony Colafrancesco of Caritas, and from the letter to Bishop Boland from Cardinal Ratzinger instructing him to explain the Church’s position.

Anyone obstinate enough to claim this is not the Church speaking leaves me to fully believe they are far from “prepared” to read the novel. This is how the Church typically speaks on such matters. By all means, for those who feel it is not the Church talking here, please enlighten the rest of us as to how it would be handed down.

The following excerpts were taken from full length letters by Cardinal Ratzinger and Bishop Raymond J. Boland shown in their entirety in posts #58 & #59.

(1)
His Eminence, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in a letter which I received from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith this week, has asked me to inform you about the position of the Church regarding the writings of Maria Valtorta called The Poem of the Man-God.

(2)
“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**.”**

(3)
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.

(4)
The Cardinal wants you to know that the Congregation in the past has issued certain “Notes” on this subject for the guidance of the faithful and these were published in L’Osservatore Romano.

(5)
Hoping that this letter will serve as an authoritative response to the question which you addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger in your letter of July 21, 1992, I am, Sincerly in Christ,
(Signed)
Most Rev. Raymond J. Boland, D.D.
Bishop of Birmingham in Alabama

In this last statement, when Bishop Boland uses the word “hoping” at the beginning, it does not mean he is unsure of himself. Rather, he is communicating the hope that the recipient will humbly accept the judgment of the Holy See.

Extracting key points from Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to Bishop Boland:

(A)
**On this subject I have the honor of expressing to Your Eminence – you will judge the opportuneness of informing the Father …] – 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.” **

(B)
**that, although abolished, the “Index” retained “all its moral value,” for which [reason] the diffusion and recommendation of a Work is not held to be opportune 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.

---

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

I am going to focus in more closely on one statement in particular:

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.

Why would the Church go so far as to inform those who publish or sell the writings to notify people of the judgment of the Holy See by labeling the book as stated above if it were not the judgement of the Holy See? Bishops cannot simply make this kind of statement to suit their personal opinion.

"They cannot be considered supernatural in origin."

Any Catholic publishing or selling this book, who refuses to do this, is being disobedient. It gets real scary when individuals place their own opinions above that of Holy Mother Church.

I really question, if Mother Teresa had read the book in any serious manner, which still remains merely hearsay, was she fully aware of the Church’s position, which was clarified in 1993? Or, did this person see the book being carried around sometime earlier in the century. Either way, it has no relevance because in 1993, the Church spoke very clearly.

 

[gap51]

Pope Urban VIII on Private Revelation

His Holiness, Pope Urban VIII stated: “In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true.”(Pope Urban VIII, 1623-44)

Please explain:

• Who is Holy Mother? I say it is The Holy Catholic Church.
• If so, “It **can **be **proven **false” (?) . Heaven forbid!

Please help. I am keen to resume reading Maria Valtorta’s Volumes again.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi gap51,

Welcome to the forums!

I think that we will run into a problem in attempting to decipher the quote from Pope Urban that you provided above. That quote has been circulating for a long time now, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no indication of a source. Where and when and why did Pope Urban say or write it?

Furthermore, I have seen the text quoted in two variations: one which says “Holy Mother” and another which says “Holy Mother Church”. This further complicates the issue, and leads us to at the very least doubt the accuracy of the quote or translation. This could all be cleared up if someone could provide a source. But no source is forthcoming – rather those who wish to marshal a defense for any given private revelation often repeat this phantom quote. Everyone has used it.

The ironic thing is that we know that Pope Urban expressed a decidely opposite view when he promulgated a bull that related to the canonization of saints. See here from the Catholic Encylopedia:

He reserved the beatification of saints to the Holy See and in a Bull, dated 30 October, 1625, **forbade **the representation with the halo of sanctity of persons not beatified or canonized, the placing of lamps, tablets, etc., before their sepulchres, and the printing of their alleged miracles or revelations.

So, at least in this case, it would seem that an appeal to Pope Urban is not as useful as is often hoped by those who use the (perhaps) spurious quote often attributed to him. If any of our fellow forum members have a source for that quote it would go a long way to helping us 1)verify it and 2)interpret it.

I think it would be more prudent to not put any stock in that quote until a source is provided for it. That is unless, of course, the quote itself was given in a “private revlation” to someone.

Anyway, I think that there are documents given above, with their source, that should form our opinion on this matter.

Does that help at all?
God Bless,
VC

 

[son_of_pio]

Okay , I am at the point now where I feel I want to interject something. This by the way is my first post
I am currently reading volume one of The Poem… Earlier in the posts someone stated their horror about the statement that Eves sin was a sexual one with the devil. I in fact had no problem believing this and here is why:

1. May I humbly ask …what is the root of most sin in our world today? Did not Mary in an approved Church apparition state that the greatest sins of man today were sins of the flesh? And did she not state that more men (meaning humans) are lost to sins of the flesh than any other sin? What was she refering too?..Sexual sins! Are we really that shallow that we believe that Eve was banished from the garden for taking a bite from an apple??? Remember the Cathecism specifically states that the narrative of Genesis 3 is figurative thus we must decipher what it figuratively states.
2. Many of you are boldly stepping out on a limb and stating that these volumes could possibly be inspired by the Devil. Okay folks lets take a real deep breath here and think of what we just stated. May I kindly ask what does this volume contain that would be conceived as from the Devil? Why would the Devil possibly want to inspire a piece that has brought so many closer to their faith and God? Does not the Devil strive to pull us away from God?
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?

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?

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

 

[allhers]

son of pio:

Okay , I am at the point now where I feel I want to interject something. This by the way is my first post
I am currently reading volume one of The Poem… Earlier in the posts someone stated their horror about the statement that Eves sin was a sexual one with the devil. I in fact had no problem believing this and here is why:

1. May I humbly ask …what is the root of most sin in our world today? Did not Mary in an approved Church apparition state that the greatest sins of man today were sins of the flesh? And did she not state that more men (meaning humans) are lost to sins of the flesh than any other sin? What was she refering too?..Sexual sins! Are we really that shallow that we believe that Eve was banished from the garden for taking a bite from an apple??? Remember the Cathecism specifically states that the narrative of Genesis 3 is figurative thus we must decipher what it figuratively states.
2. Many of you are boldly stepping out on a limb and stating that these volumes could possibly be inspired by the Devil. Okay folks lets take a real deep breath here and think of what we just stated. May I kindly ask what does this volume contain that would be conceived as from the Devil? Why would the Devil possibly want to inspire a piece that has brought so many closer to their faith and God? Does not the Devil strive to pull us away from God?
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?

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?

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

and this isn’t my first post, and for some reason, your post reminded me of this:
Genesis 3:4,5----But the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.”

 

[JimG]

Welcome to the Forums, son of pio.

With respect to the Poem of the Man-God, I can only refer you back to Posts #128 and 129, which summarize quite well the reasons one ought to be extremely cautious about this work.

The Church has already spoken, and its judgement is that the work is “not of supernatural origin.”

Now if one wants to consider it a historical novel, that would not be so objectionable except that that is not what the author claims it to be. So either the author and the promoters of the book are wrong, or the Church is wrong. If I’m going to err on the side of caution, I’ll go with the Church.

If I want to read a historical novel of Jesus’ life, I’d rather go with the new Anne Rice novel, since at least she admits it’s a novel.

 

[Eliza10]

allhers:

and this isn’t my first post, and for some reason, your post reminded me of this:
Genesis 3:4,5----But the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.”

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.

 

[Eliza10]

i appreciate your weighing in on this Son of Pio. I hate to see The Poem getting publicly slandered and its nice to hear from those who have actually read it.
son of pio:

… Earlier in the posts someone stated their horror about the statement that Eves sin was a sexual one with the devil… Did not Mary in an approved Church apparition state that the greatest sins of man today were sins of the flesh? And did she not state that more men (meaning humans) are lost to sins of the flesh than any other sin?.. . .

I did not read deeply the part on Eve. I skimmed it, but I remember thinking that of course it seems right that sexual sin had something to do with the fall. It makes so much sense. I have watched at least two friends follow temptations of the flesh which they much enjoyed for a time and later has been the cause of a deep deep fall for them. I haven’t seen such a deep fall, gathering in so many other areas of lives, in anything other than sexual sin - I have never seen a whole mess stemming from just one act of disobedience - unless that act was one of sexual sin and then you see the avalanche.

I love the Camelot movie with Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave. It did such a great job of illustrating passions - many kinds. There was King Authors passion for right and fairness (“Right makes Might!”) and all the good fruit that bore. Then there was what seemed to be such intoxicating fruit in the illicit love between Gweniverre and Lancelot, but then all began to unravel because of it. In the end it all falls apart, there are no winners, the lovers are repentant and depart from each other with their world in shambles because of their doing. It seemed real - the out come made sense.

Then I saw the video of a remake of Camelot -i think it was First Knight? With Sean Connery as K.A. I was so disappointed with the remake. They have K.A. conveneiently die and before he does he asks Lancelot to look after his wife so thh two lovers can go off in the sunset with his blessing. It all seemed so fake. That was a movie for our time. No one wants to see an ending where illicit love has a cost. The fantasy fairy tale for our culture is: do what feels good and it will all come out well for you in the end.

Anyway , the point is with the people I know and in the world I’ve seen, Satan uses sins of the flesh to being people down in one big completely unraveling way. People are lost in it. My friends involved in this seem the most unreachable.

So did it surprise me that in the Poem it is explained that there was a sensual/sexual temptation/ yearning that ws involved? No it did not. As you explained, Son of Pio, the catechism says we must decifer Eve and her apple figuratively.

This is just another point that explains is why top Catholic authorities in theology - with lots of degrees in the right places - can read The Poem and say it is without theological error.
son of pio:

… 2) Many of you are boldly stepping out on a limb and stating that these volumes could possibly be inspired by the Devil. .

Yes, its pretty bold! The people who I know that have read it are most faithful they are people who go to Daily Mass and have a well-developed prayer life.
son of pio:

… 3) ANd lastly for now…Jesus portrayed as homosexual? … 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?.

Yes. We live in a non-touching culture. I think people are starved for touch. And it makes them think weird things about people who do touch.
son of pio:

… Oh I forgot to mention that only those who have read the volumes can answer in an educated manner…

Amen to that!
son of pio:

… 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?.

Thats the fruit I see. Just this week a man who is very very devout and lives a life of Catholic service saw my book and said, “Oh! The Poem! I read those! Reading that first volume got me loooking into going into the seminary!” He never did, but serves the Church now in complete and sacrificial ways. How is that for fruit?

I also mentioned there is controversy over them. “He said, Oh, yes, well i don’t know if the Church has spoke against them now. But if they do, oh, well, I already read them!” He said this with relief - he was glad he got the chance.
son of pio:

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

Yes, it seems he is.

 

[Eliza10]

JimG:

Welcome to the Forums, son of pio.

With respect to the Poem of the Man-God, I can only refer you back to Posts #128 and 129, which summarize quite well the reasons one ought to be extremely cautious about this work…

Jim, I started an answer to those posts yesterday and I will finish them and post them here. Something is really wrong with the reasons given in those letters.

JimG:

…If I want to read a historical novel of Jesus’ life, I’d rather go with the new Anne Rice novel, since at least she admits it’s a novel.

I like to read reviews and did a quick check on them for Rice’s books aobut the life of Christ. Oh, my, did you see them? Readers sound bored, very bored, and disappointed. If you wanted to read a “novel” guarenteed not to bore you, read The Poem of the Man-God! Read as a novel, you won’t be bored, and you will have lots to think about.

The reviews for Rice’s book was what I expected. You just cant make up stuff about Jesus’ life and have it be interesting. Its too big a topic for our imagination. It will always disappoint.

Whenever I read The Poem of the Man-God, I am always thinking, “This is too good! Nobody could make this up!”

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

son of pio:

Okay , I am at the point now where I feel I want to interject something. This by the way is my first post

Welcome to the forums, Pio.

I am currently reading volume one of The Poem… Earlier in the posts someone stated their horror about the statement that Eves sin was a sexual one with the devil. I in fact had no problem believing this and here is why:

1. May I humbly ask …what is the root of most sin in our world today? Did not Mary in an approved Church apparition state that the greatest sins of man today were sins of the flesh? And did she not state that more men (meaning humans) are lost to sins of the flesh than any other sin? What was she refering too?..Sexual sins! Are we really that shallow that we believe that Eve was banished from the garden for taking a bite from an apple??? Remember the Cathecism specifically states that the narrative of Genesis 3 is figurative thus we must decipher what it figuratively states.

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. 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).

In a like way, we are called to heed the Church on such matters. To obey the church is to submit our will to that of the God through the Church He instituted. Even on matters which do not involve doctrine, but opinions stated by an office such as the CDF carries very heavy weight. Prudence dictates that we heed that advice and it has been given to us. Jim referred you to posts 128 and 129 and I do the same as we won’t be repeating them.

1. Many of you are boldly stepping out on a limb and stating that these volumes could possibly be inspired by the Devil. Okay folks lets take a real deep breath here and think of what we just stated. May I kindly ask what does this volume contain that would be conceived as from the Devil? Why would the Devil possibly want to inspire a piece that has brought so many closer to their faith and God? Does not the Devil strive to pull us away from God?

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.

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?

Oh, and disobedience is considered a bad fruit and something that would be looked at - not only on the part of an alleged seer, but on the part of followers. In things that are divinely driven, all involved are given exceptional levels of graces so virtue is at its highest. Why would this book cause people to attack the Church itself, which has already spoken about the concerns she has with people reading it?

End of part one - continued in next post…

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

1. 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?

I won’t even address this.

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.

This is a troubling comment coming from a Catholic, assuming you are Catholic. It is very much like a protestant approach to religion where all things are interpreted however the Lord reveals it in each individual heart (even though it is revealed differently in each heart, and in ways that conflict with how it was revealed to everyone else, as well). The church, in an indirect way, is disuading us from reading it and with good reason (cited throughout this thread).

This is more of the serpent convincing you to go ahead and eat the apple, interpreting things the way you want, even though many will interpret it 100 different ways. Which one of those 100 interpretations is correct? This is why Christ gave us Holy Mother Church - to provide us with direction. Contrary to popular belief, she is not meant to be followed only when the Pope makes an ex cathedra proclamation. There is a matter of prudence in following opinions, as well.

If you are going to take on Fr. Mitch Pacwa, I would ask for your credentials, and I would ask you to point out something specific that you believe he erred on.

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?

I don’t recall stating it was from Satan, and I don’t know that anyone else did. What we pointed it out is that the Church herself has already spoken that these writings cannot be considered to be supernatural in origin. That’s done and decided (posts 128/129). That leaves human origin and Satan.

There is a misconception that Satan would appear as some evil, ugly demon. If you read further up the thread near the beginning of my posts (2nd or 3rd one), you’ll read the account about the nun who sold her soul to the devil and was levitating. It wasn’t until her deathbed that she revealed this fact and had to be exorcised. Do you have any idea how many people were inspired by her - including members of the clergy and episcopacy?

Why would Satan do this? To draw people in to his grip, get them so emotionally attached to the events that they begin to turn on the Church. He doesn’t care that you go to confession, if he gets you upset with the Church over a particular event that maybe the Church is refutting in its authenticity. Medjugorje is a perfect example of a place that Satan may be enjoying (even if it is merely human in origin and he is not behind it). People are flinging mud at the local Bishop, whose job it is to discern spirits. There is slander, detraction, calumny, disobedience aimed at the local Ordinary and many other bad fruits, but promoters of Medjugorje will only share the good fruits - the confessions, communions, conversions etc. All the friars kicked out of their order and out of the priesthood there are bad fruits of Medjugorje. As people realize the Church is not going to approve Medjugorje, some will abandon the Church as a result - playing right into the devils hand. Therein lies the danger of putting stock into private revelations that are not approved.

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

Actually, the opposite is true. He is most pleased whenever a baptized Catholic disregards Holy Mother Church.

 

[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.

Man I love a debate