Poem of the Man-God

[bear06]

I’d suggest people get their information from more than one source. Can you give me some quotes from the Holy Father on Allegra? I have yet to see one and I most certainly haven’t seen one from JPII regarding Allegra’s views on the “Poem”.

As an aside, I’m having a little trouble finding anything other than the bardstown website that says he’s a “blessed”. All other info shows him to be a “venerable”.

 

[adrift]

The one thing that cannot be gotten around is that this is unapproved. Supporters have all sorts of ways to get around this fact. The list is defunct but they forget that the current Pope has said that does not mean that everything on the list is now good or worthy. They will quote others who support it but no matter who does the only one who matters is those who have jurisdiction on the matter and they say it is not from God. The Bishop who has been quoted here also supports another unapproved apparition of Garabandal. He is usurping authority that he does not have. The one thing about this book is that it promotes disobedience.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’d suggest people get their information from more than one source. Can you give me some quotes from the Holy Father on Allegra? I have yet to see one and I most certainly haven’t seen one from JPII regarding Allegra’s views on the “Poem”.

As an aside, I’m having a little trouble finding anything other than the bardstown website that says he’s a “blessed”. All other info shows him to be a “venerable”.

I went to the Vatican website and found the list of all those canonized by Pope John Paul II.

Saints - Pontificate of His Holiness John Paul II

And Father Allegra does not appear on the list.

All “venerable” means is that there is an open causes for canonization. Nothing more than that, no miracles are needed for this.

 

[bear06]

I went to the Vatican website and found the list of all those canonized by Pope John Paul II.

Saints - Pontificate of His Holiness John Paul II

And Father Allegra does not appear on the list.

All “venerable” means is that there is an open causes for canonization. Nothing more than that, no miracles are needed for this.

Thanks, Byz! I knew something looked strange here. I was googling blessed and pretty much only came up with bardstown. When I hit venerable, I came up with much more. Thanks for the link. I would have never known that one existed.
Does this link also show the beatified?

The error seems to have occurred when Valtorta’s publisher reported that the Pope had beatified him in 2002. He must have had a vision too (albeit inaccurate as Valtorta’s). But seriously, when they are beatified, it’s a pretty big deal to and highly unlikely that Valtorta’s publisher would have to inform everyone.

 

[bear06]

OSV has a list of all his beatifications and it looks like he didn’t even beatify anyone on April 23, 2002 which is the date he was supposedly beatified.

osv.com/OSV4MeNav/MyCatholicFaithOnlineResources/ThePapacyofJohnPaulII/BeatificationsofJohnPaulII/tabid/195/Default.aspx

 

[adrift]

I was reading another book on the Shroud, on the latest scientific findings. They say that the Man of the shroud had LIGHT hair! Either blond or white! When I heard this I was shocked and refused to believe it.

The Shroud, after all, is monochromatic: brown and white actually.

I doubt that the book is accurate. It is not in keeping with what is known to be true of the Jewish people of that region. Mary did not have white skin and Jesus did not have blond hair. It is similar to those who say the “lost” tribes are really the English

 

[Eliza10]

I went to the Vatican website and found the list of all those canonized by Pope John Paul II.

Saints - Pontificate of His Holiness John Paul II

And Father Allegra does not appear on the list.

All “venerable” means is that there is an open causes for canonization. Nothing more than that, no miracles are needed for this.

You could be right since I have no other information to support the information that he is Blessed, not venerable.

 

[Eliza10]

The Shroud, after all, is monochromatic: brown and white actually…

If you are interested in the shroud, you can look at that link. I am not an expert on the shroud, it was Dr. Gilbert Lavoie, a shroud expert, who said that. I only repeatred that to say that it surprised me, too, and I also had the same reaction you did, not wanting to believe that Jesus could possbily have light hair. It is interesting that other sources say the same, too, though.

Here is the shroud image in negative. Its the negative image that makes it look more real.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/things/images/Shroud_positive_negative_compare.jpg

I doubt that the book is accurate. It is not in keeping with what is known to be true of the Jewish people of that region. Mary did not have white skin and Jesus did not have blond hair.

My friend who is Jewish and knows her faith well says there are and always have been blond/red haried/ light haired Jews.

 

[Eliza10]

Mary did not have white skin and Jesus did not have blond hair.

Valtorta calls it golden, and reddish.

The following descriptions of Jesus from his contemporaries. It explains the common look in so much of the old art. I love readign these and thought others might too, if they haven’t seen them.

This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.

TO TIBERIUS CAESAR: A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day I observed in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings of Jesus. He told me that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious, so we extended to Him our protection. He was at liberty to act, to speak, to assemble and to address the people. This unlimited freedom provoked the Jews – not the poor but the rich and powerful.

Another one:

Another description of Jesus is found in “The Archko Volume” which contains official court documents from the days of Jesus. This information substantiates that He came from racial lines which had blue eyes and golden hair. In a chapter entitled “Gamaliel’s Interview” it states concerning Jesus (Yeshua) appearance:

“I asked him to describe this person to me, so that I might know him if I should meet him. He said: ‘If you ever meet him Yeshua] you will know him. While he is nothing but a man, there is something about him that distinguishes him from every other man. He is the picture of his mother, only he has not her smooth, round face. His hair is a little more golden than hers, though it is as much from sunburn as anything else. He is tall, and his shoulders are a little drooped; his visage is thin and of a swarthy complexion, though this is from exposure. His eyes are large and a soft blue, and rather dull and heavy…’ This Jew [Nazarite] is convinced that he is the Messiah of the world. …this was the same person that was born of the virgin in Bethlehem some twenty-six years before…”- The Archko Volume, translated by Drs. McIntosh and Twyman of the Antiquarian Lodge, Genoa, Italy, from manuscripts in Constantinople and the records of the Senatorial Docket taken from the Vatican of Rome (1896) 92-93

​

[Another in the next post]

 

[Eliza10]

The following was taken from a manuscript in the possession of Lord Kelly, and in his library, and was copied from an original letter of Publius Lentullus at Rome. It being the usual custom of Roman Governors to advertise the Senate and people of such material things as happened in their provinces in the days of Tiberius Caesar, Publius Lentullus, President of Judea, wrote the following epistle to the Senate concerning the Nazarene called Jesus.

"There appeared in these our days a man, of the Jewish Nation, of great virtue, named YeshuaJesus], who is yet living among us, and of the Gentiles is accepted for a Prophet of truth, but His own disciples call Him the Son of God- He raiseth the dead and cureth all manner of diseases. A man of stature somewhat tall, and comely, with very reverent countenance, such as the beholders may both love and fear, his hair of (the colour of) the chestnut, full ripe, plain to His ears, whence downwards it is more orient and curling and wavering about His shoulders. In the midst of His head is a seam or partition in His hair, after the manner of the Nazarenes​

​

. His forehead plain and very delicate; His face without spot or wrinkle, beautified with a lovely red; His nose and mouth so formed as nothing can be reprehended; His beard thickish, in colour like His hair, not very long, but forked; His look innocent and mature; His eyes grey, clear, and quick- In reproving hypocrisy He is terrible; in admonishing, courteous and fair spoken; pleasant in conversation, mixed with gravity. It cannot be remembered that any have seen Him *Laugh, *but many have seen Him *Weep. *In proportion of body, most excellent; His hands and arms delicate to behold. In speaking, very temperate, modest, and wise. A man, for His singular beauty, surpassing the children of men"Those quotes can be found all around the net, but all three of these came from the same site if you want to check it out.

thenazareneway.com/likeness_of_our_saviour.htm

​

 

[adrift]

There is a pseudepigrapha letter reporting on the crucifixion, purporting to have been sent by Pontius Pilate to the Emperor Claudius, embodied in the pseudepigrapha known as the Acts of Peter and Paul, of which the Catholic Encyclopedia states, “This composition is clearly apocryphal though unexpectedly brief and restrained.” There is no internal relation between this feigned letter and the 4th-century Acts of Pilate (Acta Pilati).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate

My friend who is Jewish and knows her faith well says there are and always have been blond/red haried/ light haired Jews.

Since Jews are a religion and not a race I am sure there are blonds red heads and African Americans but that does not mean that the Jews of that region had blond hair they did not. But it doesn’t matter. The Church has ruled on this and it is a Negative ruling. The ones who had authority over this matter have said it is unworthy of belief. It is fiction and some have said bad fiction at that. To ascribe to it anything other than this is disobedience.

 

[Eliza10]

There is a … letter reporting on the crucifixion, purporting to have been sent by Pontius Pilate to the Emperor Claudius…, of which the Catholic Encyclopedia states, “This composition is clearly apocryphal… .” There is no internal relation between this feigned letter and the 4th-century Acts of Pilate…

Adrift, did you read this, which you quoted from Wikipedia? Because it refers to a different letter of Pilate, not the one I quoted.

The one I quoted is not about the crucifixion at all. It is a descritpion of what Jesus looked like when seen preaching (because that was the topic we were discussing). A copy of that letter is in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.

Since Jews are a religion and not a race I am sure there are blonds red heads and African Americans but that does not mean that the Jews of that region had blond hair they did not. .

I think I would need more authority that. My friend is very intelligent and knowledgable about her faith and she was not talking about converts! The sterotypical-looking Jewish person does not represent every native Isrealite.

But it doesn’t matter. The Church has ruled on this and it is a Negative ruling. The ones who had authority over this matter have said it is unworthy of belief. It is fiction and some have said bad fiction at that. To ascribe to it anything other than this is disobedience.

I think you are probably not any more an expert on how the Church rules on things then you are about what Jesus looked like. No offense. But in both you seem quite sure, and quite confident – so confident in your judgements that you are willing to confidently acuse others as being in disobedient for reading a book that is on no-longer banned list.

I am not confident in your confidence, and I am not in agreement with your judgements. They don’t lack conviction, but they do lack authority.

 

[adrift]

Adrift, did you read this, which you quoted from Wikipedia? Because it refers to a different letter of Pilate, not the one I quoted.

The one I quoted is not about the crucifixion at all. It is a descritpion of what Jesus looked like when seen preaching (because that was the topic we were discussing). A copy of that letter is in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.
The Congressional Library also has the supposed Jesuit Oath so it doesn’t mean it is true
It does refer to the same letter but perhaps this is better
newadvent.org/cathen/09154a.htm

Publius Lentulus is a fictitious person, said to have been Governor of Judea before Pontius, and to have written the following letter to the Roman Senate:…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is week. I don’t need to be an expert to know that this was put on the index. I know that the moral force of the index exist because the present Pope says it does. I know that it has not been approved and I know that it began with a disobedient priest. The Church has said that it is dangerous. I believe the Church. The Church has said not to read it. Those who do knowing that the Church says not to are disobedient. They are substituting the Church’s judgment for their own. All the great Saints did this even when they were right and the authorities were wrong. I don’t claim authority. I submit to it.

I must congratulate you though for not trying to say that it does have approval.

We also know that the current Pope in his position as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ordered that a disclaimer be added to the beginning of the book which the publisher has ignored.

But then it seems that we are not the only ones ignoring what others post here.

 

[Eliza10]

I’m going to get bak to this soon! Before Ash Wednesday. I have been thinking about this but have not had time to type.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

We know what the Church says regarding this work.

It says that it is not of supernatural origin. That the “visions” are nothing more than literary forms of which the author has made use to narrate the life of Jesus in her own way.

This is shown by the order of Archbishop Dionigi Tettamanzi, Secretary General of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, to the publisher “in the event the volumes are reprinted, it be clearly stated at the outset that the ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ related therein may not be considered to possess a supernatural origin, but must simply be deemed literary forms of which the author has made use to narrate the life of Jesus in her own way.”

A site that is for this work states that this comment proves that the work does not contain errors but I disagree with that, if it doesn’t contain any errors then why must the reader know that all in the book comes from the mind of the woman who wrote it and that no vision or anything else supernatural was involved in the production of this work.

 

[Like]

I respect Father Mitch Pacwa very much and I see him as an authority on many matters. I especially like what he wrote about the New Age as he dabbled in it himself. But he did not read Poem of the Man God , and I do not respect the quotes he has chosen to use against it, which have been refuted convincingly elsewhere.

Eliza10, I don’t know if you have seen this nor do I know if someone else has posted this site. Please take a look!
catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=1605

 

[Eliza10]

Eliza10, I don’t know if you have seen this nor do I know if someone else has posted this site. Please take a look!

Oh, yes, its the same article reprinted on this thread a few times and on the other thread many, many times. Rereading it once again, it still does not look like Fr. Pacwa actually read the books. Because if he had, he’d have some original ideas of his own!

I read his book on the New Age, and its full of his own original ideas. So I know he is a thoughtful man with original ideas. The article, however, is only a compilation of stuff from writers of other websites. Its like he sat down one the computer, and clicked and copied and put together a montage and called it his article. And because his familiar name is on it, it is the most-quoted anti-Valtorta article.

And all these ideas are easily refuted. The screwdriver,. for instance. If Fr. Pacwa had read the book, he would have read where she wrote, “I don’t know what kind of tool it is; it looks like a screwdriver, so I am calling it that.”

Thats just one thing. The other things could all be addressed too, and probably have in that other long thread in the Apologetics section.

But as the same people are writing here on this thread (and saying the same things), it seems pointless to say anything else here.

Except only I can say that the books have truly, truly blessed me. They are a gift of the God. He is my Shephard, and I know His voice.

 

[adrift]

Except only I can say that the books have truly, truly blessed me. They are a gift of the God. He is my Shephard, and I know His voice.

But people claim that never have they understood Scripture as when they have read “Poem.” Understood in a certain way, as explained by Maria Valtorta! But this way the Church has said is not according to its mind. Catholics do well to follow the Holy See in this.

ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp?source=/vexperts/conference.htm

 

[bear06]

Oh, yes, its the same article reprinted on this thread a few times and on the other thread many, many times. Rereading it once again, it still does not look like Fr. Pacwa actually read the books. Because if he had, he’d have some original ideas of his own!

Unless you have proof that he didn’t read the book, it seems silly to make this accusation. Just because he quotes other people doesn’t mean that he doesn’t also believe this based on what he’s read. It’s called not re-inventing the wheel.

it seems pointless to say anything else here.