Poem of the Man-God

[Love4Mary2]

Try hoping over to this Forum for more info, I have some postings on pages 4&5:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…=145226&page=5

 

[adriancombe]

I stopped reading it when it claimed Blessed Mother desired not only to be a sinner, but a big sinner so her Son could save her more. I paraphrasing, but it is in the right context.

Here are some links:

listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9501a&L=apar-l&T=0&P=2531

jloughnan.tripod.com/valtmedj.htm

catholicplanet.com/apparitions/false10.htm

She is not quoted as saying she wanted to be a sinner. She asked her mother whether that would be a good idea. I might add she was like one year old at the time.

Adrian

 

[adriancombe]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate

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.

Actually, that is not true. There is an excellent article at Mother of All Peoples showing why that is not so. motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1050&Itemid=40

Of note, the Cardinal Patron of Mother of all Peoples Magazine at the time of the article’s writing was Edouard Cardinal Gagnon (he has since gone to his reward) and the editor is Mark Miravalle, S.T.D.

Adrian Combe

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

I had read all the volumes early on in my reconversion. But it has been controversial and not approved. I had a spiritual director who told me to leave them alone and I never looked at them again.

I enjoyed them at the time but I will stick to more approved mystics if I feel the need to read those things. Such as Ven. Mary of Agreda or Bl. Anne Catherine Emerich.

Ave Maria!

 

[adriancombe]

I had read all the volumes early on in my reconversion. But it has been controversial and not approved. I had a spiritual director who told me to leave them alone and I never looked at them again.

I enjoyed them at the time but I will stick to more approved mystics if I feel the need to read those things. Such as Ven. Mary of Agreda or Bl. Anne Catherine Emerich.

Ave Maria!

I certainly understand. There is considerable strength to the argument that it actually is approved, but there are a lot of folks who look at you like you are nuts if you say you read it.

Somewhere (the wikipedia article?) I read that in the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje Mary had strongly endorsed the work. So, that would kind of put the Church authorities in a bind as to switching 180 on Valtorta - since Medjugorje is ongoing, it will not be approved until it is finished, and anything they say about Valtorta’s work could (and probably will by some) be interpreted as reflecting on Medjugorje.

Adrian Combe

 

[pnewton]

I enjoyed them at the time but I will stick to more approved mystics if I feel the need to read those things.

That is what I believe, too. I can appreciate that the book has been meaningful to Eliza, as long as she is grounded enough to avoid heresy. But anyone who has not read it would be better off reading something appoved, or better yet, the Bible. I personally believe the book to be a work of pure fiction, or an undigested meal. But even fiction can have uplifting points.

 

[byers]

From an article by Catholic Culture. Well worth reading

Valtorta claimed that she was the “secretary” of Jesus and Mary, and was setting down the divinely inspired truth about Jesus’ life. The Church has rejected this claim. Nevertheless, Poem has become quite popular, particularly among Catholics as well. …

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3365

 

[adrift]

Actually, that is not true. There is an excellent article at Mother of All Peoples showing why that is not so.

Try this
I went to your website and found it unconvincing. However, it did add to my disbelief. Every time I read something from this it is so obviously not to be believed. Jesus was not blond, Jehovah is an anachronism. Mary would not have mentioned the word God much less call Him Father. Mary was poor as evident of her sacrifice of doves. She would not have had a donkey.
It is fiction and a bad fiction at that.

She is not quoted as saying she wanted to be a sinner. She asked her mother whether that would be a good idea. I might add she was like one year old at the time.

One years old? More proof of how bad a fiction this is.

 

[adriancombe]

Try this
I went to your website and found it unconvincing. However, it did add to my disbelief. Every time I read something from this it is so obviously not to be believed. Jesus was not blond, Jehovah is an anachronism. Mary would not have mentioned the word God much less call Him Father. Mary was poor as evident of her sacrifice of doves. She would not have had a donkey.
It is fiction and a bad fiction at that.

One years old? More proof of how bad a fiction this is.

First, what is the deal with hair color?! You have your own private revelation about this? Pray tell!

Second, Jehovah is result of the vowels of Adonai being inserted into Yahweh, I am not sure where you are going with the anachronism argument.

El (God) was allowed to be uttered, Yahweh was not.

The OT refers to God as a Father (Isaiah 9:6) so I am not sure why you assume (falsely) that Mary would not.

Your remark ‘more proof about how bad fiction this is’ is not an argument. It looks like an example of the logical fallacy ‘appeal to ridicule.’ If you have an argument, make one, otherwise, please do not waste my time.

Adrian

 

[adrift]

The OT refers to God as a Father (Isaiah 9:6) so I am not sure why you assume (falsely) that Mary would not.

Jehovah

the name “Jehovah” first appeared in an English BIBLE in 1530

First, what is the deal with hair color?! You have your own private revelation about this? Pray tell!

I believe your reply is apropos here

It looks like an example of the logical fallacy 'appeal to ridicule

The hair color is indicative of fiction that she made it up. Do you have anything to say otherwise. Links to this fact have been provided in this thread. You should go back and read them.

El (God) was allowed to be uttered, Yahweh was not.

At that time it was punishable by death to use the name of God. Can you document that they could use El? According to patristic tradition, El was the first Hebrew name of God. I don’t believe Mary would use it.

 

[adriancombe]

Jehovah

I believe your reply is apropos here

The hair color is indicative of fiction that she made it up. Do you have anything to say otherwise. Links to this fact have been provided in this thread. You should go back and read them.

At that time it was punishable by death to use the name of God. Can you document that they could use El? According to patristic tradition, El was the first Hebrew name of God. I don’t believe Mary would use it.

The last link you posted appeared to be broken or to simply link to a generic overview page of FAQ at EWTN. I have not seen a cogent argument that Jesus could or could not have had a specific hair color.

Luke 1:38, in Greek:

Eipen de Mariam idou h doulh kuriou genoito moi kata to rhma sou kai aphlthen ap auths h aggelos

If you are familiar with Greek, you will note that the definite article is missing from kuriou (Lord). Normally, in Greek, this word would have a definite article unless used as a form of address (i.e. tou kuriou).

It is a widely acknowledged fact that the NT authors not only quoted from the Septuagint, but used the key vocabulary the same way as the Septuagint. In the Septuagint, kurios (Lord) with a definite article translated adonai, and without a definite article, it translated YHWH (Yahweh). This usage is mirrored in the NT.

Therefore, Luke is clearly telling us that, in some way, Mary used the word Yahweh in speech. Whether she used a circumlocution or not is pure speculation, short of a direct revelation, of course.

Yes, Mary used the word for God. Theos (Luke 1:47) translates the word El in the Septuagint.

 

[adriancombe]

The last link you posted appeared to be broken or to simply link to a generic overview page of FAQ at EWTN. I have not seen a cogent argument that Jesus could or could not have had a specific hair color.

Luke 1:38, in Greek:

Eipen de Mariam idou h doulh kuriou genoito moi kata to rhma sou kai aphlthen ap auths h aggelos

If you are familiar with Greek, you will note that the definite article is missing from kuriou (Lord). Normally, in Greek, this word would have a definite article unless used as a form of address (i.e. tou kuriou).

It is a widely acknowledged fact that the NT authors not only quoted from the Septuagint, but used the key vocabulary the same way as the Septuagint. In the Septuagint, kurios (Lord) with a definite article translated adonai, and without a definite article, it translated YHWH (Yahweh). This usage is mirrored in the NT.

Therefore, Luke is clearly telling us that, in some way, Mary used the word Yahweh in speech. Whether she used a circumlocution or not is pure speculation, short of a direct revelation, of course.

Yes, Mary used the word for God. Theos (Luke 1:47) translates the word El in the Septuagint.

Incidentally, a lot of the nitpicking about hair color and circumlocution of the tetragrammaton shows how confused some people appear to be about private revelations. There is always an acceptable (and expected) degree of inaccuracy in these matters - it is not a matter of inerrancy as with the Holy Scriptures. As Father Groeschel correctly notes, three of the most popular private revelations all have different ages for Mary when she died - they cannot all be right!

Adrian

 

[adrift]

under general questions your will find this

Poem of the Man-God

In 1959 when the “Poem” was put on the Index of Forbidden Books, it was described as “a badly fictionalized life of Christ” (L’Osservatore Romano, quoted by Cardinal Ratzinger in a letter to Cardinal Siri, 31 January 1985). Catholics were warned that it was not to be considered as revealed by God, and in fact, under the rules of the Index, no one, not even a priest, could read the volumes without a serious reason (e.g. to refute its errors) and the permission of the bishop or religious superior. Despite Roman judgements against the work its promoters have continued on their merry way, publishing and promoting it without interruption.

In 1966 when the Index was abolished many thought this meant the works listed on it could be read. Cardinal Ratzinger addressed this issue with respect to the “Poem of the Man-God,” in the aforementioned Letter saying,

"After the dissolution of the Index, when some people thought the printing and distribution of the work was permitted, people were reminded again in 'LOsservatore Romano' (June 15, 1966) that, as was published in the 'Acta Apostolicae Sedis' (1966), the Index retains its moral force despite its dissolution. A decision against distributing and recommending a work, which has not beeen condemned lightly, may be reversed, but only after profound changes that neutralize the harm which such a publication could bring forth among the ordinary faithful."

In 1993 Bishop Boland of Birmingham, AL wrote the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about “Poem” on behalf of an inquirer. Cardinal Ratzinger responded by letter, which the bishop then quoted in his response to the person, who shared it with us. The response noted that because of continuing interest in the books the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had requested the Italian Bishops Conference to ask the publisher (who as I noted never in the past has complied with Roman decisions) to have a disclaimer printed in the volumes that “clearly indicated from the very first page that the ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in it are simply the literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in origin.” Whether this has been done I don’t know.

So, quite apart from any supposed value that these writings have for helping the faith of Catholics is the promotion of the tendency to self-judgement in areas already judged by the hierarchical authority of the Church. Since the duty of submission to the Magisterium is part of the divine constitution of the Church and necessary for salvation, whereas, private revelations (even authentic ones, which this is not) cannot oblige in faith, it should be an easy call what the loyal Catholic should do. Is it forbidden? In the strict canonical sense (legal prohibition and sanctions for violating), no. Is it grossly imprudent to read things which the Church has discouraged in the strongest terms? Yes. Is it a bad use of time when there are writings of the Magisterium, of the saints and the Catechism that are not being read? Absolutely.

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.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

 

[adriancombe]

under general questions your will find this

I have seen this before. The article on www.motherofallpeoples.com answered these issues.

 

[revelations]

All this private revelation stuff freaks me out…how fitting that the random name i chose for myself here is “revelations”. When i read these sorts of literature, unapproved literature, i get uneasy.

If i don’t read it, i feel like i might be truly missing out on something from God, and when i do read it i feel like i am wasting time that i could be spending with Jesus. For a while, i was seriously messed up and very confused.

Remember everyone, this is PRIVATE REVELATION. We are not bound to it in any way, and frankly, shouldn’t even be worried about it. It is to be taken with a grain of salt. If the magisterium are an extra-large fries at McDonalds, each private revelation is a grain of salt that goes on top for a little flavor.

I look at these Valtorta things the same way i look at the piccaretta things, and the same way i would have looked at the Divine Mercy things before she was canonized. They are all fallible, and potentially contain some tidbits of good revelation. In some case, they contain outright heresy. Remember, JP II kissed a Qu’ran and to everyone else this WAS HERESY, but only he knew what his intentions were. Take this lightly.

For every page of private revelation you read, read 5 of the bible. Or 10 of any other approved literature. This is not to say this stuff is bad, but you must be careful. It is so addictive, and you open yourself up to reading and listening to anything people throw your way. I know someone like this, and it is dangerous. So, if you feel moved to read these, then do so.

But do it with caution…

-revelations

 

[adriancombe]

All this private revelation stuff freaks me out…how fitting that the random name i chose for myself here is “revelations”. When i read these sorts of literature, unapproved literature, i get uneasy.

If i don’t read it, i feel like i might be truly missing out on something from God, and when i do read it i feel like i am wasting time that i could be spending with Jesus. For a while, i was seriously messed up and very confused.

Remember everyone, this is PRIVATE REVELATION. We are not bound to it in any way, and frankly, shouldn’t even be worried about it. It is to be taken with a grain of salt. If the magisterium are an extra-large fries at McDonalds, each private revelation is a grain of salt that goes on top for a little flavor.

I look at these Valtorta things the same way i look at the piccaretta things, and the same way i would have looked at the Divine Mercy things before she was canonized. They are all fallible, and potentially contain some tidbits of good revelation. In some case, they contain outright heresy. Remember, JP II kissed a Qu’ran and to everyone else this WAS HERESY, but only he knew what his intentions were. Take this lightly.

For every page of private revelation you read, read 5 of the bible. Or 10 of any other approved literature. This is not to say this stuff is bad, but you must be careful. It is so addictive, and you open yourself up to reading and listening to anything people throw your way. I know someone like this, and it is dangerous. So, if you feel moved to read these, then do so.

But do it with caution…

-revelations

You are right - there is a danger reading even approved private revelations. I would not recommend anyone to read POTMG or other such things unless they are well formed theologically. Even a person reading Scripture can distort it, and that is inspired required reading!

 

[revelations]

Yes, exactly. I am interested in these sorts of things, but not until i have a couple of months of Eucharist in me, lots of scripture, solid prayer life going, and a solid catechetal knowledge. It is dangerous to read these things if you don’t really know what the catholic church teaches.

 

[Insight]

Greetings,

I like to read, but don’t usually post. I have read several books of the Poem and enjoyed them very much. I couldn’t help but notice that when “Crusade Guy” introduced the topic, he mentions an approval by Pope Pius XII. I also noticed that after 6 pages of everyone jumping in to discredit the books, all were particularly very careful to steer well clear of that Papal Approval. Now I know why, performing searches with Google and Yahoo, this is widely confirmed, I cut and pasted the most detailed snippet below:

“Maria Valtorta is considered to be one of the most edifying visionaries of our time, in that she recorded the most comprehensive and detailed Private Revelation of the Gospels ever; “The Gospel as it Was Revealed to Me” in Italy, and later published in English as the “Poem of the Man-God” after her death. She was born in Caserta, Italy in 1897, passed away in Viareggio in 1961 and is buried under the altar of The Basilica of the Annunciation in Florence. Her dictations and visions took place during the times of WWII and give a wonderfully detailed account of the lives of Jesus and Mary. Maria Valtorta’s visions are the only Private Revelations to attain a Papal Order to Publish. Her writings were presented to Pope Pius XII in 1947, who examined them for ten months. His Holiness agreed to a special meeting in 1948, in which He ordered the publishing before three Priests: Fr. Corrado Berti (Professor of Dogmatic and Sacramental Theology at the Pontifical “Marianum” Theological Faculty of Rome from 1939 onward, later becoming Secretary of the Faculty from 1950 to 1959, as well as consultant to the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council), Fr. Romualdo M. Migliorini (Prefect Apostle in Africa), and Fr. Andrew M. Cecchin (Prior of the International College of the Servites of Mary in Rome. These aforementioned Priests documented this event immediately afterwards with signed testimony. The fact that the Pope did grant this audience was historically documented the next day, February 27, 1948 in L’Osservatore Romano. The Official Vatican recorder Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, inscribed that Pope Pius XII’s action as: “The kind of official Imprimatur granted before witnesses by the Holy Father in 1948. An “Official Imprimatur” of the Supreme Authority of the Church”. The Code of Canon Law - Book II, Part II, Section I, Chapter I, Article I - gives the Pope full and supreme power over all levels of the Church and free use to exercise this power. The Papal order came first. Canon law prohibits this Papal order from being reversed by subordinate levels of Church authority. Canon law clearly requires that this Papal order be embraced with unconditional acceptance and submission.
Read carefully to understand Your Hierarchy. First Vatican Council, Session IV, Chp. IV, p.IX - "So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 883 - "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head.”

 

[adrift]

Greetings,

I like to read, but don’t usually post. I have read several books of the Poem and enjoyed them very much. I couldn’t help but notice that when “Crusade Guy” introduced the topic, he mentions an approval by Pope Pius XII. I also noticed that after 6 pages of everyone jumping in to discredit the books, all were particularly very careful to steer well clear of that Papal Approval. Now I know why, performing searches with Google and Yahoo, this is widely confirmed, I cut and pasted the most detailed snippet below:

“”

No one is careful to steer away from this untruth.
This subject has been widely discussed here not in this thread but others. You must not have searched very well.

Link

There was never an imprimatur given by any pope.
This imprimatur was claimed by a disobedient Father Berti which is well documented. Other than these three who claim what the Pope said is there any other evidence that the Pope read and gave approval? That answer is obvious.
what you can’t get around is the Pope did nothing when Giovanni Pepe and Father Berruti, O.P., condemned the “Poem,” ordering Berti to hand over every copy and sign an agreement not to publish it. This silence and failure to act is a denial of any supposed imprimatur.

There is no credible evidence that Pope Pius the XII approved but there is conclusive evidence that he did not. The Poem was condemned in his life time. If the priest had not been disobedient, there would never had been this problem.
Since you have cut and pasted without sources, it is meaningless.

You might want to read this closed thread
Link
And this article

Envoy

Some promoters of Maria Valtorta’s works will claim that Pope Pius XII, in a private audience in 1948, praised the work and encouraged its publication. There is no way to verify this. What we can verify, though, is that pope’s official opinion of the work as it was declared publicly through the Holy Office, the Vatican department responsible directly to the pope himself for analyzing and commenting on theological works. The Poem was presented to the Holy Office in 1949 for approval. The response was not what the proponents of the work had hoped for. The two priests from the Holy Office who were given the task of studying the volumes and issuing a verdict condemned Valtorta’s writings and went so far as to secure an agreement that they would not be published.

However, those involved did publish it in 1956. The response was swift and predictable. In a decision signed by Pope John XXIII — a holy man of great personal piety, and, just coincidentally, the Vicar of Christ — the Holy Office placed it on the Index of Forbidden Books.

The Index has long since been abolished, but contrary to what the book’s supporters say, it “retains its moral force despite its dissolution.” In other words, the work was judged gravely deficient after serious examination by highly competent and faithful theologians, and it didn’t become a pious marvel just because the Church stopped publishing a list (the Index). Asked about it again in 1993, Cardinal Ratzinger reaffirmed this judgment.

 

[Insight]

Happy Easter Adrift,

 The amount of material that I’m finding online to support these Priest’s claims is literally overwhelming, it will take me a day or two just to sort it out.

 Going through this thread, I was impressed by Eliza10’s verifications of Jesus having blonde hair and blue eyes.  Doing some quick searches, it appears that Maria Valtorta is the only visionary describing Jesus’ physical appearance correctly, as confirmed by documentation of eye witnesses and the Shroud.

“In 1964, a tablet from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar was recovered in an archeological find (a copy of this letter is in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.) which describes Jesus’ physical appearance. It describes Jesus as having golden colored hair. Another unearthed description by Publius Lentrelus describes Jesus’ eyes as bright blue.” (historychannel.com).

thenazareneway.com/likeness_of_our_saviour.htm

holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/williamsaunders/straightanswers/shroudofturin.asp

Have a Blessed Easter