Poem of the Man-God

[Insight]

Hi Eliza10,

 That is intriguing, a few years ago an acquaintance told me that some Jews-For Jesus were making use of the Poem for conversion purposes, because of its Jewish nature.  I can see how the Poem could a be good reference for that task, considering how closely it follows first century Jewish customs and traditions.  It would certainly be a very effective tool for that purpose.

PS – Where are you getting those incredible pictures?

God Bless

 

[Eliza10]

Hi Eliza10,

That is intriguing, a few years ago an acquaintance told me that some Jews-For Jesus were making use of the Poem for conversion purposes, because of its Jewish nature. I can see how the Poem could a be good reference for that task, considering how closely it follows first century Jewish customs and traditions. It would certainly be a very effective tool for that purpose.

Interesting! As my friend is almost an information-collector, I thought she would enjoy the descriptions, etc. She is very perceptive and I have to be quite sure that I am not trying to manipulate a conversion, or trying to sneak a witness into a conversation when she has not expressed openness to it. I just try to respect, and give the conversion to the Lord if its His will.

PS – Where are you getting those incredible pictures?

The pictures - I am sort of a picture collector! I have always collected postcards of famous paintings, whenever I could get my hands on any, starting with my mothers little collection from when she traveled in Europe when she was first married (and lived in Italy with my father who was in the service then). On the Internet there are pictures everywhere, and I “save” them under “Favorites” in my computer. I have an bulging “art” file now. I sit and have fun searching and adding now and again. Its like a little hobby. I started by searching to find which picture of Jesus I liked on Google Images, and along the way saw so many I liked for this or that reason, and I clicked on them and saved them. And added more and more folders – Jesus, Jesus and Mary, Mary, small Jesus and Mary, Jesus and Apostles, Joseph, etc., etc. Also some non-religious - nature, trees, flowers, waterfalls, water, seasons, etc. I enjoy just going on a picture/painting search now and again, or finding a new artist, and over-filling up my art folders.

Bottecelli is one of my favorites and this below is one of my favorite details from Magnificat (already posted on this thread but here it is again). I love the perfect serenity, peace and grace of her face. And she is beautiful. Its fun to “collect” and doesn’t cost me anything. And then I share them here, and add one to emails when I write them.

http://www.spiritsite.com/gallery/art/medmar/BotticelliMadonna.JPG

 

[Eliza10]

And you know, Mary is so beautiful, we can’t begin to imagine what she looks like, and in what way she is beautiful. It is interesting to see how the many differnt artists have interpreted her. And visionaries always say that she is so beautiful they don’t know how to describe her. One of the Medj. visionaries is said to have asked Her why she was so beautiful. She said, “Its because I love.”

…http://orage.mjp.brown.edu/mjp/images/Luini/headwoman.jpg

 

[Insight]

Hi Eliza,

Then you are going to love this;

I recently acquired a book (Valtorta and Ferri) containing over 300 beautiful illustrations, magnificent portraits and detailed drawings of characters and scenes from the Poem, by renowned artist Professor Lorenzo Ferri of Rome. He was a resolute Poem admirer and enthusiast, who very carefully read Maria Valtorta’s descriptions for his meticulous depictions, and even met with her several times in 1949 to hone his details. Lorenzo Ferri was also a prominent Shroud of Turin scholar, and made an illustrious full sized sculpture of Jesus based on the Shroud (with special permission of the Vatican to handle and examine the original Shroud) and Maria Valtorta’s descriptions, which he said were in perfect harmonious agreement. In addition, he made a beautiful sculpture of Mary based on Maria’s descriptions.

God Bless

 

[adrift]

I cannot agree with you on this one. Duress can be many things, one of which is, as you say, having a gun pointed at your head. But it can take many forms. Threat of excommunication is one possiblity in this case, and not a far-fetched guess, as,

But I personally do not need to know exactly what form of coersion was used - it is enough for me to take their word for it.

…http://www.ricksteves.com/images/art/babe_fruit.jpg

It was mentioned that a contract signed under duress would be thrown out of court. The court would not consider being excommunicated as duress. It is define as immediate physical threat and by the way that is the dictionary definition as well. So it was not duress

the same cardinal under quesiton also wrote an official doument calling for the excommunication of innocent victims of clergy if they dared speak of the crime perpetrated against them.

You haven’t read the document have you? I don’t blame you it is a boring read.

 

[Eliza10]

I really want to see this! Can you scan a picture, and print it here?

…http://www.artlifeshop.com/sub_img/rube.gif

Hi Eliza,

Then you are going to love this;

I recently acquired a book (Valtorta and Ferri) containing over 300 beautiful illustrations, magnificent portraits and detailed drawings of characters and scenes from the Poem, by renowned artist Professor Lorenzo Ferri of Rome. He was a resolute Poem admirer and enthusiast, who very carefully read Maria Valtorta’s descriptions for his meticulous depictions, and even met with her several times in 1949 to hone his details. Lorenzo Ferri was also a prominent Shroud of Turin scholar, and made an illustrious full sized sculpture of Jesus based on the Shroud (with special permission of the Vatican to handle and examine the original Shroud) and Maria Valtorta’s descriptions, which he said were in perfect harmonious agreement. In addition, he made a beautiful sculpture of Mary based on Maria’s descriptions.

God Bless

 

[Eliza10]

You haven’t read the document have you? I don’t blame you it is a boring read.

LOL. I suppose it must be. But I don’t want to put myself through the moral stress of reading what that man wrote. The situation bothers me, a lot. So you see, while I am very much disinlined to read it, it is not the boringness of it repelling me.

I think my role in our Church’s scandal is to pray all about it.

But I would be willing read the argument of a credible authority making a case that the whole thing has been* misrepresented*, and the Cardinal had instead written a document displaying true Christian charity and justice to victims*.* If I saw any hope that were so, then I might read it - because of the hope of confirming that the original reports were wrong.

…http://italophiles.com/images/bot_virgin8angels.jpg

 

[Insight]

Hi Eliza,

 I’ll work on it next weekend, it may be a little to busy at work to play around with it.

Hi Adrift,

 I see you are still on the document, I’ll work on this also.  The main problem is that its a scan imported into a pdf, which is just clear enough to read, but not work with text-recognition software, rendering it difficult to quote.  I’ll print it out and highlight the relevant parts.  I don’t think my secretary will have a problem typing those parts up.  I’ll ask her on Monday.  That way the segments germane to the excommunication violated child victims (who decline to be silent) could be accurately quoted.

God Bless

 

[Insight]

There are three relevant elements to the Ottaviani directive, the first being the scope of the decree, which is outline on the first page, under the title of Preliminaries:

“1. The crime of solicitation takes place when a Priest tempts a penitent, whoever that person is, either in the act of sacramental confession, whether before or immediately afterwards, whether on the occasion or the pretext of confession, whether even outside the times for confession in the confessional or (in a place) other than that (usually) designated for the hearing of confession or (in a place) chosen for the simulated purpose of hearing a confession. (The objext of this temptation) is to soliceit or provoke (the penitent) toward impure and obscene matters, whether by words or signs or nods of the head, whether by touch or by writing whether then (the note has been read) or whether he has had with (that penitent) prohibited and improper speech or activity with reckless daring (Constitution Sacrum Poenitentiae, &1).”

It becomes clear that although Crimen Sollicitationis can apply to solicitations within the confessional, the scope of the Preliminaries widens this range to all encompassing.

This is confirmed Formula P (Way of Indicting) “For example, where the place of the confessional is in the church or the rooms in the home of the Priest; whether he receives the penitents before or after confession at home so that ++52++ he may impart counsel; whether he put books at their disposal, etc.; whether this took place that he would speak a long time with a woman at home or in the sacristy after confession and this with closed doors, whether it took place on such and such a day and in such a town or city, etc."

Furthermore, in a deposition of Msgr. Ferme taken in a civil case in California in 2005, he repeated this processional opinion when asked by the attorney taking the deposition about the relationship of pedophilia to the 1962 document:

Q - And according to your article, the ’62 instruction was understood to include the crime of pedophilia, correct?

A. - Correct, as was the Code of Canon Law of 1917.

Q. And that would be pedophilic acts committed either in connection with the confession or not, correct?

A. - Correct.

The second relevant element to the Ottaviani directive is the treatment of the victim, should the injured party attempt bring matters outside the jurisdiction of the Church.

This is outlined under the title of Preliminaries, 13. “The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncing (the Priest) and the witnesses.” And again on Title Number One 23. “And before he is dismissed, there should be presented to him (the victim), as above, an oath of observing the secret, threatening him, if there is a need, with excommunication reserved to the Ordinary or to the Holy See (Cfr. N.)."

Formula E provides an in deft oath to be read by the victim, then instructs: “having made an oath to speak the truth, which he took having touched the Holy Gospels of God which he (victim) must touch with his hand”. Notwithstanding that in Title Number Two “The Process” Chapter I – The Inquisition, part 52 states: “In every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth”. In short, the victim is must take and oath to speak the truth, but the accused Priest is protected from any form of oath to tell the truth.

The third relevant element to the Ottaviani directive is Title Number Three, the “Penalties”. As outlined in part 63: “To the greatest penalty of degradation, there can be added for a religious who is accused the reduction to the status of a lay-brother. This is only imposed when, having weighed everything, it evidently appears that the accused, immersed in the depths of malice in the abuse of his sacred ministry, combined with the grave scandal that is harmful to the faithful and their souls, exists to such a degree of foolhardiness and habit, so that there is no hope, humanly speaking, or almost not hope, of his amendment that is evident any more.” In short, the worst penalty that can be imposed on a Priest found guilty of molestation is reduction to lay-brother. Compare this to the penalty imposed on the victim for going outside the Church’s jurisdiction; “excommunication”. Excommunication would prohibit the victim from ever receiving the Holy Eucharist again for life, a sentence not imposed on a Priest found guilty of molestation.

Title IV “Official Communications” states in part 67: “If any Priest condemned of the crime of solicitation, or even only admonished, should transfer his residence to another territory”. Hence the recent infamous scandal of pedophile Priests being continually transferred."

 

[adrift]

I do not know who translated the document that was linked. I do believe it is more or less accurate. The original document was written in Latin, as all official Church documents are. It is also a legal canonical document written in highly technical language. The translation strained and awkward could lend itself to misunderstanding or deliberate misinterpretation.

The document is essentially a set of procedural norms for processing and trying cases of accusations against priests for soliciting sex while in the act of sacramental confession. The document refers to this as an “unspeakable crime”. Prior to the publication of this document such cases were processed according to the norms for penal judicial processes found in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
. Title V of the document includes the crimes of sexual contact with same sex partners,
sexual contacts with minors and bestiality which are also to be processed according to these special norms. The document does not imply that these crimes were to have been perpetrated through solicitation in the confessional. It included them under the title “The worst crimes” and presumably because of their serious nature, they were included under these special procedural norms. The norms of Crimen were thus established as the obligatory procedures for prosecuting cases of four separate and distinct canonical crimes, namely, a) solicitation for sex in the act of sacramental confession, b) homosexual sex, c) sexual abuse of minor males or females, d) bestiality or sex with animals. It is therefore incorrect to state that the norms and procedures of Crimen Sollicitationis are applicable only to cases of solicitation for sex in the confessional. Ordinarily the prosecution of these crimes would have been processed according to the procedural laws of the 1917 Code. The 1962 document provided special
norms with an added emphasis on confidentiality because of the very serious nature of the crimes involved.
This is not the first document to deal with these matters A document issued in 1922 was almost identical to the 1962 one and it too was shrouded in secrecy. The official document that imposed secrecy was published on February 20, 1866 by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in the form of an instruction authored by Pope Pius IX
actual text is as follows:

Par. 14. In handling these cases, either by Apostolic commission or the appropriate
ruling of the Bishops, the greatest care and vigilance must be exercised so that these
procedures, inasmuch as they pertain to [matters of] faith, are to be completed in
absolute secrecy, and after they have been settled and given over to sentencing, are to be
completely suppressed by perpetual silence. All the ecclesiastic ministers of the curia
[court], and whoever else is summoned to the proceedings, including counsels for the
defense, must submit oaths of maintaining secrecy, and even the Bishops themselves and
any of the local Ordinaries are obligated to keep the secret. (in Codicis Iuris Canonici
Fontes, Rome, 1926, vol. IV, n. 990, p. 267.

To put this in context what must be understood is the concern for secrecy in the traditional canonical concept known as the “privilege of the forum” or “privilegium fori” which has its roots in medieval Canon Law. Basically this is a traditional privilege of the
Church whereby clerics accused of crimes were tried before ecclesiastical courts and not brought before civil or secular courts.

The oath of secrecy was given in trial. The priest found guilty had severe penalties. These penalties, unfortunately, seemed to have been ignored however it should be mentioned that many Bishops denied knowledge of this document. The oath of secrecy imposed on parties and witnesses in canonical proceedings was intended to assure witnesses that they could speak freely. It was also intended to protect the reputations of the accused and accuser until guilt or innocence was determined.
The insistence on secrecy throughout the document is related to two issues:

1. The scandal that would arise were the public to hear stories of priests committing such
   terrible crimes.
2. The protection of the inviolability of the sacrament of penance.

According to the document, accusers and witnesses are bound by the secrecy obligation during and after the process but not prior to the initiation of the process. It was also denied after this document came to light that it would preclude civil action.

I believe in hindsight that this oath of secrecy was unwise and actually defeated the purpose having the opposite effect that was intended. It gave fodder to the enemies of the Church.

Finally you have

FROM THE AUDIENCE OF THE HOLY FATHER, 16 MARCH, 1962

  Our Most Holy Father Pope John XXIII [23rd], in an audience granted to the Most Eminent Cardinal Secretary of the Holy Office on 16th March 1962, deigned to approve and confirm this Instruction, ordering upon those to whom it pertains to keep and observe it in the minutest detail.

At Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation, 16th March, 1962.

To sum it up

The document concerns bringing priest to trial for what the document calls both “Unspeakable crimes” and “Worst Crimes”
It calls for severe penalties for convicted priest.
I called for a promise of silence concerning the trial
It was a continuation of policies already established in 1866 for silence.
POPE JOHN XXIII signed it.
What it doesn’t do is excommunicate anyone

for refusing to remain silent and submit to molestation.

Was this document taken out of context? The answer is yes.

 

[adrift]

There are three relevant elements to the Ottaviani directive, the first being the scope of the decree, which is outline on the first page, under the title of Preliminaries:
]

When you quote, you really should give your source. I am assuming , I hope not incorrectly, that you don’t know how to use these functions.

When you reply to thread, you will see what looks like a ball and a clip. That allows you to link to a url.

 

[Insight]

That was not a quote, it was my short introduction.

In reply to: “I do not know who translated the document that was linked.” It is a copy of an original English version sent from the Vatican to a Bishop in the US, obtained by CBS News.

In reply to: “The priest found guilty had severe penalties.”, the most severe penalty is outlined as being reduced to lay-brother, and only if the abuses are so severe and repetitive to be considered hopeless.

In reply to: “many Bishops denied knowledge of this document.”, no kidding, they were sworn to an oath of secrecy.

 

[adrift]

T
Title IV “Official Communications” states in part 67: “If any Priest condemned of the crime of solicitation, or even only admonished, should transfer his residence to another territory”. Hence the recent infamous scandal of pedophile Priests being continually transferred."

This is really dishonest. I guess your website didn’t think anyone would check it out.

The is what 67 says

Any ordinary who has proceeded correctly against some priest who is soliciting, should not omit informing the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office, and, if it is a matter in which a religious is involve, also the General Superior concerining the outcome of the case.
If any priest condemned of the crime of solicitation, or even only admonished, should transfer his residence to another territory, the Ordinary a quo should immediately warn the Ordinary ad quem of the thing that preceded that person and of his juridical status.

It is obvious that the priest isn’t being transfered but that he has moved of his own will and that his crimes should be made known. Taken out of context to have the opposite meaning than intended.

 

[adrift]

That was not a quote, it was my short introduction.

In reply to: “I do not know who translated the document that was linked.” It is a copy of an original English version sent from the Vatican to a Bishop in the US, obtained by CBS News.

In reply to: “The priest found guilty had severe penalties.”, the most severe penalty is outlined as being reduced to lay-brother, and only if the abuses are so severe and repetitive to be considered hopeless.

You are copying from a website that you do not identify. You should make it clear that this is not your own writing.

In reply to: “many Bishops denied knowledge of this document.”, no kidding, they were sworn to an oath of secrecy.

First time I heard of this. Can you prove it.

 

[Insight]

Only the Ordinary would be aware, and anyone following the scandal in the Newspapers is aware that the pedophile Priests were continuously transferred. I recall reading of a case where a transfer even put a pedophile Priests where he would be in contact with children.

This would be a good link to review:

advancedchristianity.com/Pages/CBS/Toye.htm

 

[adrift]

Only the Ordinary would be aware, and anyone following the scandal in the Newspapers is aware that the pedophile Priests were continuously transferred. I recall reading of a case where a transfer even put a pedophile Priests where he would be in contact with children.

We are not talking about what happened in this scandal.
Nowhere in this document does it call for the priest to be moved.

 

[Insight]

Title IV “Official Communications” states in part 67: “If any Priest condemned of the crime of solicitation, or even only admonished, should transfer his residence to another territory”.

Apparently they followed that recommendation closely.

 

[adrift]

This is really dishonest. I guess your website didn’t think anyone would check it out.

The is what 67 says

Quote:
Any ordinary who has proceeded correctly against some priest who is soliciting, should not omit informing the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office, and, if it is a matter in which a religious is involve, also the General Superior concerining the outcome of the case.
If any priest condemned of the crime of solicitation, or even only admonished, should transfer his residence to another territory, the Ordinary a quo should immediately warn the Ordinary ad quem of the thing that preceded that person and of his juridical status

Title IV “Official Communications” states in part 67: “If any Priest condemned of the crime of solicitation, or even only admonished, should transfer his residence to another territory”not even quoting the complete sentence but then it wouldn’t support their lie.

Apparently they followed that recommendation closely.Apparently you see what you want to see not what is there.

Did you miss my post which showed that by partially quoting that it meant something entirely different. Why did you repost this lie.

 

[Insight]

What is the relevance of the new Ordinary being aware? He can’t inform anyone anyhow, it is a secret that He must keep to himself.

 

[adrift]

What is the relevance of the new Ordinary being aware? He can’t inform anyone anyhow, it is a secret that He must keep to himself.

No where is it stated that the New Ordinary takes an oath to secrecy. The oath of secrecy was in the trial only. That this document has been taken out of context is obvious. That it was done so to smear is also obvious.
It doesn’t matter if a pope said to have printed. It doesn’t matter what priest put it on the index. It doesn’t matter if a lot of people have good things to say about the book.
It changes nothing the Church has said is fiction.