Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Anonymous Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 04:10:56 AM

Title: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 04:10:56 AM
Valtorta, d'Agreda, Emmerich - True or False Visions?
by Fr. Jean-Luc Lafitte
Submitted by Admin on 8 December 2017
https://tradidi.com/valtorta-dagreda-emmerich-true-or-false-visions

Introduction
We live in a modem world, wishing to think only with feelings; that is to say a world using its heart before using its intelligence. Because of this tendency, mixing together piety, sugary Angelism, and virtue, out of curiosity and love for novelties, many of our faithful are reading, sometimes over and over, "The Mystical City of God" (Maria d'Agreda), "The Book of the Visions" (Anne-Catherine Emmerich) and "The Poem of the Man-God" (Maria Valtorta). In 1988 these books were already considered by the one who was at that time Cardinal Ratzinger (a very modernist Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith), as an "overly romanticized version of the life of Jesus, and a complex work of childish fantasies, and historical and exegetical errors, all put in a subtly sensuous vain".

These parishioners claim they do not have the time to read the Catechism of the Council of Trent, but they easily make time to read the ten volumes of Maria Valtorta! Did not Our Lord warn us, "There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive, if possible, even the elect" (Mat 24, 24)? It should be remembered that Saint Catherine of Bologne had been deceived for five years by false revelations and visions of Satan, who appeared to her crucified! Our Lord did not want for us to know everything about Him, but only what is contained in the Holy Scriptures and the works of the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church. The gift of Piety must not be separated from the gift of Knowledge: to pray, yes, but to pray with the spirit of the Church! This is why the Church did not allow the publication of a book without carefully examining it before granting the "Nihil obstat" (nothing wrong in it) and the "Imprimatur" (permission to print it).

Archbishop Lefebvre did not recommend these three books. "They represent Our Lord in a manner too concrete, with all the details of His life; it can be very dangerous not to show enough the face of God in this life of Our Lord, humanizing too much the mystery of the presence of God amongst us" (1986, during a retreat for Priests). The situation in some of our parishes became so bad that one of our Priests, Fr Herrbach, published in 1993 a book in French called "Some Visions on the Gospel", with a preface by Msgr. Tissier de Mallerais, Bishop of the Society of Saint Pius X, to warn our faithful about the dangers of the works of the three visionaries. I used this excellent book to write this letter.

Some parishioners may feel offended, but let us judge the situation, not with our feelings, but according to Catholic teachings.
[color][size][font]
"The Mystical City of God"
[/font][/size][/color]
Maria d'Agreda was the Superior of the Convent of the Immaculate Conception in Agreda, Spain, where she died in 1665. Her book, finished in 1660, had only been published after her death in 1670. Later, her cause for beatification was introduced in Rome.

"The Mystical City of God" was condemned on June 26, 1681, by Pope Blessed Innocent XI. This condemnation was ratified and published by the Holy Office on 4 August, 1681. "All parts of the book are forbidden and condemned ... and it is not allowed to possess or print this book". Because of the great pressure coming from the Kings and the Franciscans of Spain, the decree of condemnation was suspended for Spain only, and therefore, the book of Maria d'Agreda is not on the Index of forbidden books, although still forbidden everywhere else.

On 12 March, 1771, Pope Clement XIV ordered perpetual silence on the cause for beatification of Maria d'Agreda because of her book.
[color][size][font]
Reasons for the condemnations
[/font][/size][/color]
Let us give a few of the reasons for the condemnation of her book, "The Mystical City of God".


In conclusion, let us say that the book of Maria d'Agreda is full of errors, and cannot come from God.
[color][size][font]
"The Book of the Visions"
[/font][/size][/color]
Anne-Catherine Emmerich was born in Germany in 1774, and joined the Augustinian Sisters. In her convent she had many visions, and even received the stigmata of the Passion of Christ in 1812.

She is a true mystic, who received from God very special graces.

The book containing her visions was written by the poet Clement Brentano two years after her death. Therefore, many of the things in this book are coming from Brentano, and not from Anne-Catherine Emmerich herself. It must be said that Brentano never received from her the mission to give an account of her visions! Dom Gueranger, the great Abbot of Solesmes, supported Anne Catherine Emmerich because he was following the opinions of Duns Scot, opinions you can also find in the visions of the seer.

Let us list a few of the main errors contained in the book.


The visions of Anne-Catherine Emmerich, transcribed by Brentano contain so many errors that "the Book of the Visions" must be totally rejected.
[color][size][font]
"The Poem of the Man-God"
[/font][/size][/color]
Maria Valtorta was born in Italy in 1897. A prolific writer, she wrote the ten volumes of the book "The Poem of the Man-God" from 1943 to 1947. She died in 1961, in a state of total mental illness.

Maria Valtorta claimed she received private revelations from God, and it was her confessor, Fr Migliorini, who gave to her the order to write down these messages supposedly from Heaven. This Priest claimed that Pope Pius XII said to him in February 1948, "Publish this work the way it is written: he who reads it will understand! We hear about so many visions and revelations. We do not say that they are all true, but we can say that some of them could be true." No proof is available for such a declaration. It seems very strange that a man as busy as was Pope Pius XII could have found the time to read 5400 pages of the ten volumes of private revelations written by an unknown bed-ridden woman, and could have led the reader to believe that personal private interpretation was permitted!

In February 1949 (a year after this supposed endorsement of Pope Pius XII), the Holy Office forbade permanently the publication of the work of Maria Valtorta. It is obvious that the Holy Office could not have condemned the books without the permission of the Pope.

In spite of this formal prohibition, the books were nevertheless published in Italian from 1956 to 1959. These books were therefore included in the catalogue of the Index (the list of the books forbidden by the Catholic Church) on 16 December, 1959. The text of this condemnation was published in the official Acts of the Vatican on 6 January 1960.

Following the permissive modem mentality, the Index of Forbidden Books was suppressed in 1966 by Pope Paul VI. This, however, does not mean that Catholics now have the right to read books which were previously forbidden due to the danger they posed by undermining morals and doctrine. A bad book remains dangerous today for the same reasons as when it was published for the first time. It has been said that Pope John-Paul II refused to receive the books of Maria Valtorta as a gift in 1979, and that Cardinal Ratzinger on 9 September, 1988, admitted that these books were still forbidden!
[color][size][font]
Reasons for the condemnations
[/font][/size][/color]
It is not possible to cover all the errors of the book in a short letter like this, but let us provide a few examples of the foolishness contained in Maria Valtorta.

[color][size][font]
Conclusion
[/font][/size][/color]
The virtue of Faith is a gift from God which works through our intellect, and not through our senses. The three books we have just studied encourage a dangerous sentimentalism, not the Catholic Faith, and therefore, must be rejected.

Truly yours in Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Most Holy Mother.

Father Jean-Luc Lafitte

Society of Saint Pius X
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 04:13:38 AM
Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda
https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/m/mystical-city-of-god-by-mary-of-agreda.php

Q:  What to think about Mary of Agreda's Mystical City of God?
A:  A complicated story, and at least as long as the Mystical City itself. In short, there seems to be little doubt that the person of Maria Agreda is, and was, widely considered to be a saintly person. Her cause was introduced for the first time shortly after her death in 1672, then promoted again a century later, but, to this day, has not come to fruition. As to her Mystical City, it was written in obedience to her confessors (spiritual directors), burnt twice, recommenced three times, never of her own volition. The book was condemned in 1681 by Innocent XI, but execution was suspended for Spain. The Sorbonne or University of Paris did the same in 1696 by 102 votes of 152 after having had it examined by 132 doctors of theology. In contrast, several Spanish universities such as Salamanca and Alcala gave their approval, as did the Spanish Inquisition after ten years of study. In 1729, Benedict XIII maintained the condemnation. The work was placed on the Index, but the decision was contested by its supporters, invoking faulty translations from the Spanish original. Some of the reasons for the condemnation by the Sorbonne were: indecent (i.e. very physical) language; a tendency to give Mary adoration instead of veneration; her Immaculate Conception, and, thanks to this privilege, mediation of all graces. Being of Franciscan obedience and culture, Maria Agreda was following Scotist and not Thomist theology. Some of the theological ideas, namely the Immaculate Conception and the mediation of all graces became common opinion in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the former even dogma. The Index was abolished in 1966, although with the caveat to avoid readings harmful to faith and moral conduct.
Addendum
At regular intervals, the ML/IMRI receives questions about the validity and orthodoxy of Agreda’s Mystical City of God. Most of these questions deal with the faith binding character of this work, in other words, ‘do we have to believe in what is said in this book?’.
1) The Mystical City of God falls in the category of what the Church terms “private revelations,” that is insights and experiences of individuals pertaining to events and persons of Salvation history, or, more generally, the possible understanding of, and rapports between the natural and the supernatural order.
Though frequently the result of a special grace given to the recipient, these insights and experiences are in no way binding for faith and morals of the faithful.
2) Their validity has to be measured against the official revelation as the church received it in and through Jesus Christ, has treasured and deepened it for millenaries, and pronounced by and through its magisterium.
So what can be said about the Mystical City? According to Enrique Llamas, a Spanish Mariologist of reputation, the Mystical City of God not only does not contain any theological errors, but is compatible with the Mariological doctrine of Vatican II (LG,Ch. 8) (See: La Madre Agreda y la Mariologia del Vaticano. Editorial Arca de la Alianza, 20072, 126). On the other hand, a committee initiated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1992-1999) reached different conclusions on some of the issues at stake. It admits that the Mystical City does not contain specific doctrinal errors and/or heresies, but observed that the presentation of Our Lady contrasts with what Scripture tells us about her, and affirms, at the same time, that its Mariology is not compatible with that of Vatican II. One of the practical consequences thereof was, that the nihil obstat regarding the pursuit of Mary of Agreda’s beatification and canonization was not granted for the time being. (Rome, February 19, 1999).
3) This having been said, the Mystical City of God, well before the abolition of the Index in 1966, has all along been a source of inspiration for many souls eager to deepen and enliven their spiritual life. In conclusion then it would be advisable, figuratively speaking, to read Mystical City of God with Scripture in one hand, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the other.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 04:44:59 AM
"Chapter 3 of Book 8 claims Mark the Evangelist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_the_Evangelist) wrote his Gospel in Hebrew while in Palestine, then translated his Gospel into Latin while in Rome, whereas it was the opinion of several of the Church Fathers that Mark wrote his Gospel in Greek while in Rome."
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 04:58:13 AM
Venerable Mary of Agreda died in 1665, here she is 324 years later in 1989, completely incorrupt.

(https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/HistImages/B_017_Body1.jpg)
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 05:08:31 AM
Venerable Mary of Agreda died in 1665, here she is 324 years later in 1989, completely incorrupt.

(https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/HistImages/B_017_Body1.jpg)

Her personal sanctity is not in question, and has no bearing of the correctness or incorrectness of her book: 
As the OP stated, St. Catherine of Bologne was deceived for 5 years by visions from the devil, and she is in heaven. 
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 05:49:23 AM

From the OP:
Where did she ever say this? I find this to be entirely incorrect. Further, although I am open to correction and having read it myself, I find the Cardinal's summary below to be the truth.
In Volume One, it says:
"...The learned and pious Cardinal D Aguirre says that he considers all the studies of fifty years of his previous life as of small consequence in comparison with the doctrines he found in this book, which in all things are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Fathers and Councils of the Church."

From the OP:
Quote
Maria d'Agreda teaches that the body and soul of Our Lady had been carried to Heaven just after her birth by a throng of Angels, to be welcomed by the eternal Father. But the Catholic Church teaches that the gates of Heaven were closed to all men until the coming of Christ!
This is explained in the first book:
341. Since this, O soul, was the work of my dear Son, the true God and man, He, as the Lord of virtues and graces, exalted and adorned me with them from the first moment of my Immaculate Conception. And as, more over, the hindrance of sin touched me not, I was free from the impediments which prevented other mortals from entering into the eternal gates of heaven; on the
contrary the powerful arm of my Son acted with me as being the Mistress of all virtues and as the Queen of heaven.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Stubborn on December 29, 2018, 05:52:30 AM
Let me try this again.

Quote
From the OP:
  • Maria d'Agreda wrote in her book, "This book has God Himself for author; everything in it is divine and revealed by God. The book has obtained the solemn approbation of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity". But the Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Bible is the only book divinely revealed!
  • In her book, she follows the philosophy of Duns Scot about the reasons for the mystery of the Incarnation, which goes against the opinion of Saint Thomas Aquinas. She went so far as to write, "Any man who will not believe what is written in my book will greatly displease, not the person who wrote it as a pure instrument, but the Blessed Virgin Mary herself." Doing so, Maria d'Agreda canonized as divinely inspired the particular doctrines of the Scotist school!
Where did she ever say this? I find this to be entirely incorrect. Further, although I am open to correction and having read it myself, I find the Cardinal's summary below to be the truth.

In Volume One, it says:
"...The learned and pious Cardinal D Aguirre says that he considers all the studies of fifty years of his previous life as of small consequence in comparison with the doctrines he found in this book, which in all things are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Fathers and Councils of the Church."



Quote
From the OP:
Maria d'Agreda teaches that the body and soul of Our Lady had been carried to Heaven just after her birth by a throng of Angels, to be welcomed by the eternal Father. But the Catholic Church teaches that the gates of Heaven were closed to all men until the coming of Christ!
This is explained in the first book:
341. Since this, O soul, was the work of my dear Son, the true God and man, He, as the Lord of virtues and graces, exalted and adorned me with them from the first moment of my Immaculate Conception. And as, more over, the hindrance of sin touched me not, I was free from the impediments which prevented other mortals from entering into the eternal gates of heaven; on the contrary the powerful arm of my Son acted with me as being the Mistress of all virtues and as the Queen of heaven.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 06:17:07 AM
Grouping City of God with Valtorta's and Emmerich's works is deceitful. City of God has had 400 years of scrutiny, naturally there would be something somewhere questioning a point or two of what is in the like 3200 pages. Not one author of the critiques states the page or the edition from which they quote a line, very suspicious.  In just one quote, Stubborn of CI quotes the page, why don't any of the authors quoted? 

Sounds like the French had a problem with the Spanish being chosen by The Blessed Mother. 
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Last Tradhican on December 29, 2018, 06:18:35 AM
Grouping City of God with Valtorta's and Emmerich's works is deceitful. City of God has had 400 years of scrutiny, naturally there would be someone somewhere questioning a point or two of what is in the like 3200 pages. Not one author of the critiques states the page or the edition from which they quote a line,  that is very suspicious.  

In just one quote, Stubborn of CI quotes the page, why don't any of the authors quoted? 

Sounds like the French had a problem with the Spanish being chosen by The Blessed Mother. 
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 29, 2018, 08:53:34 AM
I don't see the Mystical City of God on the Index:

http://www.cvm.qc.ca/gconti/905/BABEL/Index%20Librorum%20Prohibitorum-1948.htm
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: songbird on December 29, 2018, 01:07:48 PM
St John Vianney had 2 books, Bible and the Mystical city of God. Nothing is wrong with the Mystical City of God, when it comes to Faith, Morals.  Highly Recommended reading!  
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Nadir on December 29, 2018, 08:03:04 PM
Quote
But in Saint Luke's Gospel (1:34), the Mother of God said to the Angel Gabriel after the Annunciation, "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" This shows that she did not know everything.
From the OP.

The expression "I know not man" means I am a virgin. IT is not a matter of knowlege in the sense acquired information. Surely, as a priest, the writer would be aware of this use of language.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 09:46:25 PM
I admit to not reading the OP and only skimming this thread, but reading the post just above mine, I must say that whomever Nadir quoted should rightly have their credibility called into question.  :facepalm:

-MaterD
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 10:34:20 PM
St John Vianney had 2 books, Bible and the Mystical city of God. Nothing is wrong with the Mystical City of God, when it comes to Faith, Morals.  Highly Recommended reading! 

I agree. The Mystical City of God is the most important reading behind the Holy Bible and the Trent Catechism.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 29, 2018, 10:35:33 PM
I agree. The Mystical City of God is the most important reading behind the Holy Bible and the Trent Catechism.

I forgot to check "not anonymous"
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 10:44:09 PM
From the OP.

The expression "I know not man" means I am a virgin. IT is not a matter of knowlege in the sense acquired information. Surely, as a priest, the writer would be aware of this use of language.

Looks like Tradidi (from whence the OP was taken) has become aware of this thread, and made this response to Nadir:
"Nadir’s error is to assume that the author was referring to “because I know not man” when he concluded that “she [Our Lady] did not know everything”. However, that assumption is wrong. The author of this article (Fr. Jean-Luc Lafitte) was referring to the fact that Our Lady answered “How shall this be done” to the Angel Gabriel. In other words, Our Lady did not know how the Incarnation was to be done. This clearly disproves Maria Valtorta’s claim that Our Lady had infused knowledge."
https://forum.tradidi.com/t/correction-for-nadir-on-cathinfo/265
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 10:47:03 PM
Looks like Tradidi (from whence the OP was taken) has become aware of this thread, and made this response to Nadir:
"Nadir’s error is to assume that the author was referring to “because I know not man” when he concluded that “she [Our Lady] did not know everything”. However, that assumption is wrong. The author of this article (Fr. Jean-Luc Lafitte) was referring to the fact that Our Lady answered “How shall this be done” to the Angel Gabriel. In other words, Our Lady did not know how the Incarnation was to be done. This clearly disproves Maria Valtorta’s claim that Our Lady had infused knowledge."
https://forum.tradidi.com/t/correction-for-nadir-on-cathinfo/265
I presume Tradidi meant to say "This clearly disproves Mary of agreda's claim that Our Lady had infused knowledge."
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 11:08:25 PM
I presume Tradidi meant to say "This clearly disproves Mary of agreda's claim that Our Lady had infused knowledge."
The confusion is caused by Nadir attempting defend Mary of Agreda's "Mystical City of God" by confounding with that work a quote actually contained within Valtorta's "Poem of the Man God."
In other words, it is Valtorta, and not Agreda, who contended that Mary had infused knowledge from the age of 3, and Fr. Lafitte subsequently proving such could not be the case (and not by observing the "because I have not known man" phrase which Nadir seizes upon, but by the "how shall this be done" (i.e., the Incarnation) phrase.
If Mary possessed infused knowledge, than the means by which our Lord would become incarnate coud not have been unknown to her (as it clearly was).
So in summary, Nadir has made two mistakes:
1) She confounded Agreda's "Mystical City of God" with Valtorta's "Poem of the Man-God;"
2) She thought Fr. Lafitte was referring to the "because I know not man" phrase to make his point, when he was actually referring to "how shall this be done" (i.e. the Incarnation, the means of which Mary was ignorantuntil Gabriel told her).
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Cantarella on December 29, 2018, 11:12:20 PM
Commentaries of Luke 1, 34

(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48991495_10156143423068691_8039570653692559360_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=fe178c05b97f244364a74292fd4f376c&oe=5CD53A0D)
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 11:14:24 PM
Commentaries of Luke 1, 34

(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48991495_10156143423068691_8039570653692559360_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=fe178c05b97f244364a74292fd4f376c&oe=5CD53A0D)
I don't get it: You are defending Valtorta?
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 11:27:57 PM
I don't get it: You are defending Valtorta?
No, I am not. Far from.
Just wanted to post what is the correct understanding of that passage Luke 1, 34. It has nothing to do with the "infused knowledge" of Our Lady. 
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 11:31:57 PM
1) She confounded Agreda's "Mystical City of God" with Valtorta's "Poem of the Man-God;"
Nadir didn't say which book the quote was referring to. The OP covered more than one.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 11:38:46 PM
Nadir didn't say which book the quote was referring to. The OP covered more than one.
It doesn't really matter:
If Nadir was trying to defend the Mystical City of God, she unwittingly attempted to do so by coming to the rescue of the wrong quote from the wrong book.
If Nadir was trying to defend The Poem of the Man-God, she rebutted the wrong part of the quote which Fr. Lafitte disproved.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Nadir on December 30, 2018, 12:28:25 AM

The expression "I know not man" means I am a virgin. IT is not a matter of knowlege in the sense acquired information. Surely, as a priest, the writer would be aware of this use of language.
Please read what I wrote.
I refer to NOTHING but the quote from this priest who should know the Biblical meaning of the word to know, which is to have intimate (sexual) relations.
I have read none of the books named in the OP, except for snippets of MV. 
I have very little interest in private revelation. I am not against it. I have no interest in promoting any of these writers though from what I have read here, if I were to choose to read any it would be Agreda.
THanks for your interest though :popcorn:
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2018, 06:29:50 AM
Please read what I wrote.
I refer to NOTHING but the quote from this priest who should know the Biblical meaning of the word to know, which is to have intimate (sexual) relations.
I have read none of the books named in the OP, except for snippets of MV.
I have very little interest in private revelation. I am not against it. I have no interest in promoting any of these writers though from what I have read here, if I were to choose to read any it would be Agreda.
THanks for your interest though :popcorn:
That you persist in imagining Fr. Lafitte made any kind of comment at all regarding “I know not man” shows you still do not have understand what you are reading.
You should really keep quiet.
His comment disproving Valtorta’s claim that Mary had infused knowledge from the age of three is based on the former’s  “how can this be,” not the “since I know not man” as you ignorantly pretend.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2018, 02:28:25 PM
That you persist in imagining Fr. Lafitte made any kind of comment at all regarding “I know not man” shows you still do not have understand what you are reading.
You should really keep quiet.
His comment disproving Valtorta’s claim that Mary had infused knowledge from the age of three is based on the former’s  “how can this be,” not the “since I know not man” as you ignorantly pretend.
Here is the whole paragraph:

This is lifted straight from the OP. 
.
I persist in imagining? There is plenty of imagination in some of the anonymous posters here, accusing me of thinking/saying/inferring things I have not said, but none in what I have written. 
.   
The last two sentences can and do give the impression that "she did not know everything" refers to its immediate precedent, no? 
.
Thank you for your gentle correction.
.
I am just amazed that so many people among the anonymous can take offence (and be offensive), at such a simple and insignificant comment. 
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Nadir on December 30, 2018, 02:38:51 PM
Here is the whole paragraph:

This is lifted straight from the OP.
.
I persist in imagining? There is plenty of imagination in some of the anonymous posters here, accusing me of thinking/saying/inferring things I have not said, but none in what I have written.
.  
The last two sentences can and do give the impression that "she did not know everything" refers to its immediate precedent, no?
.
Thank you for your gentle correction.
.
I am just amazed that so many people among the anonymous can take offence (and be offensive), at such a simple and insignificant comment.
That was me!
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2018, 02:58:18 PM
Here is the whole paragraph:

This is lifted straight from the OP.
.
I persist in imagining? There is plenty of imagination in some of the anonymous posters here, accusing me of thinking/saying/inferring things I have not said, but none in what I have written.
.  
The last two sentences can and do give the impression that "she did not know everything" refers to its immediate precedent, no?
.
Thank you for your gentle correction.
.
I am just amazed that so many people among the anonymous can take offence (and be offensive), at such a simple and insignificant comment.
With all respect, you are making a fool of yourself.
Your pride is causing you to be unedifyingly recalcitrant, when you should be acknowledging your mistake.
Since you won't, there is really no point in continuing.
And since I wish your correction, rather than your humiliation, I will let it go too.
Let's just say that nobody but you still pretends (at the expense of a priest!) that Fr. Lafitte was referencing the "I know not man" phrase, when he was clearly referencing the "how shall this be" with reference to the Incarnation (proving thereby that contrary to Valtorta, Our Lady did not have infused knowledge.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2018, 03:03:59 PM
What Tradidi is saying:  "It looks like Nadir considers herself beyond fraternal correction as well. Despite her error being pointed out to her several times, she still pigheadedly maintains that she was right and that the author/priest is to be blamed for her erroneous interpretation."
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: poche on December 31, 2018, 01:46:53 AM
Yiou said;
Maria d'Agreda
 was the Superior of the Convent of the Immaculate Conception in Agreda, Spain, where she died in 1665.
Her book, finished in 1660, had only been published after her death in 1670. Later, her cause for beatification was introduced in Rome.

"The Mystical City of God" was condemned on June 26, 1681, by Pope Blessed Innocent XI. This condemnation was ratified and published by the Holy Office on 4 August, 1681. "All parts of the book are forbidden and condemned ... and it is not allowed to possess or print this book". Because of the great pressure coming from the Kings and the Franciscans of Spain, the decree of condemnation was suspended for Spain only, and therefore, the book of Maria d'Agreda is not on the Index of forbidden books, although still forbidden everywhere else.
 Part of the lifting of this condemnation of the Mystical City of God was that this work was badly translated into other languages.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2018, 03:12:15 AM
.
Ven. Mary of Agreda's Mystical City of God has been under attack from the devil since even before it was published.
.
What else is new? All these silly arguments have been demolished centuries ago. 
.
There never has been and there never will be any book with more papal commendations over a longer span of time. 
.
First there is the true Mass, then comes sacred Scripture, then there is the Rosary and in fourth place is City of God. 
.
End of story.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2018, 05:12:42 AM
.
Ven. Mary of Agreda's Mystical City of God has been under attack from the devil since even before it was published.
.
What else is new? All these silly arguments have been demolished centuries ago.
.
There never has been and there never will be any book with more papal commendations over a longer span of time.
.
First there is the true Mass, then comes sacred Scripture, then there is the Rosary and in fourth place is City of God.
.
End of story.
What a gratuitous, false, and emotional comment (exactly the reasons for criticism of the book)!
As though the book had more papal commendations than, for example, St. Alphonsus Liguori’s Theologian Moralis (which by the way was never condemned by multiple pope’s, as was the Mystical City if God).
And of course, your emotionalistic fanaticism would have Agreda’s work rank higher than the Summa Theological, The Imitation of Christ, all the writings of the Popes, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, etc.
Precisely the problem with these kinds of books, as noted by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 31, 2018, 07:27:40 AM
How reliable is Tradidi as a citation? I've never heard of that site until this thread. If you're going to say the Mystical City of God was condemned by multiple popes, then you need to give more credible citations. If it was condemned, were those condemnations lifted by subsequent popes prior to Vatican II? If yes, why do you fail to mention that fact?

Instead of spouting off things with no sources on an anonymous sub-forum, you need to provide the sources to back your claims. Get to work.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2018, 07:38:53 AM
How reliable is Tradidi as a citation? I've never heard of that site until this thread. If you're going to say the Mystical City of God was condemned by multiple popes, then you need to give more credible citations. If it was condemned, were those condemnations lifted by subsequent popes prior to Vatican II? If yes, why do you fail to mention that fact?

Instead of spouting off things with no sources on an anonymous sub-forum, you need to provide the sources to back your claims. Get to work.
Actually, its "How reliable was Archbishop Lefebvre?"
He is the one warning the faithful against these books (along with priests of the old SSPX).
And had you bothered to pay any attention to the OP and the post which followed, you could have answered your own questions regarding the papal condemnations of Popes Innocent XI (1681) and Benedict XIII (1729), and the book being placed on the Index at the latter occasion.  
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 31, 2018, 07:42:45 AM
Actually, its "How reliable was Archbishop Lefebvre?"
He is the one warning the faithful against these books (along with priests of the old SSPX).
And had you bothered to pay any attention to the OP and the post which followed, you could have answered your own questions regarding the papal condemnations of Popes Innocent XI (1681) and Benedict XIII (1729), and the book being placed on the Index at the latter occasion. 

According to whom? Give the citation.

I checked the Index (1948), and I couldn't find it on there.

After glancing over Tradidi, it actually looks like a good site, but that doesn't mean they're correct about the City of God. They need to cite what they claim.

Give some links to the citations.

GET TO WORK !!
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2018, 07:53:24 AM
According to whom? Give the citation.

I checked the Index (1948), and I couldn't find it on there.

After glancing over Tradidi, it actually looks like a good site, but that doesn't mean they're correct about the City of God. They need to cite what they claim.

GET TO WORK !!
Once again, who is citing Tradidi as an authority??
It is the opinion of Lefebvre and the authorities mentioned in Fr. Lafitte's letter (and the post which follows) which are the basis of the skepticism about the Mystical City of God.
PS: Benedict XIII appears to have revoked his condemnation and authorized reading of the work.  What I find interesting is that supporters of Valtorta and Agreda (as well as Sr. Faustina, I might add) all invoke faulty translations and injustice as the cause of temporary condemnations, which is interesting to me.  
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2018, 08:24:39 AM
Once again, who is citing Tradidi as an authority??
It is the opinion of Lefebvre and the authorities mentioned in Fr. Lafitte's letter (and the post which follows) which are the basis of the skepticism about the Mystical City of God.
PS: Benedict XIII appears to have revoked his condemnation and authorized reading of the work.  What I find interesting is that supporters of Valtorta and Agreda (as well as Sr. Faustina, I might add) all invoke faulty translations and injustice as the cause of temporary condemnations, which is interesting to me. 

Give links to the citations of the condemnations. It being stated on Tradidi isn't really a citation.

Don't lump fraudster Faustina and suspect Valtorta with Agreda. We're strictly talking about the Mystical City of God, not the Poem and "Divine Mercy" writings that are littered with filth and goofy errors that laid that groundwork for Communion in the hand and other sacrilegious novelties, and was a psychological framework to derive the "spirit" of Vatican II that essentially teaches God's "Divine Mercy" will save everyone - keep sinning because God's love is bigger than your sins - you're saved anyway.

Btw, +Lefebvre also taught that non-Catholics can make it to Heaven, and He didn't believe in the urgency of water baptism for people interested in converting to the Catholic Faith while they lived in potentially unstable environments. He's wrong there, and he's wrong about the City of God.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 31, 2018, 08:25:06 AM
Quote
Anonymous said:
Once again, who is citing Tradidi as an authority??
It is the opinion of Lefebvre and the authorities mentioned in Fr. Lafitte's letter (and the post which follows) which are the basis of the skepticism about the Mystical City of God.
PS: Benedict XIII appears to have revoked his condemnation and authorized reading of the work.  What I find interesting is that supporters of Valtorta and Agreda (as well as Sr. Faustina, I might add) all invoke faulty translations and injustice as the cause of temporary condemnations, which is interesting to me.

Give links to the citations of the condemnations. It being stated on Tradidi isn't really a citation.

Don't lump suspect Valtorta and fraudster Faustina with Agreda. We're strictly talking about the Mystical City of God, not the Poem and "Divine Mercy" writings that are littered with filth and goofy errors that laid the groundwork for Communion in the hand and other sacrilegious novelties, and was a psychological framework to derive the "spirit" of Vatican II that essentially teaches God's "Divine Mercy" will save everyone - keep sinning because God's love is bigger than your sins - you're saved anyway.

Btw, +Lefebvre also taught that non-Catholics can make it to Heaven, and He didn't believe in the urgency of water baptism for people interested in converting to the Catholic Faith while they lived in potentially unstable, life-threatening environments. He was wrong there, and he was wrong about the City of God.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2018, 08:35:49 AM
Give links to the citations of the condemnations. It being stated on Tradidi isn't really a citation.

Don't lump fraudster Faustina and suspect Valtorta with Agreda. We're strictly talking about the Mystical City of God, not the Poem and "Divine Mercy" writings that are littered with filth and goofy errors that laid that groundwork for Communion in the hand and other sacrilegious novelties, and was a psychological framework to derive the "spirit" of Vatican II that essentially teaches God's "Divine Mercy" will save everyone - keep sinning because God's love is bigger than your sins - you're saved anyway.

Btw, +Lefebvre also taught that non-Catholics can make it to Heaven, and He didn't believe in the urgency of water baptism for people interested in converting to the Catholic Faith while they lived in potentially unstable environments. He's wrong there, and he's wrong about the City of God.
Tradidi itself gives the citations for Fr. Lafitte’s and ABL’s articles/conferences.
Archbishop Lefebvre’s advice suffices for me, but apparently not for you.
But if you will not accept Lefebvre’s (and the old SSPX’s) caution, why would you accept mine?
If you want to prove Lefebvre’s caution is unfounded, then I turn your injunction back upon you, and say “get to work.”
Like the Valtortists and Faustinists, I think there is a certain percentage of Agredists who will be predetermined to defend their position regardless of whatever argumentation can be raised against the book.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 31, 2018, 08:39:42 AM
Tradidi itself gives the citations for Fr. Lafitte’s and ABL’s articles/conferences.
Archbishop Lefebvre’s advice suffices for me, but apparently not for you.
But if you will not accept Lefebvre’s (and the old SSPX’s) caution, why would you accept mine?
If you want to prove Lefebvre’s caution is unfounded, then I turn your injunction back upon you, and say “get to work.”
Like the Valtortists and Faustinists, I think there is a certain percentage of Agredists who will be predetermined to defend their position regardless of whatever argumentation can be raised against the book.

That's what I thought, you have no credible citation. You can't even post a link to the Index showing it's on there.

The Index (1948) that I posted doesn't have the City of God on there, unless I missed it.

"whatever argumentation can be raised against the book" ... LOL, yeah, the only "argumentation" that can be raised against the book is that the details of the lives of Blessed Mary and Jesus are "too concrete". The criticisms don't mention any of the actual details. Where's the heresy? Where's the scandal? Give us some details. They've already been outlined for decades in Valtorta's and Faustina's productions.

Get to work.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2018, 09:08:10 AM
That's what I thought, you have no credible citation. You can't even post a link to the Index showing it's on there.

The Index (1948) that I posted doesn't have the City of God on there, unless I missed it.

"whatever argumentation can be raised against the book" ... LOL, yeah, the only "argumentation" that can be raised against the book is that the details of the lives of Blessed Mary and Jesus are "too concrete". The criticisms don't mention any of the actual details. Where's the heresy? Where's the scandal? Give us some details. They've already been outlined for decades in Valtorta's and Faustina's productions.

Get to work.
The book was not on the Index in 1948 (I already mentioned that it was Indexed in 1681, and then subsequently “rehabilitated”);
It was condemned by 102 of 150 doctors of theology at the Sorbonne, and provided the link where this info is contained in the 2nd post of this thread, as well as the reasons for that condemnation;
It was also mentioned in the same first two posts of this thread (which contained links to each article) that not only was the cause for canonization of Mary of Agreda definitely halted because of this book, but also that even Cardinal Ratzinger and the conciliarists take issue with it.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais also sponsored and endorsed a book in 1993 by a French SSPX priest cautioning the faithful against these books.

If in order to clear the Mystical City, you wish to dispute the veracity of the citations or claims of these authors, please do so.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2018, 09:34:04 AM


This would be problematic for me, if true.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2018, 09:35:01 AM
The book was not on the Index in 1948 (I already mentioned that it was Indexed in 1681, and then subsequently “rehabilitated”);
It was condemned by 102 of 150 doctors of theology at the Sorbonne, and provided the link where this info is contained in the 2nd post of this thread, as well as the reasons for that condemnation;
It was also mentioned in the same first two posts of this thread (which contained links to each article) that not only was the cause for canonization of Mary of Agreda definitely halted because of this book, but also that even Cardinal Ratzinger and the conciliarists take issue with it.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais also sponsored and endorsed a book in 1993 by a French SSPX priest cautioning the faithful against these books.

If in order to clear the Mystical City, you wish to dispute the veracity of the citations or claims of these authors, please do so.

"Divine Mercy" diaries was condemned and put on the Index in 1959 by the Holy Office whose prelates were appointed by Pope Pius XII.

Poem of Man-God was on the Index from almost day one until anti-pope Montini abolished the Index.

The Mystical City of God was taken off the Index long before Vatican II. This act by Holy Mother Church, de facto, refutes the veracity of the citations or claims of the +Lefebvre, et al, authors in advance.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 31, 2018, 09:36:01 AM
The book was not on the Index in 1948 (I already mentioned that it was Indexed in 1681, and then subsequently “rehabilitated”);
It was condemned by 102 of 150 doctors of theology at the Sorbonne, and provided the link where this info is contained in the 2nd post of this thread, as well as the reasons for that condemnation;
It was also mentioned in the same first two posts of this thread (which contained links to each article) that not only was the cause for canonization of Mary of Agreda definitely halted because of this book, but also that even Cardinal Ratzinger and the conciliarists take issue with it.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais also sponsored and endorsed a book in 1993 by a French SSPX priest cautioning the faithful against these books.

If in order to clear the Mystical City, you wish to dispute the veracity of the citations or claims of these authors, please do so.


"Divine Mercy" diaries was condemned and put on the Index in 1959 by the Holy Office whose prelates were appointed by Pope Pius XII.

Poem of Man-God was on the Index from almost day one until anti-pope Montini abolished the Index in the 1960s.

The Mystical City of God was taken off the Index long before Vatican II. This act by Holy Mother Church, de facto, refutes the veracity of the claims of the aforementioned authors, +Lefebvre, et al, in advance.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2018, 09:41:16 AM
Fr Lafitte claims Mary Agreda claims that her book is completely revealed and inspired directly by God, and concludes this would be tantamount to the Church having TWO inspired books: the Bible and the Mystical City.

Is that your take?
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 31, 2018, 09:45:42 AM
Fr Lafitte claims Mary Agreda claims that her book is completely revealed and inspired directly by God, and concludes this would be tantamount to the Church having TWO inspired books: the Bible and the Mystical City.

Fr. Lafitte claims it. Understand the difference? Where in the actual writings of the Mystical City of God does she directly make that statement?
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2018, 09:48:06 AM
Fr Lafitte claims Mary Agreda claims that her book is completely revealed and inspired directly by God, and concludes this would be tantamount to the Church having TWO inspired books: the Bible and the Mystical City.

Where did he get that and who is this Fr LaFitte?

Wikipedia says: Jean Lafitte (c. 1780 – c. 1823) was a French (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_people) pirate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate) and privateer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer) in the Gulf of Mexico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Mexico) in the early 19th century.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2018, 09:56:25 AM
Fr. Lafitte claims it. Understand the difference? Where in the actual writings of the Mystical City of God does she directly make that statement?
So you deny this claim is in the book?
And if I can show such a claim IS in the book, will reject the claim of its divine inspiration, or accept it as such?
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2018, 10:00:04 AM
So you deny this claim is in the book?
And if I can show such a claim IS in the book, will reject the claim of its divine inspiration, or accept it as such?
Negative.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on December 31, 2018, 10:05:10 AM
So you deny this claim is in the book?
And if I can show such a claim IS in the book, will reject the claim of its divine inspiration, or accept it as such?

The Church took it off the Index long before Vatican II. That's good enough for me to trust it as edifying to the soul.

You fallaciously lump Poem and "Divine Mercy" with it, but those two were condemned and remained on the Index of Forbidden Books until the Montinian Church abolished the Index in the 1960s.
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2018, 11:41:18 AM
Having a debate with an Anonymous who quotes from one priest who does not provide sources or pages they are referring to? 
Title: Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes
Post by: Last Tradhican on December 31, 2018, 11:43:19 AM
Having a debate with an Anonymous person who quotes from one priest who does not provide sources or pages they are referring to? The City of God is 400 years old and 3200+ pages, surely in 400 years there would be a priest that does not like a line in it, but so what?