Author Topic: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes (Read 5629 times)

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #15 on:** December 29, 2018, 10:47:03 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 10:44:09 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."

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #16 on:** December 29, 2018, 11:08:25 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 10:47:03 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).

Cantarella · « **Reply #17 on:** December 29, 2018, 11:12:20 PM »

Commentaries of Luke 1, 34

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #18 on:** December 29, 2018, 11:14:24 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on December 29, 2018, 11:12:20 PM

Commentaries of Luke 1, 34

I don't get it: You are defending Valtorta?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #19 on:** December 29, 2018, 11:27:57 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 11:14:24 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.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #20 on:** December 29, 2018, 11:31:57 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 11:08:25 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.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #21 on:** December 29, 2018, 11:38:46 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on December 29, 2018, 11:31:57 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.

Nadir · « **Reply #22 on:** December 30, 2018, 12:28:25 AM »

Quote from: Nadir on December 29, 2018, 08:03:04 PM

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 (sɛҳuąƖ) 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

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #23 on:** December 30, 2018, 06:29:50 AM »

Quote from: Nadir on December 30, 2018, 12:28:25 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 (sɛҳuąƖ) 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

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.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #24 on:** December 30, 2018, 02:28:25 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on December 30, 2018, 06:29:50 AM

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.

Nadir · « **Reply #25 on:** December 30, 2018, 02:38:51 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on December 30, 2018, 02:28:25 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!

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #26 on:** December 30, 2018, 02:58:18 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on December 30, 2018, 02:28:25 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.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #27 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."

poche · « **Reply #28 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.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #29 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.

Author Topic: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes (Read 5629 times)

Änσnymσus

Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes

Änσnymσus

Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes

Cantarella

Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes

Änσnymσus

Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes

Änσnymσus

Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes

Änσnymσus

Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes

Änσnymσus

Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes

Nadir

Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes

Änσnymσus

Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes

Änσnymσus

Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes

Nadir

Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes

Änσnymσus

Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes

Änσnymσus

Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes

poche

Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes

Änσnymσus

Re: Mystical City of God: Burned and Condemned by Popes