Author Topic: A serious question (Read 2977 times)

parentsfortruth · « **on:** November 05, 2012, 11:57:41 PM »

Um... was + Williamson serious about the Poem of the Mangod? My nutty grandmother was giving this out, and it was complete and total garbage!

Ambrose · « **Reply #1 on:** November 06, 2012, 12:35:21 AM »

I doubt he was serious. I just cannot see him promoting a book on the Index, and which was forbidden to be published during the time of Pius XII. Maybe he was using some time of British humor, that we in America have a hard time following.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #2 on:** November 06, 2012, 12:48:06 AM »

Yeah that really just threw me off. I mean, it's full of rottenness. Talks about Jesus as a baby kicking Mary, voraciously nursing, and other blasphemies, like, Jesus kissing the apostles on the lips? Good grief.

I wish he would disown it. He might be losing some readership over it. :shocked:

guitarplucker · « **Reply #3 on:** November 06, 2012, 01:02:54 AM »

I don't think he would be worthy of being followed if he took after the modernists and put people in a position to have to guess his motives. One thing I like about him is that he has a reputation for plain speaking.

I assume he's being sincere and genuinely likes this book.

Francisco · « **Reply #4 on:** November 06, 2012, 01:28:25 AM »

Google "Auto writing" or "Automatic writing". The Poem could be a case of this.

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** November 06, 2012, 06:25:15 AM »

Bishop Williamson has praised Poem of the Mangod before. It was years ago and, I think, while he was in Argentina and before he was ever ordered to shut down his weekly newsletter. There was, at the time, a lot of chatter on email forums about the poem.

Frankly, the only person I have respect for that ever praised Poem of the Mangod is Bishop Williamson.

However, I have not read it nor do I plan to read it, not just because he is in the minority, but because the other people who were praising it were radical Modernists and John Paul 2 fantatics. (Though I was absolutely not sedevacantist at the time, I was absolutely certain that John Paul was not "Great".)

JuanDiego · « **Reply #6 on:** November 06, 2012, 07:38:37 AM »

I went to a retreat years ago in Connecticut and the priests there came through the seminary under Bishop Williamson, and they recommended the Poem, so I bought it, but have not read it because I keep hearing things about it that are so bad. Those priests said the same thing that the Bishop just said: read it to your children each day. So, I believe he has been recommending it for years, and spoke about it to his seminary students in the same way he just recommended it to the readers of EC.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #7 on:** November 06, 2012, 08:22:36 AM »

Anything associated with my crazy novus ordo grandmother, and after reading what TIA had to say about it, :barf:, how can anyone recommend such a thing unless they are either very delusional (like my ecuмenical "I want my family to be a UN" grandmother), someone who doesn't know what it contains, and has only seen "good" snippets, or someone that is not bothered by disrespectful drivel, not to mention outright blasphemy written about Our Lord and Our Lady.

MauricePinay · « **Reply #8 on:** November 06, 2012, 02:17:10 PM »

Below is a link to a recording of a talk given by Fr. Robinson promoting "The Poem." What interested me most is that Fr. Robinson says that his initial reaction to "The Poem" was negative but that Bp. Williamson insisted that he persist in reading it.

Sadly, he states that Bp. Williamson stakes his theological reputation on "The Poem" being free from error. He says that Bp. Williamson has stated he would ordain any man to the priesthood who reads "The Poem" because he believes it contains an entire seminary curriculum within it (something I find unsettling in light of Bp. Williamson's recent statement about making his bishop's powers available "to anyone who will use them wisely").

Fr. Robinson has said that he has looked at every objection to "The Poem" but he nor any of "the Poem's" apologists have answered to its outrageous depiction of Christ venerating the Pharisee and father of rabbinic Judaism, Hillel; just as The Angelus administration never answered for the similarly outrage in "Saint of the Sanhedrin."

http://www.advancedchristianity.com/Mp3/MPC/Father_Robinson/2008-05-03_Maria_Valtorta.mp3

guitarplucker · « **Reply #9 on:** November 06, 2012, 04:39:10 PM »

Quote from: MauricePinay

Below is a link to a recording of a talk given by Fr. Robinson promoting "The Poem." What interested me most is that Fr. Robinson says that his initial reaction to "The Poem" was negative but that Bp. Williamson insisted that he persist in reading it.

Sadly, he states that Bp. Williamson stakes his theological reputation on "The Poem" being free from error. He says that Bp. Williamson has stated he would ordain any man to the priesthood who reads "The Poem" because he believes it contains an entire seminary curriculum within it (something I find unsettling in light of Bp. Williamson's recent statement about making his bishop's powers available "to anyone who will use them wisely").

Fr. Robinson has said that he has looked at every objection to "The Poem" but he nor any of "the Poem's" apologists have answered to its outrageous depiction of Christ venerating the Pharisee and father of rabbinic Judaism, Hillel; just as The Angelus administration never answered for the similarly outrage in "Saint of the Sanhedrin."

http://www.advancedchristianity.com/Mp3/MPC/Father_Robinson/2008-05-03_Maria_Valtorta.mp3

Thanks for the info. It's a paradox that Bp. Williamson likes such a book and yet clearly refuses to bow down to the Jєωs.

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #10 on:** November 06, 2012, 06:13:37 PM »

I've never read the poem, but I am quite certain that if it were theologically sound there would be be a firestorm of criticism and calumny surrounding it.

There is good reason to believe the story that Pope Pius XII verbally authorized its publication. Three supposedly highly credible people swore in writing that they were present when the pontiff made this declaration. From what I've been able to learn about the history of the index incident, the reason it was placed on the index was because it was published without an imprimatur, and not because it contained anything objectionable. The lack of an imprimatur was due to the publisher thinking it didn't need one since it already had the approval of the pope. The index was abolished shortly afterwards, before the matter could be sorted out.

I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to believe accusations about scandalous content from unverifiable sources.

Maria Elizabeth · « **Reply #11 on:** November 06, 2012, 07:14:00 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Anything associated with my crazy novus ordo grandmother, and after reading what TIA had to say about it, :barf:, how can anyone recommend such a thing unless they are either very delusional (like my ecuмenical "I want my family to be a UN" grandmother), someone who doesn't know what it contains, and has only seen "good" snippets, or someone that is not bothered by disrespectful drivel, not to mention outright blasphemy written about Our Lord and Our Lady.

This is what TIA has to say about it (nothing good):

http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_042_Valtorta.htm

TIA also gives a reference to an online version of the poem:

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/critique.htm

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** November 06, 2012, 09:02:37 PM »

Pablo, I had to delete your post because of the immodest picture that went with it. I couldn't edit the picture out, so I had no choice.

Please keep it rated G.

MauricePinay · « **Reply #13 on:** November 06, 2012, 09:08:13 PM »

Quote from: Pablo

... Valtorta asserts the sin of Eve was not disobedience, but a sɛҳuąƖ act..."

This is absolutely anti-biblical. It's from the satanic тαℓмυd and Zohar of rabbinic Judaism.

Who cannot see the problems with this? In rabbinic Judaism it is extrapolated from this absurdity that there is an irredeemable satanic race of people that resulted from this alleged sɛҳuąƖ act; that women are inherently filled with lust and witchcraft because of it; etc, etc etc.

None of this has anything to do with the Bible and Christianity. It's entirely rabbinic.