Only God knows. We never can judge about the Poem with 100% public certainty until we have a good Pope.
By the way, if some truly Good 'Bishop' who has authority of God praises it, then at least I who am just a layman, would resign my own opinion and check it sincerely myself from the beginning to the end.
Because I don't have any authority of God.
I never can judge a bishop who doesn't follow obvious errors such as liberalism, modernism, and neo-modernism, because the Church doesn't allow to do so for me.
Thus, along with this, I did read all volumes of the Poem, and I understood what His Excellency has been saying.
I sincerely thank to God for giving the bishop to us.

It's on the Index librorum prohibitorum, no need to wait for a pope.

Or was the one who had it put there not good enough to convince you?

That was why I didn't read it before.
However, along with being learned about the errors of liberalism and modernism more and more, I was able to understand His Excellency's saying : There might be the devil already inside Vatican before Vatican 2.
As a matter of fact, I didn't understand liberalism and modernism properly though I thought I understood it properly.
Anyway, if Vatican 2 was possible to take place, I believe much things had been able to possibly take place before Vatican 2 reasonably along with His Excellency's saying.
Therefore I did read all volumes of the Poem myself from the beginning to the end simply to check whether His Excellency's judgment is right or not.
And now I believe the bishop's judgment is right.
But again, surely there is no 100% public certainty here.
Therefore whether you agree with the bishop or not, let us pray the Holy Rosary ardently so that we can help each other spiritually and are being watchful to be not deceived by the devil who is wily and cunning supernaturally.

Therefore whether you agree with the bishop or not, let us pray the Holy Rosary ardently so that we can help each other spiritually and are being watchful to be not deceived by the devil who is wily and cunning supernaturally.

I hate that "poem" because it's on the Index. And I believe that even praying the Holy Rosary won't help those who disdain the institutions of the Church, like e.g. the Index.

I hate that "poem" because it's on the Index. And I believe that even praying the Holy Rosary won't help those who disdain the institutions of the Church, like e.g. the Index.

Our Lady can do almost everything by her most Holy Son.
Indeed, she hears sinner's prayer, thus the Holy Rosary can help the pertinacious sinners.
Therefore if you ardently pray the Rosary for pertinacity of the bishop and me with your act of Faith, Hope, and Charity, she will hear your prayer for that.
But please add this intention for your Rosary: "Please illuminate them if they are wrong, but please illuminate myself if I am wrong."
God bless you.

This topic comes up regularly on CI. If anyone is interested here's a list of previous threads on the subject. Alot of reading but there are a number of really good posts.

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/saintly-maria-valtorta's-poem-great-spiritual-reading-for-lent-like-mcog/

https://www.cathinfo.com/art-and-literature-for-catholics/the-poem-of-the-man-god/

https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/maria-valtorta-and-her-poem-of-the-man-god/

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/eleison-comments-275-by-bishop-williamson/

https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/jesus-words-at-easter-to-maria-valtorta/

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/the-'first-hand-experience'-of-nipr/msg450877/#msg450877

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/defending-valtorta/

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/what-should-we-make-of-the-book-the-poem-of-the-man-god-by-maria-valtorta/msg485944/#msg485944

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/maria-valtortas-poem-of-the-man-god/msg519020/#msg519020

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/valtorta-1-000-discussionebook/

The POEM was put on the Index, because it did not have an
Imprimatur by a bishop. 

That appears to be inaccurate:

Here is a translation of a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal Siri in 1985 that gives the official position of the former Holy Office: (highlights mine)


SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

Prot. N. 144/85

Roma, 31 January 1985

Most Reverend Eminence,

With a letter of 18 May [1984], Father [...] asked of this Sacred Congregation a clarification about the writings of Maria Valtorta, collected under the title of "The Poem of the Man-God", and if there exists any evaluation of the Church's Magisterium on the publication in question with the corresponding bibliographical reference.

On this subject I have the honor of expressing to Your Eminence -- you will judge the opportuneness of informing the Father [...] -- that in fact the Work in question was placed on the Index on 16 December 1959 and defined by "L'Osservatore Romano" of 6 January 1960, as "A Badly Novelized Life of Jesus." The provisions of the Decree were re-published with an explicit note again in L'Ossservatore Romano of 1 December 1961, as can be reviewed in the docuмentation herewith enclosed.

Since some have subsequently held that after the abrogation of the Index, the printing and diffusion of the Work in question is licit, L'Osservatore Romano (15 June 1966) had presented what was published in A.A.S. (1966) [Acta Apostolicae Sedis]: that, although abolished, the "Index" retained "all its moral value," for which [reason] the diffusion and recommendation of a Work is not held to be opportune when its condemnation was not taken superficially, but after weighing its purposes, to the end of neutralizing the damages which such a publication could bring to the more unprepared faithful.

With gratitude for your every kind arrangement, I profit by this occasion to confirm my sense of profound esteem

For Your Most Reverend Eminence,
Most Devotedly,
(signed) Joseph Card. Ratzinger

(with enclosure)

source: http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/Chrchval.html

Extremely disappointing treatment of Valtorta by Bishop Williamson:

As for accusations of doctrinal errors or other scandalous content, they do not deserve to be taken seriously. With the assurance of a mountain goat dancing among the peaks, this Italian layman, obliged to keep her bed, danced among the heights of Trinitarian theology in a way that is very difficult to explain without divine inspiration. Regarding the "scandalous content", we will remember Titus I, 15: "For the pure, all is pure, but for the corrupt and the unbelieving, nothing is pure; their mind and their conscience are corrupt". Many of those who accuse the "Poem" of scandal are only condemning themselves. May they one day see it clearly!

So as for the accusation of doctrinal error, he simply dismisses them as not deserving to be taken seriously.  That's hardly any kind of answer and comes from a place of extreme arrogance when it comes to Valorta.  Even the greatest saints had their doctrine painstakingly scrutinized by Church authorities on the path to canonization, so important was it that the Church not seem to endorse even the least bit of false doctrine.  So doctrine is not important?  Or is it not important whether Valtorta got doctrine right?  What about this question doesn't deserve to be taken seriously?

And his next response about scandalous content, the answer is equally troubling that "for the pure, all is pure, but for the corrupt and unbelieving, nothing is pure; their mind and conscience are corrupt."  Another incredibly arrogant answer.  Sounds like he's morphing into Christopher West now.  Since +Williamson is so pure, he should sit down and analyze some hard-core porn, since "all is pure for the pure, right?"  What kind of nonsense is that?  And if someone finds a joke from Our Lord about St. Peter having corrupted His Mother offensive and unbecoming of the All-Pure God, then it's because it is THEIR mind that's corrupt?  Bishop Williamson needs to retire before he disgraces himself even more.  Disgusting and disgraceful ... and extremely arrogant.  I cannot mince words.

The POEM was put on the Index, because it did not have an
Imprimatur by a bishop.

To be fair to you, lack of an imprimatur was one of the reasons given. But it is inaccurate or misleading to imply that it was the only, or the most important, reason for the work being placed on the Index. Or to say that it was an accidental oversight.

"Confident of papal approval, Father Berti brought the books to the Vatican press. However, in 1949, two commissioners of the Holy Office, Msgr. Giovanni Pepe and Father Berruti, O.P., condemned the "Poem," ordering Berti to hand over every copy and sign an agreement not to publish it. Father Berti returned the manuscripts to Valtorta and handed over only his typed versions.

Despite his signed promise, in 1952 Father Berti went to publisher Emiliano Pisani. Though aware of the Holy Office's opposition, Pisani printed the first volume in 1956, and a new volume each year through 1959.
When volume four appeared, the Holy Office examined the "Poem" and condemned it, recommending that it be placed on the Index of Forbidden Books Dec. 16, 1959. Pope John XXIII signed the decree and ordered it published. L'Osservatore Romano, on Jan. 6, 1960, printed the condemnation with an accompanying front-page article, "A Badly Fictionalized Life of Jesus," to explain it.

The article complained that the "Poem" broke Canon Law.

"Though they treat exclusively of religious issues, these volumes do not have an "imprimatur," which is required by Canon 1385, sect. 1, n. 2."

Second, the long speeches of Jesus and Mary starkly contrast with the evangelists, who portray Jesus as "humble, reserved; His discourses are lean, incisive." Valtorta's fictionalized history makes Jesus sound "like a chatterbox, always ready to proclaim Himself the Messiah and the Son of God," or teach theology in modern terms. The Blessed Mother speaks like a "propagandist" for modern Marian theology.

Third, "some passages are rather risque," like the "immodest" dance before Pilate (vol. 5, p. 73). There are "many historical, geographical and other blunders." For instance, Jesus uses screwdrivers (Vol. 1, pp. 195, 223), centuries before screws existed.

There are theological errors, as when "Jesus says" (vol. 1, p. 30) that Eve's temptation consisted in arousing her flesh, as the serpent sensuously "caressed" her. While she "began the sin by herself," she "accomplished it with her companion." Sun Myung Moon and Maria Valtorta may claim the first sin was sɛҳuąƖ, but Scripture does not.
Vol. 1, p. 7, oddly claims, "Mary can be called the 'second-born' of the Father . . ." Her explanation limits the meaning, avoiding evidence of an authentic heresy; but it does not take away the basic impression that she wants to construct a new mariology, which simply goes beyond the limits of propriety." "Another strange and imprecise statement" made of Mary (vol. 4, p. 240) is that she will "be second to Peter with regard to ecclesiastical hierarchy. . . " Our Lady surpasses St. Peter's holiness, but she is not in the hierarchy, let alone second to St. Peter.

Further, Valtorta did not claim to write a novel, but called herself a "secretary" of Jesus and Mary, so, "in all parts on reads the words 'Jesus says. . .' or 'Mary says . . .'" The Church takes this claim to revelation very seriously, since it has the God-given duty to discern what is or is not truly from the Holy Spirit. In Valtorta's case, the Church decided against Divine inspiration.

Finally, "Poem" is condemned for reasons of disobedience. Competent Church authority had prohibited the printing of Valtorta's work."