Still no discussion about the SSPX priests and the Year of Mercy announcement. Why?
Concerning the “Poem of the Man-God” by Maria Valtorta (1897–1961), a life of Our Lord extending to ten volumes written in Italian in the 1940’s, an Italian priest, Don Ottavio Michelini, is alleged to have heard in the 1970’s, from Our Lord himself, the following comments:—
Maria Valtorta is the 20th century equivalent of Maria of Agreda and Anne-Catherine Emmerich, of the 17th and 19th centuries respectively.
However, there are souls all over the world for whom the “Poem” has acted like a stupendous gift of God himself, for whom it has seemed to be designed to alleviate the spiritual distress of our own times,
I've never heard of the poem, but he says it's six volumes. Anybody read it?
Q. What do you think of The Poem of the Man God by Maria Valtorta? (B.K., Buddina, Australia)
A. These books have never received an imprimatur. I have in my possession a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre advising against their reading (it is still in my packed trunks!). These books appeal too much to the sensitivity. But worse, they contain several passages impossible to be from God; passages which are tantamount to blasphemy. For instance, Maria Valtorta presents Mary as asking her mother Anne: "Tell me, mummy, can one be a sinner out of love of God? ...I mean to commit a sin in order to be loved by God, Who becomes Savior." How could the Immaculate Virgin even think such a thing, since she was full of that Charity which "dealeth not perversely, ...thinketh no evil" (I Cor. 13:4-5). She knew too well that "the damnation of those who say, 'let us do evil, that there may come good is just!" (Rom. 3:8)
In another place, Valtorta presents Mary as ignoring the gifts she had received from God: "I did not know I was without stain!" How could this be in she who had received to the fullness the Spirit of God, "that we may know the things that are given us from God" (I Cor. 2:12). In her Magnificat, Our Lady manifests that she knew "the great things" which the Lord had done in her.
Other statements are even worse, which reverence for God and even mere decency prevents us printing here. If you need more information, you may contact Father Cooper, at The Angelus Press.
Conclusion: these books must not be read! The Angelus Press here apologizes to its readers for having carried these titles in its catalogue, upon the misguided recommendation of good men.
Nothing that feminizes Christ and the Apostles will stand the test of time. This is one of the few times Bishop Williamson gets it completely wrong.
We read the Poem each day religiously. A friend gave us two volumes of the older edition. We purchased three others (of the original edition) online. (Copies of the old editions are scarce and pretty expensive too) One can easily purchase online the latest edition 10 volume set today at a reasonable price. We read them as we do the Bible, and make no apology for it. They are inspired of God, I am persuaded. There is no feminization of Christ and the Apostles in any of these books. Bp. Williamson gets it completely right.
«the Poem was put on the Church’s Index of forbidden books in the 1950’s, which was before Rome went neo-modernist in the 1960’s»
it's quite another thing to declare the pre-Vatican 2 Holy Office to be in error.
Quote from: TKGSit's quite another thing to declare the pre-Vatican 2 Holy Office to be in error.
Yep. Although, if an Ecuмenical Council can be disregarded, why not the Holy Office?
Frankly, Bishop Williamson's promotion of a book placed on The Index was the reason I stopped listening to Bishop Williamson as a credible counselor on matters of the faith and of tradition.
QuoteNothing that feminizes Christ and the Apostles will stand the test of time. This is one of the few times Bishop Williamson gets it completely wrong.
We read the Poem each day religiously. A friend gave us two volumes of the older edition. We purchased three others (of the original edition) online. (Copies of the old editions are scarce and pretty expensive too) One can easily purchase online the latest edition 10 volume set today at a reasonable price. We read them as we do the Bible, and make no apology for it. They are inspired of God, I am persuaded. There is no feminization of Christ and the Apostles in any of these books. Bp. Williamson gets it completely right.
At some point, all of us who have some favorite private revelation have to make a decision to make it the be-all end-all of our spiritual lives. Even if it has been deemed worthy of belief, we still can't allow ourselves to get too bent out of shape if others don't go along with it. The Poem of the Man-God and those who promote it seem to demand way more than they have a right to ask.
There's so much girlish fawning, gazing and light touching that it curdles my imagination. Where is the proper admiration and respect, reverence and awe of what Our Lord says and does? Where is the natural reserve that results from it? Where is the look of willingness to perform one's duties with strength and honor? No thanks girl-faced John! How about the look of a son instead of a lover? I hope you see where I'm coming from here. It's objectively offensive to me.
Let these reasons be the briefest of summaries of the seven reasons given supposedly by Our Lord at the end of the “Poem” for his having revealed its contents to Maria Valtorta:—
1 Doctrine – while modernism wreaks havoc with the Church’s unchanging teaching, souls need to see how I gave the selfsame teaching to the Church, from the start: divine, perfect, immutable.
2 Love – when charity is growing cold and sentimental, priests and layfolk need their love for Christ and for all that c oncerns Christ to be re-awakened, especially for his Mother.
3 Direction – when souls are going astray in so many different directions, spiritual directors need to see in how many different ways I looked after them.
4 Reality – when love is so widely falsified and sullied, human beings need to see Jesus and Mary as true human beings of flesh and blood, with a perfect love, but truly human, between them.
5 Suffering – when comfort everywhere comes first, pleasure-seekers need to know how long and varied were the sufferings of my Mother and myself, starting tens of years before the Passion.
6 Word – when language is utterly debased, people need to see the power of my Word, of my words, to transform souls, e.g. from rough sinners into great Apostles.
7 Judas – when evil is so sentimentalized as to be denied, sinners must be shown the mystery of iniquity in human form, so as not to follow Judas to Hell.
Kyri e eleison.
Quote from: hollingsworthWe read the Poem each day religiously. A friend gave us two volumes of the older edition. We purchased three others (of the original edition) online. (Copies of the old editions are scarce and pretty expensive too) One can easily purchase online the latest edition 10 volume set today at a reasonable price. We read them as we do the Bible, and make no apology for it. They are inspired of God, I am persuaded. There is no feminization of Christ and the Apostles in any of these books. Bp. Williamson gets it completely right.Quote«the Poem was put on the Church’s Index of forbidden books in the 1950’s, which was before Rome went neo-modernist in the 1960’s»
Let's see. hollingsworth...Holy Office...hollingsworth...Holy Office.
Rats! I just can't figure out whom to trust.
Frankly, Bishop Williamson's promotion of a book placed on The Index was the reason I stopped listening to Bishop Williamson as a credible counselor on matters of the faith and of tradition. It's one thing to air disagreements over issues that have come up since the Vatican council of the 1960s and the general apostasy of Rome; it's quite another thing to declare the pre-Vatican 2 Holy Office to be in error.
It's objectively offensive period. Any Catholic with a half-decent true (vs. counterfeit emotional) spirituality sees where you're "coming from here".
Quote from: 2VermontStill no discussion about the SSPX priests and the Year of Mercy announcement. Why?
Exactly. He has nothing better to write about?
Last week I heard the excuse that his EC's are written in advance. OK, so last week I can understand his not addressing it. But another week later? Not buying it.
I haven't read this, but this is a review from Tradition in Action.
Review of Poem of the Man-God (http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_042_Valtorta.htm)
If these quotes are from the book, I find them utterly revolting.
Not for me.
Jesus suggests a love-affair between St. Peter and Our Lady
Jesus even jokes with impropriety with his apostles. Here, Jesus stands up and calls out loudly and angrily to Peter:
“‘Come here, you usurper and corrupter!’
“‘Me? Why? What have I done, Lord?’
“‘You have corrupted My Mother. That is why you wanted to be alone. What shall I do with you?’
“Jesus smiles and Peter recovers his confidence. ‘You really frightened me! Now You are laughing.” (Vol. II, n. 199, p. 185)
When Valtorta describes the “favorite” Apostle John as having the face of a young girl with the “gaze of a lover,” we can hardly avoid having the impression that they have a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationship. Here Jesus is kissing John to awaken him:
“Jesus bends and kisses the cheek of John, who opens his eyes and is dumbfounded at seeing Jesus. He sits up and says, ‘Do you need me? Here I am.’ …
“John, half naked in his under-tunic, because he used his tunic and mantle as bed covers, clasps Jesus’ neck and lays his head between Jesus’ shoulder and cheek.”
After John professes his belief and love in Jesus as Son of God, “he smiles and weeps, panting, inflamed by his love, relaxing on Jesus’ chest, as if he were exhausted by his ardor. And Jesus caresses him, burning with love Himself.
I'm sorry to say this, but if Bishop Williamson finds no problem with the passages below, then is it any wonder that Urrutigoity (later with the Society of St. John) found a protector in Bishop Williamson and got away with similar behavior right under his nose?
Urrutigoity was known to slip into bed naked with young men. Perhaps he was influenced (or at least rationalized justification) in Valtorta? Is that why Urrutigoity named his society after St. John?
Quote from: LadislausI'm sorry to say this, but if Bishop Williamson finds no problem with the passages below, then is it any wonder that Urrutigoity (later with the Society of St. John) found a protector in Bishop Williamson and got away with similar behavior right under his nose?
Urrutigoity was known to slip into bed naked with young men. Perhaps he was influenced (or at least rationalized justification) in Valtorta? Is that why Urrutigoity named his society after St. John?
This goes too far in accusing the Bishop, with the flimsiest of evidence, of collusion with Fr. Urrutigoity. I'm no fan of Father U. nor a defender of him but to put these things together to make a case against the Bishop is sinful. Your first words, "I'm sorry to say this...." followed by your scandalous intimations about the Bishop make me wonder just what you are "sorry" about.
ladislaus, you are a miserable swine! I can see that my days on this forum are numbered as well. Ladislaus, you damn pig!
ladislaus, you are a miserable swine! I can see that my days on this forum are numbered as well. Ladislaus, you damn pig!
Nor am I against Bishop Williamson. I have a great deal of respect for him.
“Jesus bends and kisses the cheek of John, who opens his eyes and is dumbfounded at seeing Jesus. He sits up and says, ‘Do you need me? Here I am.’ …
“John, half naked in his under-tunic, because he used his tunic and mantle as bed covers, clasps Jesus’ neck and lays his head between Jesus’ shoulder and cheek.”
Oh really, Bp. Williamson, according to your account, sat by as Urrutigoity allegedly "practiced his perversions right there at Winona," right under the bishop's nose, apparently.
You allege further that the bishop protected U. against the accusations made against him.
And now you're telling us that you have "a great deal of respect" for the bishop?
On top of all that, you're accusing me of being a "blasphemous swine" for promoting the Valtorta "perversion."
So what this low life is telling us is that +Williamson actively promotes the Valtorta perversion. Then in the next breath he tells us that he has "a great deal of respect for him."
An alleged quote from the Poem of the Man God:Quote“Jesus bends and kisses the cheek of John, who opens his eyes and is dumbfounded at seeing Jesus. He sits up and says, ‘Do you need me? Here I am.’ …
“John, half naked in his under-tunic, because he used his tunic and mantle as bed covers, clasps Jesus’ neck and lays his head between Jesus’ shoulder and cheek.”
Lad, we have all five volumes of the Poem by Maria Valtorta. My wife has read all of them, and is going back over them from the beginning. I've read the first volume and am working on the second now.
Above is a quote you posted and apparently stand by. Can you give us the volume and page number of that quote?
Meanwhile, I guess Matthew is going to sit by with his thumb in his mouth, and let this stuff go by unchallenged.
I haven't read this, but this is a review from Tradition in Action.
Review of Poem of the Man-God (http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_042_Valtorta.htm)
If these quotes are from the book, I find them utterly revolting.
Not for me.
ladislaus, you are a miserable swine! I can see that my days on this forum are numbered as well. Ladislaus, you damn pig!
ladislaus, you are a miserable swine! I can see that my days on this forum are numbered as well. Ladislaus, you damn pig!
Jesus suggests a love-affair between St. Peter and Our Lady
Jesus even jokes with impropriety with his apostles. Here, Jesus stands up and calls out loudly and angrily to Peter:
“‘Come here, you usurper and corrupter!’
“‘Me? Why? What have I done, Lord?’
“‘You have corrupted My Mother. That is why you wanted to be alone. What shall I do with you?’
“Jesus smiles and Peter recovers his confidence. ‘You really frightened me! Now You are laughing.” (Vol. II, n. 199, p. 185)
Valtorta also reports that Original Sin started with Eve pleasuring herself and then finishing it off in bestiality with the serpent. How cute.
Jesus suggests a love-affair between St. Peter and Our Lady
Jesus even jokes with impropriety with his apostles. Here, Jesus stands up and calls out loudly and angrily to Peter:
“‘Come here, you usurper and corrupter!’
“‘Me? Why? What have I done, Lord?’
“‘You have corrupted My Mother. That is why you wanted to be alone. What shall I do with you?’
“Jesus smiles and Peter recovers his confidence. ‘You really frightened me! Now You are laughing.” (Vol. II, n. 199, p. 185)
Still waiting to see if hollingsworth has the audacity to defend this one.
What I read of Volume 2 reads like one of the dollar-store novels my mother used to read, filled with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ triangles and love trysts.
I find this whole defense of this perverse novel absolutely deplorable!
rum, I really am unable, presently, to cite chapter and verse from the Poem on this matter. I haven't read yet this portion of Valtorta's work, and have no idea in what volume it may be found, if, indeed, it can be found at all.
But just as the passage quoted by Horvat out of context, I would assume that there is a better explanation that comes with a full understanding of the surrounding contents. I refer you and others to an article which appeared in The Angelus in 2009, entitled The Saint of the Sanhedrin http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2881
Both Gamaliel and Hillel are treated in a very positive light.
To Diego’s list of SSPX misprisions one should add the article in the December, 2009 “The Angelus” entitled “Saint of the Sanhedrin.”
This essay contains very serious errors and its tenor is one with the judaizing absurdities of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. On the strength of one erroneous and nonsensical statement in the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia (“It was the method of the school of Shammai rather than that of Hillel which Christ condemned”), the author, Scott Montgomery, spins a tale remarkably consonant with the teaching of Orthodox Judaism concerning Hillel the Pharisee.
Mr. Montgomery goes so far as to impart the following fabulous enormity concerning Hillel: “...he served as an instrument of Heaven.”
In fact, Hillel the "good Pharisee" established the utterly depraved and barbaric principle that sex between a mother and her son does not actually qualify as sex, if the son is less than nine years-old (cf." Judaism Discovered," pp. 424-425).
Shmuel Safrai points out (in "The Literature of the Sages," Part One, p. 164), that in the тαℓмυd's Gittin Tractate, the тαℓмυd nullifies the Biblical teaching concerning usury and money-lending: "Hillel decreed the prozbul for the betterment of the world. The prozbul is a legal fiction which allows debts to be collected after the Sabbatical year and it was Hillel's intention thereby to overcome the fear that money-lenders had of losing their money.”
In “Saint of the Sanhedrin,” the “Angelus" presented rabbinic delusions as fact and promoted the wicked Pharisee Hillel as a virtual holy man of God.
My letter of correction was not published by the “Angelus" and other SSPXers were largely unperturbed by the “Sanhedrin” article, since it was approved by the SSPX and therefore in their minds it had to be orthodox.
Many in the SSPX transferred infallibility from the pope to their Superior General based on the notion that he had the “grace of the Holy Spirit” to guide him.
They are paying now for their blind faith.
June 14, 2012 at 7:25 PM
--http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2012/06/sspx-superior-bp-fellays-lawyerbusiness.html
Cathmom:QuoteWhat I read of Volume 2 reads like one of the dollar-store novels my mother used to read, filled with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ triangles and love trysts.
I find this whole defense of this perverse novel absolutely deplorable!
Well, cathmom, I find your comments shocking and deplorable. I hate to say it, but maybe your mother set a bad example by reading those “dollar-store novels” around you. Did she customarily share their contents with you, or did you take peeks at them while she wasn’t looking?
In any case, you’re not quoting from the earlier 5 volume set. You carelessly quote from the 10 volume set, I believe, because your page and chapter references don’t match up with the earlier edition’s volume 2 which is open before me.
I find nothing perverse in the passages you quote. I can not help what your mind reads into them. I would say that the problem lies with you, not with the Poem's narrative.
Jesus suggests a love-affair between St. Peter and Our Lady
Jesus even jokes with impropriety with his apostles. Here, Jesus stands up and calls out loudly and angrily to Peter:
“‘Come here, you usurper and corrupter!’
“‘Me? Why? What have I done, Lord?’
“‘You have corrupted My Mother. That is why you wanted to be alone. What shall I do with you?’
“Jesus smiles and Peter recovers his confidence. ‘You really frightened me! Now You are laughing.” (Vol. II, n. 199, p. 185)
I find nothing perverse in the passages you quote. I can not help what your mind reads into them. I would say that the problem lies with you, not with the Poem's narrative.
Quote from: LadislausValtorta also reports that Original Sin started with Eve pleasuring herself and then finishing it off in bestiality with the serpent. How cute.
Dear Lord! Is there a question as to why the Church condemns this?
Is this where the queers get their inspiration that the early Church was a multi-sɛҳuąƖ bacchanal?
Quote from: J.PaulQuote from: LadislausValtorta also reports that Original Sin started with Eve pleasuring herself and then finishing it off in bestiality with the serpent. How cute.
Dear Lord! Is there a question as to why the Church condemns this?
Is this where the queers get their inspiration that the early Church was a multi-sɛҳuąƖ bacchanal?
Last night I read some of the quotes provided. After Mass today I offered a Rosary of reparation and for H.E +W and wept. I have never felt the sorrow for my own sins as I felt today seeing a good bishop endorse such work. Makes a lie out of the virtue of purity so treasured by our Lord.
Quote from: J.PaulQuote from: LadislausValtorta also reports that Original Sin started with Eve pleasuring herself and then finishing it off in bestiality with the serpent. How cute.
Dear Lord! Is there a question as to why the Church condemns this?
Is this where the queers get their inspiration that the early Church was a multi-sɛҳuąƖ bacchanal?
Last night I read some of the quotes provided. After Mass today I offered a Rosary of reparation and for H.E +W and wept. I have never felt the sorrow for my own sins as I felt today seeing a good bishop endorse such work. Makes a lie out of the virtue of purity so treasured by our Lord.
Valtorta also reports that Original Sin started with Eve pleasuring herself and then finishing it off in bestiality with the serpent. How cute.
Ladislaus: Ladislaus said:QuoteValtorta also reports that Original Sin started with Eve pleasuring herself and then finishing it off in bestiality with the serpent. How cute.
Ladislaus, you pig, can you give us all chapter and verse, plus page number, on this calumnious charge? Preferably from the earlier 5 volume set. That's the one I own and can easily check.
BTW, did I call you a damn pig? Ah yes, I did above. Have a nice day.
Jesus suggests a love-affair between St. Peter and Our Lady
Jesus even jokes with impropriety with his apostles. Here, Jesus stands up and calls out loudly and angrily to Peter:
“‘Come here, you usurper and corrupter!’
“‘Me? Why? What have I done, Lord?’
“‘You have corrupted My Mother. That is why you wanted to be alone. What shall I do with you?’
“Jesus smiles and Peter recovers his confidence. ‘You really frightened me! Now You are laughing.” (Vol. II, n. 199, p. 185)
I find nothing perverse in the passages you quote. I can not help what your mind reads into them. I would say that the problem lies with you, not with the Poem's narrative.
Ladislaus, you pig, can you give us all chapter and verse, plus page number, on this calumnious charge?
A sensual Eve tending toward bestiality
The work is also not without doctrinal errors, such as when Valtorta asserts the sin of Eve was not disobedience, but a sɛҳuąƖ act. There is also an insinuation of a tendency toward bestiality in Eve. This erotic description was supposedly made by Jesus:
“With his venomous tongue Satan blandished and caressed Eve’s limbs and eyes… Her flesh was aroused … The sensation is a sweet one for her. And ‘she understood.’ Now Malice was inside her and was gnawing at her intestines. She saw with new eyes and heard with new ears the habits and voices of beasts. And she craved for them with insane greed. “She began the sin by herself. She accomplished it with her companion.” (Vol. 1, n. 17, p. 49)
Jesus suggests a love-affair between St. Peter and Our Lady
Jesus even jokes with impropriety with his apostles. Here, Jesus stands up and calls out loudly and angrily to Peter:
“‘Come here, you usurper and corrupter!’
“‘Me? Why? What have I done, Lord?’
“‘You have corrupted My Mother. That is why you wanted to be alone. What shall I do with you?’
“Jesus smiles and Peter recovers his confidence. ‘You really frightened me! Now You are laughing.” (Vol. II, n. 199, p. 185)
I find nothing perverse in the passages you quote. I can not help what your mind reads into them. I would say that the problem lies with you, not with the Poem's narrative.
And Matthew sits there and lets you get away with this. Have you nothing to say, Matthew? Are you not reportedly with the bishop? How can you let a pig like ladislaus go on in this manner unchallenged?
Quote from: Bishop WilliamsonConcerning the “Poem of the Man-God” by Maria Valtorta (1897–1961), a life of Our Lord extending to ten volumes written in Italian in the 1940’s, an Italian priest, Don Ottavio Michelini, is alleged to have heard in the 1970’s, from Our Lord himself, the following comments:—
:facepalm:
Bishops Williamson's Achilles Heel, excessive credulity with regard to [anything that purports to be] private revelation.Quote from: Bishop WilliamsonMaria Valtorta is the 20th century equivalent of Maria of Agreda and Anne-Catherine Emmerich, of the 17th and 19th centuries respectively.
:roll-laugh1:Quote from: Bishop WilliamsonHowever, there are souls all over the world for whom the “Poem” has acted like a stupendous gift of God himself, for whom it has seemed to be designed to alleviate the spiritual distress of our own times,
Reminiscent of his comments regarding the New Mass, that subjectively it helps people.
Quote from: hollingsworthAnd Matthew sits there and lets you get away with this. Have you nothing to say, Matthew? Are you not reportedly with the bishop? How can you let a pig like ladislaus go on in this manner unchallenged?
And then Matthew would have to ban everyone else on this thread who agrees that Valtorta's stuff is nothing short of perverse blasphemy. You're alone here. Of course, you do seem to have a special animosity towards me.
Yes, I have heard that Bp. Williamson has a tendency to believe too readily in private revelations.
One thing that I found interesting about Maria Valtora was that her spiritual advisor claimed that she had written the text without correction, revision or review and often without even understanding what she had written. I find this interesting because it sounds like automatic writing which is a form of spirit communication very popular with people involved with the occult. The definition of automatic writing is: Writing performed without conscious thought or deliberation, typically by means of spontaneous free association or as a medium for spirits or psychic forces.
This is getting tedious and Hollingsworth is right.
Each time Valtorta is mentioned, I refer people to this website - Maria Valtorta website (http://www.valtorta.org.au/) It has all the answers to your questions, and if you cannot find the answer you can write and ask them; so why do you never do that? Are you honestly seeking the truth? Or simply wanting to attack the Bishop with it.
QuoteJesus suggests a love-affair between St. Peter and Our Lady
Jesus even jokes with impropriety with his apostles. Here, Jesus stands up and calls out loudly and angrily to Peter:
“‘Come here, you usurper and corrupter!’
“‘Me? Why? What have I done, Lord?’
“‘You have corrupted My Mother. That is why you wanted to be alone. What shall I do with you?’
“Jesus smiles and Peter recovers his confidence. ‘You really frightened me! Now You are laughing.” (Vol. II, n. 199, p. 185)Quote from: nothingsworthI find nothing perverse in the passages you quote. I can not help what your mind reads into them. I would say that the problem lies with you, not with the Poem's narrative.
In context: Earlier, in the company of Jesus and the rest, Peter had picked up and orphan child and had grown quite close to him. I'll not go into great detail here. Peter wanted to adopt this young boy for his own, since he and his wife were childless. He appealed to Jesus for the permission to do this. Jesus denied the request, telling Peter that He had a great future commission for Peter to perform, which would only be hindered by having a child in tow.
But Peter, not to be put off, went behind the back of Jesus, and appealed directly to the Mother of Our Lord. He knew that Jesus would never deny His Mother anything. Sure enough, he was right. She supported Peter in his desire to adopt the child. So Jesus chided him gently, in a joking manner, accusing the apostle of 'corrupting' His Mother.
For the forum members of good will and even an ounce of personal integrity, (and I assume that there are some yet remaining on Cathinfo- Avis, for sure) I took the trouble of scanning the section of the Poem to which one of the forum's vilest offenders last referred. It's the one about Eve, who in this shameless person's summary, allegedly "pleasured herself," followed thereafter by an act of "bestiality" with the Serpent.
Few of you, I think, (Avis notwithstanding), will bother to check the context of the passage in question. So I'll do your work for you. The quote below is taken from the original 5 volume set published in 1987. It is taken from section #17, pp. 83 and 84. Read it please, and then post your expressions of righteous indignation and disgust. I doubt that many of you will, however. Because Valtorta describes the scene tastefully, eloquently and sublimely:
Volume 1, section 17, pp.83,84
Lucifer was an angel, the most beautiful of all the perfect spirits, inferior only to God, and yet in his bright essence a vapour of pride arose and he did not scatter it. On the contrary, he condensed it by brooding over it. And Evil was born of this incubation.
It existed before man. God had hurled him out of Paradise, the cursed incubator of Evil, who had desecrated Paradise. But he is the eternal incubator of Evil, and as he can no longer soil Paradise,1 he has soiled the earth.
That metaphorical tree proves this truth. God had said to the man and the woman: ''You know all the laws and the mysteries of creation. But do not infringe on My right of being the Creator of man. My love will suffice for the propagation of the human race and it will spread among you and will excite the new Adams of .the race without any lust of the senses but with purely charitable pulsations. I have given you everything. I am only keeping for Myself this mystery of the formation of man."
Satan wanted to deprive man of this intellectual virginity and with his venomous tongue he blandished and caressed Eve's limbs and eyes, exciting reflections and a perspicacity, which |they did not have before, because malice had not yet intoxicated them.
She "saw": And seeing, she wanted to try. Her flesh was aroused. Oh! If she; had called to God! If she had hurried to Him saying: "Father! The Serpent has caressed me and I am upset''. The Father would have purified-and healed her with His breath, which could have infused new innocence into her as it had infused life. And it would have made her forget the snake's poison, nay it would have engendered in her a disgust for the Serpent, as it happens in those who bear an instinctive dislike for diseases of which they have just been cured. But Eve does not go to the Father. Eve goes back to the Serpent. The sensation is a sweet one for her. "Seeing that the fruit of the tree was good to eat and pleasing and agreeable to the eye, she took it and ate it."
And "she understood". Now Malice was inside her and was gnawing at her intestines. She saw with new eyes and heard with new ears the habits and voices of beasts. And she craved for them with insane greed. 'She began the sin by herself. She accomplished it with her com¬panion. That is why a heavier sentence is laid on woman. Because of her, man has become rebellious towards God and has become acquainted with lewdness and death. Because of her, he was no longer capable of dominating his three reigns: the reign of the spirit, because he allowed the spirit to disobey God; the moral reign, because he allowed passions to master him; the reign of flesh, because he lowered it down-to the instinctive level of beasts. "The Serpent seduced me" says Eve. "The woman offered me the fruit and I ate of it" says Adam. And the triple greed has ruled the three dominions since then.
I can see how someone could decide that this suggests bestiality, here especially:
How did "The Poem of the Man-God" come to be, and how has the notion
become widely accepted that it contains important religious truth?
Maria Valtorta, author of "Poem," was born in 1897 into a sadly
dysfunctional family, where she suffered emotional abuse at the hands of a
despotic mother. When she was 23, she was attacked and beaten by a mugger.
She was never completely well after that. From 1933 on, she was unable to
leave her bed.
Maria began to receive "dictations" on Good Friday, 1943. In 1947, she
handed over 10,000 handwritten pages to her spiritual director, Father
Romuald Migliorini, O.S.M. Father Migliorini typed them and Father
Corrado Berti, O.S.M. bound them. Fr. Berti, brought them to Father later
Cardinal Augustin Bea, S.J., spiritual director to Pope Pius XII.
Did Pope Pius read the whole manuscript or parts? If only part, which
part? Advertisements by the Canadian Central distributors for Valtorta
(CEDIVAL) quote Father Bea: "I have read in typed manuscripts many of the
books written by Maria Valtorta . . . As far as exegesis is concerned, I
did not find any errors in the parts which I examined." Notice, he read
only parts of the books. Which were they?
On Feb. 26, 1948, Fathers Migliorini, Berti and A. Cecchin enjoyed a
private audience with Pope Pius XII, as listed in L'Osservatore Romano's
daily announcement of audiences. Standing in St. Peter's Square after the
audience, Father Berti wrote down Pope Pius' words as he remembered them.
These words were "not" printed in L'Osservatore Romano, but Father Berti
remembered the Pope saying:
"Publish this work as it is. There is no need to give an opinion about its
origin, whether it be extraordinary or not. Who reads it, will understand.
One hears of many visions and revelations. I will not say they are all
authentic; but there are some of which it could be said that they are."
CEDIVAL calls this a "Supreme Pontifical Imprimatur," where "he took upon
himself to pass the first official judgment on these writings." CEDIVAL
glues this inside the cover, though the publisher does not print an
imprimatur. The reason: it has none!
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.
"The poem refers to a baby as an 'it' on page 23 of book #1, and an angel as an 'it' on page 38. On page 40 Mary asks her mother if it would be right of be a sinner out of love for God, so that God could forgive you. No comment needed. On page 85 Mary claims to have consecrated Herself to virginity. One consecrates oneself to God, one vows virginity. We do not think Mary would make such a theological mistake. On page 89, it is claimed that Adam and Eve had an infinite gift of grace. Only God is infinite in anything positive, and even in the negative (infinitely bad), the negative is controlled by God. On Page 358 Jesus claims that He asks the Father not to lead Him into temptation, as if God could sin.
On page 128 Mary claimed that Joseph 'never erred' meaning never sinned. Only Mary is without original or actual sin. To give those who never read the 'Poem' an idea of the stupidity, let us quote one passage on page 166:
'The Child was about to fall asleep. He seemed a little restless, as if He had teething trouble, or some other minor pain of childhood.'
Mary sings: 'All the sparkling angels - that in Heaven be. Form a wreath around You, innocent Child - enraptured by Your face. But You're crying for Your Mummy - Mummy, Mummy, Mum. The sky will soon be red - and dawn will soon be back, and Mummy had no rest - to ensure You do not cry ---'
On pages 196, 197, 201, 202, 204, and 209 it is claimed that Jesus learned from Joseph and Mary. And on pages 309. 310, and 311 He even asks to be taught things. God does not learn from anyone as He states on page 216 of the same book. This contradiction is not as important as the bottom line of the entire set of books. The man made god, as the title indicates, has one primary demonic purpose, to show Christ as an ignorant 'mere human' being as Nestorian believed and was condemned for believing in the Council of Ephesus." 2
Every page contradicts the works of Emmerich, and in some cases the meaning of the Bible, itself. Over ten seers have given the date of Mary's birth as September 8th. But Maria gives a date of August 24th. None of the day to day life of Christ's childhood resemble anything like that of Catherine. The impression one receives in these writings is that Christ does not know anything, since He is always asking questions about people's lives, or their reasons for doing things. This is a Nestorian and Arian heresy. Although Jesus was totally man, with the intellect of man, He also always had the infused knowledge of Christ [His Divinity]. He does not call the publican down out of the tree by name without a divine knowledge.
The Christ of the "Poem" also fails to correct the sins of His followers in many cases. This is a sin for us, why not for Him? To admonish the sinner?
The "Poem" also states that Christ was nailed in the wrist on one hand and in the hand on the other. This does not agree with Emmerich or Neumann as we pointed out. God does not contradict God in anything.
This is not very scientific, but worth a comment. Whenever we read the Bible, the lives of the saints, or true messages from Heaven, we feel the power of the words as if grace pours out of them. There are no such feelings in reading "The Poem of the Man-God".
The Poem of the Man-God is not worthy of comment if it were not for the fact that one of the largest Catholic Book Chains, The Daughters of St. Paul, "Pauline Books" chose to take out the works of Catherine Emmerich and put in its place this abortion of the word of God. We wonder why they had to remove the word "Catholic" from the name of their book stores. No, we do not wonder. We know!
The use of "screwdrivers" (Book 1 pp. 195, 223) is the blunder of blunders for a book said to be dictated by Jesus and Mary. Screws were not even invented at the time of Christ.
Book 1 pp. 7 claims Mary can be called the second-born of the Father. Christ was not born. He was begotten from all eternity. There is a big difference. Mary was conceived in the mind of the Father from all eternity, but She was born in the normal manner. She cannot be called the second-born. Page 30 claims Eve's temptation consisted in arousing her sɛҳuąƖ desires as the serpent sensuously caressed her. Eve's sin was not sɛҳuąƖ. It was pride leading to editing the commandments of God, and then to disobedience. Concupiscence is the result, not the cause. Valtorta calls Mary second to Peter with regards to ecclesiastical hierarchy in Book 4, pp. 240. The hierarchy of the Church are servants of Jesus and Mary. Mary could never be a servant, and therefore, could never be in the hierarchy.
Before we look into the publisher of the "Poem", something must be said about the "Index" and the fact that it was dissolved. In the Catholic Directory published by the Daughters of Saint Paul, it states that although the index has been dissolved it is not necessary that a book be listed in the Index to be forbidden. In goes on to list twelve classes of publications that are forbidden by general law.
Class #5 states: "Books on visions and other supernatural phenomena published without approval." In Class #6 "Books that attack Catholic dogma or the hierarchy or defend errors condemned by the Holy See." Class #11 states, "Books propagating false indulgences." Class #12 lists, "Printed images of Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, the angels, saints, or other servants of God."
It must be noted that the Index was not done away with because it is no longer needed. It was forced to dissolve because of the invention of the computer, and the change from thousands of books to millions of books. There was and is no way Rome can keep up with the proliferation of Religious material today.
Compare the poem of the Man God to the Mystical City of God and also the reveleations of Anne Catherine Emmerich. They all cover the same material and they are not the same. How are we to know which of these is legitimate, if any, and which of these are wrong?
1 percent of the population is a sodomist. Look at the large amount of novous ordo priests who have LGBT parishes and are openly practicing sodomists.
And there were sodomist priests who were former SSPX.
The Papal visit and the synod has mainly been about the sodomists.
This is getting tedious and Hollingsworth is right.
Each time Valtorta is mentioned, I refer people to this website - Maria Valtorta website (http://www.valtorta.org.au/) It has all the answers to your questions, and if you cannot find the answer you can write and ask them; so why do you never do that? Are you honestly seeking the truth? Or simply wanting to attack the Bishop with it.
Is the Gospel not sufficient enough or does it need these embellishments to make it believable? Is the Lord at fault for not including them?
Why is it that Catholics can not stop at the point where the Church condemned this tome? It would seem that like Eve in this poem their curiosity and flesh are too aroused by it, and they choose to ignore the Church's judgement.
Shame upon those clerics who expose the faithful to the carnal implications and imagery of it.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, present head of the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the same office that condemned the
"Poem"), informed Cardinal Siri in 1985 of the "Poem's condemnation:
After the dissolution of the Index, when some people thought the printing
and distribution of the work was permitted, they were reminded again in
L'Osservatore Romano (June 15, 1966) that "The Index retains its moral
force despite its dissolution."
...
At worst, "Poem's" impact is more serious. Though many people claim that
"Poem" helps their faith or their return to reading Scripture, they are
still being disobedient to the Church's decisions regarding the reading of
"Poem."
Quote from: AvisThis is getting tedious and Hollingsworth is right.
Each time Valtorta is mentioned, I refer people to this website - Maria Valtorta website (http://www.valtorta.org.au/) It has all the answers to your questions, and if you cannot find the answer you can write and ask them; so why do you never do that? Are you honestly seeking the truth? Or simply wanting to attack the Bishop with it.
You have committed sin by promoting and condoning evil.
That metaphorical tree proves this truth ... My love will suffice for the propagation of the human race and it will spread among you and will excite the new Adams of .the race without any lust of the senses but with purely charitable pulsations. I have given you everything. I am only keeping for Myself this mystery of the formation of man."
Satan wanted to deprive man of this intellectual virginity and with his venomous tongue he blandished and caressed Eve's limbs and eyes, exciting reflections and a perspicacity, which they did not have before, because malice had not yet intoxicated them ... Her flesh was aroused.
She "saw": And seeing, she wanted to try. Her flesh was aroused.
Oh! If she; had called to God! If she had hurried to Him saying: "Father! The Serpent has caressed me and I am upset''. The Father would have purified-and healed her with His breath, which could have infused new innocence into her as it had infused life.
She saw with new eyes and heard with new ears the habits and voices of beasts. And she craved for them with insane greed.
'She began the sin by herself. She accomplished it with her companion. That is why a heavier sentence is laid on woman. Because of her, man has become rebellious towards God and has become acquainted with lewdness and death.
Now, back to Valtorta.Why did you delete the last few lines of the passage, where she lists the sin of disobedience as first?Quote from: ValtortaThat metaphorical tree proves this truth ... My love will suffice for the propagation of the human race and it will spread among you and will excite the new Adams of .the race without any lust of the senses but with purely charitable pulsations. I have given you everything. I am only keeping for Myself this mystery of the formation of man."
Valtorta claims that human beings were meant to procreate out of "charitable pulsations" rather than "lust of the senses". This is what Valtorta characterizes as the "metaphorical tree", the prohibition of lust. So it's setting the stage for Original Sin being sɛҳuąƖ in nature.
Quote from: ValtortaSatan wanted to deprive man of this intellectual virginity and with his venomous tongue he blandished and caressed Eve's limbs and eyes, exciting reflections and a perspicacity, which they did not have before, because malice had not yet intoxicated them ... Her flesh was aroused.
There's a gravely impure suggestion here of Satan carressing Eve's limbs with his tongue in order to excite curiosity about impurity. But, beyond that, this depicts Eve being drawn into Original Sin through the flesh and the senses. In point of fact, according to Sacred Scripture, the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and constant Church teaching, Adam and Eve were not prone to concupiscence. Concupiscence was in fact an AFTER-EFFECT or consequence of sin committed solely in the higher faculties. In their pre-fallen integral state, the flesh could not lead Adam and Eve into sin because the flesh was subject to their higher faculties. Consequently, the Original Sin of Adam and Eve were acts of their intellect and will, in a fashion very similar to the sin of Satan, in their desire to become like God, and no longer be subservient to God (cf. Satan's "non serviam"). Instead, as we shall see, while Scripture states that Eve longed to become "like God", according to Valtorta, Eve envied the beasts in their sɛҳuąƖ pleasures and thus longed to become "like the beasts". Valtorta thus completely INVERTS Sacred Scripture and Tradition, having Eve long to be like the beasts rather than long to become "like God." And we know that "inversions" like this have sulfurous hoof-prints all over them.Quote from: ValtortaShe "saw": And seeing, she wanted to try. Her flesh was aroused.
Again, contrary to Church teaching. In their integral state, their flesh could not be aroused against their will. That is in fact concupiscence, the consequence of Original Sin once the WILL and INTELLECT had broken their subjection to God. Concupiscence is the EFFECT and not the CAUSE of Original Sin. Adam and Eve's first sin were, like Satan's, primarily one of the intellect and will, a sin of disobedience, as CONSTANTLY taught by Sacred Scripture, the Church Fathers, and Tradition.Quote from: ValtortaOh! If she; had called to God! If she had hurried to Him saying: "Father! The Serpent has caressed me and I am upset''. The Father would have purified-and healed her with His breath, which could have infused new innocence into her as it had infused life.
This depicts the fall into Original Sin as being analogous to how fallen human beings now are tempted to sins of the flesh, where upon raising one's mind to God one can overcome temptations from the pull of the flesh.Quote from: ValtortaShe saw with new eyes and heard with new ears the habits and voices of beasts. And she craved for them with insane greed.
What "habits" of the beasts? Clearly this is a reference to copulation being driven by the lusts of the flesh. She envied the beasts for their pleasures. Instead of longing to be "like God", Valtorta has Eve longing to become like the beasts, the complete diabolical inversion I mentioned previously.Quote from: Valtorta'She began the sin by herself. She accomplished it with her companion. That is why a heavier sentence is laid on woman. Because of her, man has become rebellious towards God and has become acquainted with lewdness and death.
This is the one place where I think Horvat was mistaken. "Companion" most likely refers to Adam, but it's not 100% certain. Again Valtorta characterizes Original Sin has having become "acquainted with lewdness".
So, despite the one arguable point, Valtorta contradicts Scripture, the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and constant Tradition of the Church that Original Sin belonged to the higher faculties, the intellect and the will, by claiming that concupiscence preceeded this Fall and led directly to it, i.e. that Original Sin was a sin of weakness through concupiscence, that Original Sin was a sɛҳuąƖ sin rather than a sin of the higher faculties. It's precisely because Original Sin was a sin purely of the higher facultires that it was so grave and had such consequence. It was close to the sin of the devil, vs. a sins of weakness rooted in concupiscence of the flesh.
Why did you delete the last few lines of the passage, where she lists the sin of disobedience as first?
I forgot about this one: she mentions Jesus using a screwdriver.
(Book 1 pp. 195, 223)
Now there were screw-shaped tools around the first century but there was no such thing as a screw until the middle ages. Since the very existence of screwdrivers depends on the screw and that they don't look at all like screws themselves, we can safely conclude this was a fabrication.
Quote from: CroixalistI forgot about this one: she mentions Jesus using a screwdriver.
(Book 1 pp. 195, 223)
Now there were screw-shaped tools around the first century but there was no such thing as a screw until the middle ages. Since the very existence of screwdrivers depends on the screw and that they don't look at all like screws themselves, we can safely conclude this was a fabrication.
It's fishy indeed. I looked up the defense of this last night. They say two things. First, that wooden screws were in common use back then. Anyone who has actually seen a wooden screw will know that they have nothing to do with any tool that resembles a screwdriver, so this half of the defense is ignorant.
The second half of that Valtorta states she "thinks" it's a screwdriver, meaning it was a tool she saw in her vision, and didn't recognize due to her ignorance of woodworking. I suppose it may have been an awl, drawbore pin, or even a chisel. I don't know that that's how visions work, but I cant say otherwise, so for the moment I find this whole issue inconclusive.
I forgot about this one: she mentions Jesus using a screwdriver.
Croix:QuoteI forgot about this one: she mentions Jesus using a screwdriver.
Are you sure she wasn't talking about Our Lord drinking a screwdriver? Hmm. They didn't have that kind of 'screwdriver' back then either. Well, keep working on it. You'll come up with something. :roll-laugh2:
Quote from: GrahamQuote from: CroixalistI forgot about this one: she mentions Jesus using a screwdriver.
(Book 1 pp. 195, 223)
Now there were screw-shaped tools around the first century but there was no such thing as a screw until the middle ages. Since the very existence of screwdrivers depends on the screw and that they don't look at all like screws themselves, we can safely conclude this was a fabrication.
It's fishy indeed. I looked up the defense of this last night. They say two things. First, that wooden screws were in common use back then. Anyone who has actually seen a wooden screw will know that they have nothing to do with any tool that resembles a screwdriver, so this half of the defense is ignorant.
The second half of that Valtorta states she "thinks" it's a screwdriver, meaning it was a tool she saw in her vision, and didn't recognize due to her ignorance of woodworking. I suppose it may have been an awl, drawbore pin, or even a chisel. I don't know that that's how visions work, but I cant say otherwise, so for the moment I find this whole issue inconclusive.
Wooden screws?
To think I lived till now without ever hearing of this Poem until mentioned in these forums, and after reading these forums, have no interest in ever reading it.
This is the type of screw that existed:
http://rs271.pbsrc.com/albums/jj142/PTJacobsen/facevise800600.jpg?w=480&h=480&fit=clip
It wasn't a fastening that bored through wood. It was used used in vices and presses and turned through a matching female block. You can see why I said they had nothing to do with screwdrivers.
Because they had to be laboriously cut by hand, screws were only used as linkages in a few machines in the ancient world. Screw fasteners only began to be used in the 15th century in clocks, after screw-cutting lathes were developed. The screw was also apparently applied to drilling and moving materials (besides water) around this time, when images of augers and drills began to appear in European paintings. The complete dynamic theory of simple machines, including the screw, was worked out by Italian scientist Galileo Galilei in 1600 in Le Meccaniche ("On Mechanics").
Father Padre Pio was also an advocate of Maria Valtorta’s writings. One year before Padre Pio’s death, a woman named Mrs. Elisa Lucchi asked him if he advised reading "The Poem of the Man-God" by Maria Valtorta. He replied, "I don’t just advise you, I insist that you read it!".
--http://www.mariavaltortawebring.com/
I've seen this in many articles about Valtorta, but the words attributed to Padre Pio are sometimes different.
Any evidence for this?QuoteFather Padre Pio was also an advocate of Maria Valtorta’s writings. One year before Padre Pio’s death, a woman named Mrs. Elisa Lucchi asked him if he advised reading "The Poem of the Man-God" by Maria Valtorta. He replied, "I don’t just advise you, I insist that you read it!".
--http://www.mariavaltortawebring.com/
I've seen this in many articles about Valtorta, but the words attributed to Padre Pio are sometimes different.
Quote from: rumAny evidence for this?QuoteFather Padre Pio was also an advocate of Maria Valtorta’s writings. One year before Padre Pio’s death, a woman named Mrs. Elisa Lucchi asked him if he advised reading "The Poem of the Man-God" by Maria Valtorta. He replied, "I don’t just advise you, I insist that you read it!".
--http://www.mariavaltortawebring.com/
I've seen this in many articles about Valtorta, but the words attributed to Padre Pio are sometimes different.
I've come to disbelieve almost everything attributed to Padre Pio. I've read that he endorsed the Novus Ordo and that he condemned the Novus Ordo. I've read so many contradictory things that it seems people use his name to promote whatever it is they wish to promote. I think many uses of his name is outright fraud.
I find it difficult to believe that Padre Pio would endorse writings placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.
rum:QuoteI've seen this in many articles about Valtorta, but the words attributed to Padre Pio are sometimes different.
Whoops! Gotcha! Nothing gets by folks like rum. :laugh1:
Quote from: rumAny evidence for this?QuoteFather Padre Pio was also an advocate of Maria Valtorta’s writings. One year before Padre Pio’s death, a woman named Mrs. Elisa Lucchi asked him if he advised reading "The Poem of the Man-God" by Maria Valtorta. He replied, "I don’t just advise you, I insist that you read it!".
--http://www.mariavaltortawebring.com/
I've seen this in many articles about Valtorta, but the words attributed to Padre Pio are sometimes different.
I've come to disbelieve almost everything attributed to Padre Pio. I've read that he endorsed the Novus Ordo and that he condemned the Novus Ordo. I've read so many contradictory things that it seems people use his name to promote whatever it is they wish to promote. I think many uses of his name is outright fraud.
I find it difficult to believe that Padre Pio would endorse writings placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.
Quote from: GrahamThis is the type of screw that existed:
http://rs271.pbsrc.com/albums/jj142/PTJacobsen/facevise800600.jpg?w=480&h=480&fit=clip
It wasn't a fastening that bored through wood. It was used used in vices and presses and turned through a matching female block. You can see why I said they had nothing to do with screwdrivers.
Ah, but even something like the parallel vise wasn't invented until much later. No, it was the fly press that was invented by the Romans in the first century.
[...]
So the kind of "screw" that might have been used in Jesus' day would be fairly enormous, like something used as a mechanism for say a wine or olive press.
There is simply no way she could have mistaken one of these large screws for a screwdriver or what would be commonly used as a fastener some 1500 years later.
Quote from: GrahamWhy did you delete the last few lines of the passage, where she lists the sin of disobedience as first?
Uhm, those are a listing of the after-effects or consequences of Original Sin and have nothing to do with the causes which she described earlier. Reading comprehension, people! Traditionally St. John (I John II:16) lists the triple effects of Original Sin as: "For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world." Valtorta has a similar list, but it does not line up perfectly with St. John's list.
Because of her, man has become rebellious towards God and has become acquainted with lewdness and death. Because of her, he was no longer capable of dominating his three reigns: the reign of the spirit, because he allowed the spirit to disobey God; the moral reign, because he allowed passions to master him; the reign of flesh, because he lowered it down-to the instinctive level of beasts. "The Serpent seduced me" says Eve. "The woman offered me the fruit and I ate of it" says Adam. And the triple greed has ruled the three dominions since then.
Lucifer was an angel, the most beautiful of all the perfect spirits, inferior only to God, and yet in his bright essence a vapour of pride arose and he did not scatter it. On the contrary, he condensed it by brooding over it.
That metaphorical tree proves this truth. God had said to the man and the woman: ''You know all the laws and the mysteries of creation. But do not infringe on My right of being the Creator of man. My love will suffice for the propagation of the human race and it will spread among you and will excite the new Adams of .the race without any lust of the senses but with purely charitable pulsations. I have given you everything. I am only keeping for Myself this mystery of the formation of man."
Satan wanted to deprive man of this intellectual virginity and with his venomous tongue he blandished and caressed Eve's limbs and eyes, exciting reflections and a perspicacity, which they did not have before, because malice had not yet intoxicated them.
She "saw": And seeing, she wanted to try. Her flesh was aroused.
Oh! If she; had called to God! If she had hurried to Him saying: "Father! The Serpent has caressed me and I am upset''. The Father would have purified-and healed her with His breath, which could have infused new innocence into her as it had infused life. And it would have made her forget the snake's poison, nay it would have engendered in her a disgust for the Serpent, as it happens in those who bear an instinctive dislike for diseases of which they have just been cured. But Eve does not go to the Father. Eve goes back to the Serpent.
"Seeing that the fruit of the tree was good to eat and pleasing and agreeable to the eye, she took it and ate it."
And "she understood". Now Malice was inside her and was gnawing at her intestines. She saw with new eyes and heard with new ears the habits and voices of beasts. And she craved for them with insane greed.
She began the sin by herself. She accomplished it with her companion.
Graham, leaving aside for the moment Horvat's interpretation of that passage, is there anything which has been revealed about the Poem that you think doesn't square with Catholicism?
I didn't read the article from Horvat, just what hollingsworth posted, and I have to agree with Ladislaus
Be that as it may, at this point we can see that there is no compelling reason to take this to mean that Original Sin, according to Valtorta, solely comprised an act of sɛҳuąƖ lust, since the passage, properly read, describes a series which begins with an intellectual seduction, and culminates with a headlong fall into sensuality as a result of turning from God to Satan and eating the apple.
547.In Jerusalem and in the Temple after the Resurrection of Lazarus.
door, to throw essences into a brazier and to bring scents and water for their hands and
a slave to come with mirror and combs. He pays no attention to the Hebrews, as if they
were not there. They get enraged but they dare not react...
Over there, in the meantime, they bring braziers, they spread resins on the fire and pour
scented water on the hands of the Romans. And a slave, with skilful movements, tidies
their hair according to the fashion of rich Romans of those days. And the Hebrews get
enraged.
The Romans laugh and jest among themselves looking now and again at the group
waiting at the other end, and one of them speaks to Pilate who has never turned round
to look; but Pilate shrugs his shoulders making gesture of boredom and he claps his
hands to call a slave whom he orders in a loud voice to bring sweets and to let in the
dancers. The Hebrews tremble with rage and are scandalised. Just imagine Helkai
compelled to watch girls dancing! His countenance is a poem of suffering and hatred.
The slaves come back with sweets in precious cups, and they are followed by the
dancers wearing garlands of flowers and hardly covered with fabrics that are so light as
to seem veils. Their very white bodies appear through their light garments dyed pink
and blue, when they pass before the burning braziers and the many lights placed at the
other end. The Romans admire the gracefulness of bodies and movements and Pilate
asks them to repeat a dance that he particularly liked. Helkai, imitated by his
companions, turns indignantly towards the wall not to see the dancers move as lightly
as butterflies with their dresses fluttering indecorously.
When the short dance is over Pilate dismisses them putting in the hand of each a cup
full of sweets and he throws a bracelet into each cup nonchalantly.
And at last he
condescends to turn round and look at the Hebrews saying to his friends in a weary
voice:
«And now... I must pass from dreams to reality... from poetry... to hypocrisy...
from gracefulness to the filthy things of life. The miseries of being a Proconsul!... Hail,
friends, and have pity on me.»
Jesus says:
« Today write only this. Purity has such a value, that the womb of a creature can
contain the Uncontainable One, because She possessed the greatest purity that a
creature of God could have.
The Most Holy Trinity descended with Its perfections, inhabited with Its Three
Persons, enclosed Its infinity in a small space. But It did not debase Itself by
doing so, because the love of the Virgin and the will of God widened this space
until they rendered it a Heaven. And the Most Holy Trinity made Itself known
by Its characteristics:
The Father, being once again the Creator of the creature, as on the sixth day of
Creation, had a real, worthy daughter fashioned to His perfect image. The mark
of God was impressed so completely and exactly on Mary, that only in the First-
born was it greater. Mary can be called the Second-born of the Father because,
owing to the perfection granted to Her and preserved by Her, and to Her dignity
of Spouse and Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, She comes second after the
Son of the Father and second in His eternal thought, which ab aeterno took
delight in Her.
The Son, being also “Her Son”, did teach Her, by the mystery of Grace, His
truth and wisdom, when He was but an Embryo, growing in Her womb.
The Holy Spirit appeared amongst men, for an anticipated prolonged Pentecost:
1. Introduction.
Love for “Her Whom He loved”, Consolation to men because of the Fruit of Her Womb, Sanctification on account of the Maternity of the Holy One.
God, to reveal Himself to men in the new and complete form, which starts the
Redemption era, did not select for His throne a star in the sky, nor the palace of a powerful man. Neither did He want the wings of angels as the base of His feet.He wanted a spotless womb.
Also Eve had been created spotless. But she wanted to become corrupt of her
own free will. Mary, Who lived in a corrupt world – Eve was in a pure world –
did not wish to violate Her purity, not even with one thought remotely
connected with sin. She knew that sin exists. She saw its various and horrible
forms and implications. She saw them all, including the most hideous one:
deicide. But She knew them solely to expiate them and to be, forever, the
Woman who has mercy on sinners and prays for their redemption.
This thought will be the introduction to other holy things that I will give for your benefit and the welfare of many people. »
Jesus looks at Her... Another expression untranslatable into poor words. And
He replies to Her:
« And You will pray for Me in the hour of death... 3 Yes.
None of these understands... It is not their fault. Satan is creating fumes so that they may not see, that they may be like drunken people who do not understand,and therefore unprepared... and easier to bend... But You and I will save them,despite Satan's snares. Mother, I entrust them to You as from this moment.
Remember these words of Mine: I entrust them to You. I give You My
inheritance. I have nothing upon the Earth, except a Mother, and I offer Her to
God: Victim with the Victim; and My Church, and I entrust it to You. Be her
Nurse. A short time ago I was wondering in how many people, in future, the
man of Kerioth will be reviving with all his faults. And I was thinking that
anyone, who were not Jesus, would reject that faulty being. But I will not reject
him. I am Jesus. During the time that You will remain on the Earth, and You are second to Peter with regard to ecclesiastical hierarchy, he being the Head and
You a believer, but first as Mother of the Church having given birth to Me, Who
am the Head of this mystical Body, do not reject the many Judases, but assist
and teach Peter, My brothers, John, James, Simon, Philip, Bartholomew,
Andrew, Thomas and Matthew not to reject, but to assist. Defend Me in My
followers, and defend Me from those who want to disperse and dismember the
dawning Church. And in future centuries, Mother, always be She Who pleads
for and protects, defends and helps My Church, My Priests, My believers, from
Evil and Punishment, from themselves... How many Judases, o Mother, in
future centuries! And how many will be like half-wits who cannot understand,
or like blind and deaf people who cannot see or hear, or like cripples and
paralytic people who cannot come... Mother, let them all be under Your mantle! You alone can and will be able to change the punishment decrees of the Eternal Father for one soul or for many of them. Because the Trinity will never be able to deny its Flower anything.»
« I will do that, Son. As far as it depends on Me, You may go to your goal in
peace. Your Mother is here to defend You in Your Church, always.»
« It does not matter. I shall belong to God. I shall pray in the Temple. And
perhaps one day I will see the Immanuel. The Virgin who is to be His Mother
must be already born, as the great Prophet says, and She is in the Temple... I will
be Her companion on... and maidservant. Oh! Yes. If I could only meet Her, by
God's light, I would like to serve Her, the Blessed One. And later, She would
bring Me Her Son, She would take Me to Her Son, and I would serve Him too...
Just think, mummy!... To serve the Messiah!! » Mary is overcome by this
thought that exalts Her and makes Her totally humble at the same time. With
Her hands crossed over Her breast and Her little head slightly bent forward and
flushed with emotion, She is like an infantile reproduction of the Annunciation
that I saw. She resumes: « But will the King of Israel, the Lord's Anointed,
allow Me to serve Him? » « Have no doubts about that. Does King Solomon not
say: “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines and countless maidens?”
You can see that in the King's palace there will be countless maidens serving the
Lord. »
« Oh! You can see then that I must be a virgin? I must. If He wants a virgin as
His Mother, it means that He loves virginity above all things. I want Him to love
Me, His maiden, because of the virginity which will make Me somewhat like
His beloved Mother... This is what I want... I would also like to be a sinner, a
big sinner, if I were not afraid of offending the Lord... Tell Me, mummy, can
one be a sinner out of love of God ? »
« But what are You saying, my dear? I don't understand You. »
« I mean: to commit a sin in order to be loved by God, Who becomes the
Saviour. Who is lost, is saved. Isn't that so? I would like to be saved by the
Saviour to receive His loving look. That is why 1 would like to sin, but not to
commit a sin that would disgust Him. How can He save Me if I do not get lost?»
Anne is dumbfounded. She does not know what to say.
Joachim helps her. He has approached them walking noiselessly on the grass,
behind the low hedge of vine-shoots. « He has saved You beforehand, because
He knows that You love Him and You want to love Him only. So You are
already redeemed and You can be a virgin as You wish » says Joachim.
« Is that true, daddy? » Mary embraces his knees and looks at him with Her
clear blue eyes, so like Her father's and so happy because of this hope She gets
from Her father.
« It is true, my little darling. Look! I was just bringing You this little sparrow,
that at its first flight landed near the spring. I could have left it there but its weak
wings did not have enough strength to fly off again, and its tiny legs could not
hold it on to the slippery moss stones. It would have fallen into the water. But I
did not wait for that. I took it and now I am giving it to You. You will do what
you like with it. The fact is that it was saved before it fell into the danger. God
has done the same with You. Now, tell me, Mary: have I loved the sparrow
more by saving it beforehand, or would I have loved it more saving it
afterwards? »
« You have loved it now, because you did not let it get hurt in the cold water. »
« And God has loved You more, because He has loved You before You sinned.
»
« And I will love Him wholeheartedly. Wholeheartedly. My beautiful little
sparrow, I am like you. The Lord has loved us both equally, by saving us... I willnow rear you and then I will let you go. And you in the forest and I in the
Temple will sing the praises of God, and we shall say: “Please send the One
You promised to those who expect Him.” Oh! Daddy, when are you taking Me
to the Temple? »
« Soon, my dear. But are You not sorry to leave Your father? »
« Yes, very much! But you will come... in any case, if it did not hurt, what
sacrifice would it be? »
« And will You remember us? »
« I always will. After the prayer for the Immanuel I will pray for you. That God
may give you joy and a long life... until the day He becomes the Saviour. Then Iwill ask Him to take you to the celestial Jerusalem. »
The vision ends with Mary tightly clasped in Her father's arms.
Mary says:
« I obeyed in My joy, because when I understood the mission to which God
called Me, I was full of joy, My heart opened like a closed lily and it shed that
blood which was to become the soil for the Lord's Seed.
The joy of being a mother.
I had consecrated Myself to God since My childhood, because the light of the
Most High had shown Me the cause of evil in the world and, as far as it was in
My power, I wanted to remove from Myself every trace of Satan.
I did not know I was without stain. I could not think I was. That simple thought
would have been presumption and pride, because, since I was born of human
parents, it was not right for Me to think that I was the Chosen One to be the
Faultless One. The Spirit of God had informed Me of the pain of the Father
because of the corruption of Eve, who had lowered herself to the level of
inferior creatures, whereas she was a creature of grace. It was My intention to
soothe that pain by remaining unprofaned by human thoughts, wishes and
contacts and thus restoring an angelical purity in My body. The palpitations of
My heart were to be only for Him, and only for Him My whole being.
But if there was no passion of the flesh in Me, there was still the sacrifice of not
being a mother. Also Eve had been granted by the Father Creator the gift of
maternity, a maternity devoid of what now degrades it. The sweet and pure
maternity without a sensual burden! I experienced it! Of how much did Eve
divest herself by giving up such wealth! More than immortality. And do not
think that I am exaggerating. My Jesus and I, His Mother, with Him, have
experienced the languor of death. I, the sweet languor of a tired person who falls
asleep, Jesus, the intense languor of who dies sentenced to death. So we also
experienced death. But only I, the new Eve, experienced maternity without any
kind of profanation, that I might tell the world how sweet was the destiny of
woman called to be a mother without any bodily pain. And the desire of such
pure maternity was possible and actually existed in the Virgin wholly devoted to
God, because that maternity is the glory of woman.
If you consider in what high esteem the Israelites held a mother, you will realise
even more what sacrifice I had made when I consecrated Myself to virginity.
Now the Eternal Good Father granted Me, His servant, this gift, without
divesting Me of the purity I had clothed Myself in to be a flower on His throne.
And I rejoiced with the double joy of being the mother of a man and the Mother
of God.
The joy of being the Woman by means of Whom peace was reestablished
between Heaven and earth.
Oh! What a joy to have desired this peace for the sake of God and of men and toknow that it was coming to the world through Me, the poor handmaid of the
Almighty! What a joy to say: “Men, do not cry any longer. I have in Me the
secret that will make you happy. I cannot tell what it is because it is sealed in
Me, in My heart, just as the Son is enclosed in My inviolate womb. But I am
already bringing it to you, and the moment when you will see Him and hear His
Holy name is getting nearer and nearer.”
Joseph is not on his knees, but he is bent so low that he is as good as kneeling
down, and Mary lays Her tiny hand on his head and smiles. She seems to be
absolving him. And She whispers: « If I had not been humble in the most perfectmanner, I would not have deserved to conceive the Expected One, Who is
coming to pay for the sin of pride that ruined man. And then I obeyed... God
had requested such obedience. It cost Me so much... because of you, because ofthe pain that you were to suffer. But I could but obey. I am the Handmaid of theLord, and servants do not discuss the orders they receive. They fulfill them,
Joseph, even if they cause bitter tears. » Mary weeps quietly while speaking. Soquietly that Joseph, bent down as he is, does not notice it until a tear falls on thefloor.
He then lifts his head and – it is the first time I see him do this he presses Mary'slittle hands in his dark strong ones and he kisses the tips of the rosy slender
fingers that protrude like fresh buds of a peach-tree from the circle formed by
his own hands.
« Now we shall have to arrange for... » Joseph does not say anything else, but
he looks at Mary's body and She becomes purple and sits suddenly, to avoid Herfigure being exposed to eyes watching Her. « We shall have to make haste. I
will come here... We will complete the wedding... Next week. Is that all right?
»
« Whatever you do is all right, Joseph. You are the head of the family, I am your
servant. »
« No. I am Your servant. I am the happy servant of my Lord Who is growing in
Your womb. You are blessed amongst all the women of Israel. This evening I
will warn my relatives. And after... when I am here, we will work to prepare
everything to receive... Oh! How can I receive God in my house? God... in my
arms? I will die of joy!... I will never dare touch Him! I will never be able...! »
« You will be able, as I will, by the grace of God. »
« But You are... I am a poor man, the poorest of God's children!... »
« Jesus is coming to us, poor people, to make us rich in God, He is coming to us
two, because we are the poorest and we admit it. Rejoice, Joseph. The House of
David has the King long waited for and our home will become more splendid
than Solomon's palace, because Heaven will be here and we shall share with
God the secret of peace that men will be acquainted with later. He will grow
among us, our arms will be the cradle for the Redeemer and our work will
procure bread for Him... Oh! Joseph! We will hear the voice of God calling us
“father and Mother!” Oh!... » Mary cries with joy. Such happy tears!
And Joseph, who is now kneeling at Her feet, is weeping with his head almost
hidden in Mary's wide dress, which falls in folds on to the plain pavement of the
room. The vision ends here.
------------------
Mary says:
« No one must interpret My pallor erroneously. It was not caused by human
fear. From a human point of view I should have expected to be stoned to death.
But I was not afraid because of that. I was suffering because of Joseph's pain.
Neither was I upset by the thought that he might accuse Me. I was only sorry
and afraid that he might be lacking in charity if he should insist in his
accusation. That is why all My blood rushed to My heart when I saw him. It was
the moment when even a just man might have offended Justice by offending
charity. And I would have been extremely upset if a just man were to commit an
error since he never erred.
Had I not been humble to the very extreme limit, as I told Joseph, I would not
have deserved to bear within Me Him Who was lowering Himself: God, to the
humiliation of being a man in order to make reparation for the pride of the human race.
Graham:QuoteBe that as it may, at this point we can see that there is no compelling reason to take this to mean that Original Sin, according to Valtorta, solely comprised an act of sɛҳuąƖ lust, since the passage, properly read, describes a series which begins with an intellectual seduction, and culminates with a headlong fall into sensuality as a result of turning from God to Satan and eating the apple.
Well, an "intellectual seduction" is far less tantalizing that falling headlong into "sensuality." I think, for purposes of casting Valtorta into the worst possible light, ladislaus prefers to deal with Original Sin from her alleged perspective as an "act of sɛҳuąƖ lust." He'd rather go directly to the culmination than treat all the phases in between.
You do a very good job, Graham, in helping us to understand this passage from the Poem, and what lies at the heart of it. Thanks.
So you folks persist in your mortal sin of promoting a book that has been put on the Index by the Church?
I downloaded all 5 volumes as searchable PDFs from Internet Archives, so I could post the context of passages various critics have found objectionable.
and admit that you too agree that Bp. Williamson has actively promoted the Poem of the Man God, and that by doing so, he presists in "mortal sin."
Come on now. Don't be shy. Your leader in the cause of denouncing Maria Valtorta and her works needs your support. Come now, a clear statement to the effect that Bp. Williamson remains in a state of mortal sin. :tinfoil:
One of the biggest promoters of the Poem was Fr Barrielle who was the spiritual director of Econe and encouraged everyone to read it. He was given charge by Archbishop Lefebvre of the souls of the seminarians there and considered by all to be a holy man. He was also a renowned retreat master. So Ladi would stand in judgement of him and state that he was in mortal sin?
Don't forget Ladi, you will be judged as you judge others.
One of the biggest promoters of the Poem was Fr Barrielle who was the spiritual director of Econe and encouraged everyone to read it. He was given charge by Archbishop Lefebvre of the souls of the seminarians there and considered by all to be a holy man. He was also a renowned retreat master. So Ladi would stand in judgement of him and state that he was in mortal sin?
Don't forget Ladi, you will be judged as you judge others.
Quote from: AvisOne of the biggest promoters of the Poem was Fr Barrielle who was the spiritual director of Econe and encouraged everyone to read it. He was given charge by Archbishop Lefebvre of the souls of the seminarians there and considered by all to be a holy man. He was also a renowned retreat master. So Ladi would stand in judgement of him and state that he was in mortal sin?
Don't forget Ladi, you will be judged as you judge others.
What is your source for this claim?
[I only judge that to promote a work that the Church has put on the Index objectively constitutes mortal sin.
ladislaus:QuoteSo you folks persist in your mortal sin of promoting a book that has been put on the Index by the Church?
Actually, sirrah, the one most guilty of "promoting" the book is none other than Bp. Richard N. Williamson. (We may learn conclusively, btw, that Padre Pio did likwise in his day.) I want all you eager forum members to admit this openly. Don't waste your time giving my post a "thumbs down." Simply acknowledge the fact publicly. Be honest! Don't shrink from the task! Come forward in the company of this lowlife, and admit that you too agree that Bp. Williamson has actively promoted the Poem of the Man God, and that by doing so, he presists in "mortal sin."
Come on now. Don't be shy. Your leader in the cause of denouncing Maria Valtorta and her works needs your support. Come now, a clear statement to the effect that Bp. Williamson remains in a state of mortal sin. :tinfoil:
Quote from: Ladislaus[I only judge that to promote a work that the Church has put on the Index objectively constitutes mortal sin.
My only defense of this is that it was put on the index under John XXIII who many who post here consider to be an antipope.
Quote from: MattoQuote from: Ladislaus[I only judge that to promote a work that the Church has put on the Index objectively constitutes mortal sin.
My only defense of this is that it was put on the index under John XXIII who many who post here consider to be an antipope.
No, it was included in the index up until the index's abolition in the 1960's (so I'm guessing the abolition of the Index was under JXXIII).
Quote from: 2VermontQuote from: MattoQuote from: Ladislaus[I only judge that to promote a work that the Church has put on the Index objectively constitutes mortal sin.
My only defense of this is that it was put on the index under John XXIII who many who post here consider to be an antipope.
No, it was included in the index up until the index's abolition in the 1960's (so I'm guessing the abolition of the Index was under JXXIII).
According to this website (https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/poem_of_the_man.htm) which I found by doing a quick google search, the poem was placed on the index in 1959 under John XXIII. It was Paul VI who abolished the index in 1966 according to its wikipedia page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum)
You are correct. If you read the history here though, you will see that this poem was condemned by the Holy Office long before JXXIII officially placed it on the Index:
https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/VALTORTA.TXT
Quote from: 2Vermont
You are correct. If you read the history here though, you will see that this poem was condemned by the Holy Office long before JXXIII officially placed it on the Index:
https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/VALTORTA.TXT
So do you mean it was condemned but not placed on the index? I did not know that.
It bears repeating apparently, The book was placed on the Index and therefore judged by the Church as unsuitable reading for a Catholic.
That Bishop Williamson and others choose to ignore that is no reason for a Catholic who believes the Church and submits to Her, to ignore Her in a like manner.
The Bishop's confused R&Rism has perhaps given him the idea that he can pick and choose among the decisions of the Church and decide for himself what suits him, just as he told the "Woman" that she could decide for herself what suited her.
Here is the problem when one conflates the conciliar church with the Catholic Church.
Cathmom:QuoteWhat I read of Volume 2 reads like one of the dollar-store novels my mother used to read, filled with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ triangles and love trysts.
I find this whole defense of this perverse novel absolutely deplorable!
Well, cathmom, I find your comments shocking and deplorable. I hate to say it, but maybe your mother set a bad example by reading those “dollar-store novels” around you. Did she customarily share their contents with you, or did you take peeks at them while she wasn’t looking?
In any case, you’re not quoting from the earlier 5 volume set. You carelessly quote from the 10 volume set, I believe, because your page and chapter references don’t match up with the earlier edition’s volume 2 which is open before me.
I find nothing perverse in the passages you quote. I can not help what your mind reads into them. I would say that the problem lies with you, not with the Poem's narrative.
Quote from: J.PaulIt bears repeating apparently, The book was placed on the Index and therefore judged by the Church as unsuitable reading for a Catholic.
That Bishop Williamson and others choose to ignore that is no reason for a Catholic who believes the Church and submits to Her, to ignore Her in a like manner.
The Bishop's confused R&Rism has perhaps given him the idea that he can pick and choose among the decisions of the Church and decide for himself what suits him, just as he told the "Woman" that she could decide for herself what suited her.
Here is the problem when one conflates the conciliar church with the Catholic Church.
You nailed it.
hollingsworth: Come now, a clear statement to the effect that Bp. Williamson remains in a state of mortal sin.
ladislaus: I already said exactly that. Read my previous posts.
Well, I think that clarifies the matter. As I understand it now, forum members like ladislaus, 2vermont, momof7, JPaul, matto and nobody feel that Bp. Williamson lives in a state of mortal sin.
Don't put words in my mouth.
so brothers beware the man who exhorts you to sin against the Church's judgement.
Matto:QuoteDon't put words in my mouth.
Very well, matto. I'll ask you directly, and give you the opportunity to answer in your own words.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON IS IN A STATE OF MORTAL SIN?
Yes or no, matto? I don't want to put words in your mouth. :furtive:
One of the biggest promoters of the Poem was Fr Barrielle who was the spiritual director of Econe and encouraged everyone to read it. He was given charge by Archbishop Lefebvre of the souls of the seminarians there and considered by all to be a holy man. He was also a renowned retreat master. So Ladi would stand in judgement of him and state that he was in mortal sin?
Don't forget Ladi, you will be judged as you judge others.
I don't know (that Bp. W. may in a state of mortal sin) The index was abolished so it is no longer a sin to read books on it, although I wouldn't read them myself.
Well, I think that clarifies the matter. As I understand it now, forum members like ladislaus, 2vermont, momof7, JPaul, matto and nobody feel that Bp. Williamson lives in a state of mortal sin.
You are way off base here and I think you owe us an apology.
Cathmom, do you believe, like ladislaus, that the bishop is, presently speaking as it touches his endorsement and promotion of the The Poem, IN A STATE OF MORTAL SIN? This is what ladislaus believes unequivocally and states unapologetically. DO YOU BELIEVE AS HE BELIEVES, and will you openly state that belief on this forum, as ladislaus has done?
For what it's worth, I don't presume to know the state of ANY ONE"S soul in the world or on this forum.
Quote from: hollingsworth
Well, I think that clarifies the matter. As I understand it now, forum members like ladislaus, 2vermont, momof7, JPaul, matto and nobody feel that Bp. Williamson lives in a state of mortal sin.
Are you serious???
Because some people question why Bishop Williamson would recommend a book that he himself agrees is controversial or that others may not understand, a book that, at some point for some reason, was forbidden, we now are guilty of judging the souls of those who read it or promote it?
Touchy much?
For what it's worth, I don't presume to know the state of ANY ONE"S soul in the world or on this forum. And last I checked, Bishop Williamson is a human being. He, believe it or not, is not immune to sin, even mortal sin. What is he now immaculate??? Blasphemy!
In the past, Bishop Williamson has made several remarks that cause me to question his judgment. This situation is one of those times. In the past, early 90s, Bishop Williamson reported in an interview that he thought that the apparitions at Garabandal were authentic. Since I had never heard of them, I did some research. Based on that, I questioned his judgement in that situation. Recently, he told a woman that it was okay for her to go to NO Masses, that they could be a source of grace. Again, I question his judgment regarding that. Likewise, I question his judgment in the suggestion of reading this poem. He has mentioned this not once, but twice. But questioning the good Bishop's judgment does not equal judging his soul.
You are way off base here and I think you owe us an apology.
Ecclesiastical Approbations
In 1947, Fr. Migliorini, OSM, together with Valtorta's future theological censor, Fr. Corrado Berti, OSM, his confrere in the Servites of Mary, succeeded in having the first complete Italian typescript of The Poem of the Man-God submitted to the then reigning Pope Pius XII, for his evaluation. After personally reading the work and acquainting himself with Valtorta's visions and dictations, Pius XII granted a special audience to both Fathers Migliorini and Berti, and their Prior, Father Andrew M. Cecchin, OSM, on February 26, 1948. At that audience, he directed them to publish the work without omitting anything, not even the explicit assertions reporting "Visions" and "Dictations":
“Publish this work as it is. There is no need to give an opinion on its origin, whether it be extraordinary or not: whoever reads it will understand.
[These days] we hear of so many visions and revelations. I am not saying that all of them would be true, but there can be some of them that are authentic.”
Because of its obvious importance as an endorsement of the authenticity of Valtorta's work by the Supreme Head of the Church, recent critics of the Poem now attempt to impugn this Papal audience as a "fabrication" of its promotional literature. The fact that the Pope did grant this audience, however, is historically docuмented. Indeed, no less a personage than Edouard Cardinal Gagnon, writing to the Maria Valtorta Research Center from the Vatican on October 31, 1987, referred to Pope Pius XII's action as:
“the kind of official imprimatur granted before witnesses by the Holy Father in 1948, an Official Imprimatur of the Supreme Authority of the Church.”
As a result of this "Official Imprimatur" of the Supreme Authority of the Church, Fr. Corrado Berti and Valtorta's publisher, Dr. Emilio Pisani, felt authorized to bring out the first Italian edition of her Poem of the Man-God in four volumes from 1956-1959. However this was done as an anonymous work at Valtorta's request, and without the theological annotations of later editions to clarify ambiguous passages. It was perhaps for these reasons that in 1959, the Holy Office, apparently ignorant of the Official Imprimatur granted earlier by Pius XII, thus invalidly placed the Poem on the former Index of Forbidden Books. This was in effect to overturn the hierarchical structure of the Church, while at the same time violating Canon Law which outlaws any such reversal of a decision of the Supreme Head of the Church by a subsidiary Vatican Congregation, or even by appeal to an Ecuмenical Council.
This censure was perhaps due also to the Holy Office's ignorance of the favorable impressions made by Valtorta's Poem on Cardinal Joseph Pizzardo, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and expressed by him in a spirit of affection and of friendship to Father Corrado Berti. However, the Cardinal Secretary's favorable views were apparently never communicated to his subordinates or their successors in the Holy Office.
Nevertheless, with courageous hope Valtorta's publisher and editor, Dr. Emilio Pisani, together with Fr. Berti, "found a system for resuming the publication of the work with such criteria as would not exclude the respect due toward the authority of the Church." Moreover, after the first volumes of the 10-volume 2nd edition had already gone out, now under Valtorta's name and with Fr. Berti's theological annotations, he was summoned anew to the Holy Office in December, 1961, where he was able, in an atmosphere of serene dialogue, to relate the previous words and approbation of Pius XII of 1948, and to exhibit the favorable certifications of other authorities. Among these were three consultants to the Holy Office itself: Father (later Cardinal) Augustin Bea, S.J., Pius XII's confessor and Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute; Msgr. Alfonsus Carinci, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites; and Fr. Gabriele Roschini, O.S.M., theologian and Mariologist, whose certifications favorably impressed Cardinal Pizzardo, then Secretary of the Holy Office.
Required to deliver a report and some docuмentation, Fr. Berti returned four more times to the Holy Office in 1961, and was always able to deal with its Vice-Commissioner, Father Giraudo, O.P. From Fr. Giraudo he finally obtained a sentence which effectively repealed the 1959 censure on the Index. Father Giraudo stated: "We have no objection to your publishing this 2nd edition," concluding with: "We will see how the work [the Poem] is welcomed."
Frs. Berti, Migliorini, and Cecchin docuмented the Pope’s words immediately afterwards with signed testimony. The signed testimonies of these three priests are located in Isola del Liri, Italy (Fr. Berti’s signed testimony is also available online). Further docuмentation may be obtained at the Basilica of the Annunciation in Florence, Italy, where Maria Valtorta is buried. Pope Pius XII’s
audience with these three priests was also historically docuмented the next day, February 27, 1948 in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano. These three ecclesiastical eyewitnesses were of distinguished repute, and it may be worth mentioning that in a court of law in the United States, only two eyewitnesses are necessary to convict someone with the death penalty.
As if that were not enough, the Commissioner of the Holy Office, Fr. Giraudo, O.P., effectively repealed the 1959 censure of the 1st edition of the Poem on the Index when he stated to Fr. Berti, in 1961: “We have no objection to your publishing this 2nd edition. We will see how the work is welcomed.” (728)
In fact, even before Fr. Giraudo’s statement, Fr. Gabriel Roschini, Consultant of the Holy Office, stated in that same year that the new critical second edition of the Poem “was not to be considered to be on the Index, because it was totally renewed, conformed in all to the original, and provided with notes that removed any doubt and which demonstrated the solidity and orthodoxy of the work.” (729)
(728) The Sources of the Testimony of Fr. Giraudo’s Words: The Official Signed Testimony of Fr. Corrado M. Berti, O.S.M., Bishop Roman Danylak’s Letter, and an Official Publication of Dr. Emilio Pisani. Op. cit.
(729) A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
and admit that you too agree that Bp. Williamson has actively promoted the Poem of the Man God, and that by doing so, he presists in "mortal sin."
Come on now. Don't be shy. Your leader in the cause of denouncing Maria Valtorta and her works needs your support. Come now, a clear statement to the effect that Bp. Williamson remains in a state of mortal sin. :tinfoil:
ladislaus: I already said exactly that. Read my previous posts.
ladi: I have quite clearly stated that the actions constitute grave matter (objective mortal sin). I have no ability to judge Bishop Williamson's state of soul; in fact I suspect no formal mortal sin, since the Bishop would not knowingly do something like this if he considered it objectively grave.
Quote from: hollingsworth
Well, I think that clarifies the matter. As I understand it now, forum members like ladislaus, 2vermont, momof7, JPaul, matto and nobody feel that Bp. Williamson lives in a state of mortal sin.
Are you serious???
Because some people question why Bishop Williamson would recommend a book that he himself agrees is controversial or that others may not understand, a book that, at some point for some reason, was forbidden, we now are guilty of judging the souls of those who read it or promote it?
Touchy much?
For what it's worth, I don't presume to know the state of ANY ONE"S soul in the world or on this forum. And last I checked, Bishop Williamson is a human being. He, believe it or not, is not immune to sin, even mortal sin. What is he now immaculate??? Blasphemy!
In the past, Bishop Williamson has made several remarks that cause me to question his judgment. This situation is one of those times. In the past, early 90s, Bishop Williamson reported in an interview that he thought that the apparitions at Garabandal were authentic. Since I had never heard of them, I did some research. Based on that, I questioned his judgement in that situation. Recently, he told a woman that it was okay for her to go to NO Masses, that they could be a source of grace. Again, I question his judgment regarding that. Likewise, I question his judgment in the suggestion of reading this poem. He has mentioned this not once, but twice. But questioning the good Bishop's judgment does not equal judging his soul.
You are way off base here and I think you owe us an apology.
Can we make it to thirty five! :facepalm:
Today on September 26, 2015 .....absolutely nothing happened here............
I downloaded all 5 volumes as searchable PDFs from Internet Archives, so I could post the context of passages various critics have found objectionable. The objections below are found in Fr. Mitch Pacwa's piece IS "THE POEM OF THE MAN-GOD" SIMPLY A BAD NOVEL? (https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/VALTORTA.TXT)
Any comments on the objections below in light of the context would be appreciated.
--Third, "some passages are rather risque," like the "immodest" dance before
Pilate (vol. 5, p. 73).Quote547.In Jerusalem and in the Temple after the Resurrection of Lazarus.
door, to throw essences into a brazier and to bring scents and water for their hands and a slave to come with mirror and combs. He pays no attention to the Hebrews, as if they were not there. They get enraged but they dare not react...
Over there, in the meantime, they bring braziers, they spread resins on the fire and pour scented water on the hands of the Romans. And a slave, with skilful movements, tidies their hair according to the fashion of rich Romans of those days. And the Hebrews get enraged.
The Romans laugh and jest among themselves looking now and again at the group
waiting at the other end, and one of them speaks to Pilate who has never turned round to look; but Pilate shrugs his shoulders making gesture of boredom and he claps his hands to call a slave whom he orders in a loud voice to bring sweets and to let in the dancers. The Hebrews tremble with rage and are scandalised. Just imagine Helkai compelled to watch girls dancing! His countenance is a poem of suffering and hatred.
The slaves come back with sweets in precious cups, and they are followed by the
dancers wearing garlands of flowers and hardly covered with fabrics that are so light as to seem veils. Their very white bodies appear through their light garments dyed pink and blue, when they pass before the burning braziers and the many lights placed at the other end. The Romans admire the gracefulness of bodies and movements and Pilate asks them to repeat a dance that he particularly liked.
Helkai, imitated by his companions, turns indignantly towards the wall not to see the dancers move as lightly as butterflies with their dresses fluttering indecorously.
When the short dance is over Pilate dismisses them putting in the hand of each a cup full of sweets and he throws a bracelet into each cup nonchalantly.
And at last he condescends to turn round and look at the Hebrews saying to his friends in a weary voice:
«And now... I must pass from dreams to reality... from poetry... to hypocrisy...
from gracefulness to the filthy things of life. The miseries of being a Proconsul!... Hail, friends, and have pity on me.»
--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."QuoteJesus says:
« Today write only this. Purity has such a value, that the womb of a creature can
contain the Uncontainable One, because She possessed the greatest purity that a
creature of God could have.
The Most Holy Trinity descended with Its perfections, inhabited with Its Three
Persons, enclosed Its infinity in a small space. But It did not debase Itself by
doing so, because the love of the Virgin and the will of God widened this space
until they rendered it a Heaven. And the Most Holy Trinity made Itself known
by Its characteristics:
The Father, being once again the Creator of the creature, as on the sixth day of
Creation, had a real, worthy daughter fashioned to His perfect image. The mark
of God was impressed so completely and exactly on Mary, that only in the First-
born was it greater. Mary can be called the Second-born of the Father because,
owing to the perfection granted to Her and preserved by Her, and to Her dignity
of Spouse and Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, She comes second after the
Son of the Father and second in His eternal thought, which ab aeterno took
delight in Her.
The Son, being also “Her Son”, did teach Her, by the mystery of Grace, His
truth and wisdom, when He was but an Embryo, growing in Her womb.
The Holy Spirit appeared amongst men, for an anticipated prolonged Pentecost:
1. Introduction.
Love for “Her Whom He loved”, Consolation to men because of the Fruit of Her Womb, Sanctification on account of the Maternity of the Holy One.
God, to reveal Himself to men in the new and complete form, which starts the
Redemption era, did not select for His throne a star in the sky, nor the palace of a powerful man. Neither did He want the wings of angels as the base of His feet.He wanted a spotless womb.
Also Eve had been created spotless. But she wanted to become corrupt of her
own free will. Mary, Who lived in a corrupt world – Eve was in a pure world –
did not wish to violate Her purity, not even with one thought remotely
connected with sin. She knew that sin exists. She saw its various and horrible
forms and implications. She saw them all, including the most hideous one:
deicide. But She knew them solely to expiate them and to be, forever, the
Woman who has mercy on sinners and prays for their redemption.
This thought will be the introduction to other holy things that I will give for your benefit and the welfare of many people. »
Here is what the "Maria Valtorta Summa" (http://www.valtorta.org.au/TheDefence.html) says with respect to the Poem being placed on the Index:Quote from: pp 566-568Ecclesiastical Approbations
In 1947, Fr. Migliorini, OSM, together with Valtorta's future theological censor, Fr. Corrado Berti, OSM, his confrere in the Servites of Mary, succeeded in having the first complete Italian typescript of The Poem of the Man-God submitted to the then reigning Pope Pius XII, for his evaluation. After personally reading the work and acquainting himself with Valtorta's visions and dictations, Pius XII granted a special audience to both Fathers Migliorini and Berti, and their Prior, Father Andrew M. Cecchin, OSM, on February 26, 1948. At that audience, he directed them to publish the work without omitting anything, not even the explicit assertions reporting "Visions" and "Dictations":
“Publish this work as it is. There is no need to give an opinion on its origin, whether it be extraordinary or not: whoever reads it will understand.
[These days] we hear of so many visions and revelations. I am not saying that all of them would be true, but there can be some of them that are authentic.”
Because of its obvious importance as an endorsement of the authenticity of Valtorta's work by the Supreme Head of the Church, recent critics of the Poem now attempt to impugn this Papal audience as a "fabrication" of its promotional literature. The fact that the Pope did grant this audience, however, is historically docuмented. Indeed, no less a personage than Edouard Cardinal Gagnon, writing to the Maria Valtorta Research Center from the Vatican on October 31, 1987, referred to Pope Pius XII's action as:
“the kind of official imprimatur granted before witnesses by the Holy Father in 1948, an Official Imprimatur of the Supreme Authority of the Church.”
As a result of this "Official Imprimatur" of the Supreme Authority of the Church, Fr. Corrado Berti and Valtorta's publisher, Dr. Emilio Pisani, felt authorized to bring out the first Italian edition of her Poem of the Man-God in four volumes from 1956-1959. However this was done as an anonymous work at Valtorta's request, and without the theological annotations of later editions to clarify ambiguous passages. It was perhaps for these reasons that in 1959, the Holy Office, apparently ignorant of the Official Imprimatur granted earlier by Pius XII, thus invalidly placed the Poem on the former Index of Forbidden Books. This was in effect to overturn the hierarchical structure of the Church, while at the same time violating Canon Law which outlaws any such reversal of a decision of the Supreme Head of the Church by a subsidiary Vatican Congregation, or even by appeal to an Ecuмenical Council.
This censure was perhaps due also to the Holy Office's ignorance of the favorable impressions made by Valtorta's Poem on Cardinal Joseph Pizzardo, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and expressed by him in a spirit of affection and of friendship to Father Corrado Berti. However, the Cardinal Secretary's favorable views were apparently never communicated to his subordinates or their successors in the Holy Office.
Nevertheless, with courageous hope Valtorta's publisher and editor, Dr. Emilio Pisani, together with Fr. Berti, "found a system for resuming the publication of the work with such criteria as would not exclude the respect due toward the authority of the Church." Moreover, after the first volumes of the 10-volume 2nd edition had already gone out, now under Valtorta's name and with Fr. Berti's theological annotations, he was summoned anew to the Holy Office in December, 1961, where he was able, in an atmosphere of serene dialogue, to relate the previous words and approbation of Pius XII of 1948, and to exhibit the favorable certifications of other authorities. Among these were three consultants to the Holy Office itself: Father (later Cardinal) Augustin Bea, S.J., Pius XII's confessor and Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute; Msgr. Alfonsus Carinci, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites; and Fr. Gabriele Roschini, O.S.M., theologian and Mariologist, whose certifications favorably impressed Cardinal Pizzardo, then Secretary of the Holy Office.
Required to deliver a report and some docuмentation, Fr. Berti returned four more times to the Holy Office in 1961, and was always able to deal with its Vice-Commissioner, Father Giraudo, O.P. From Fr. Giraudo he finally obtained a sentence which effectively repealed the 1959 censure on the Index. Father Giraudo stated: "We have no objection to your publishing this 2nd edition," concluding with: "We will see how the work [the Poem] is welcomed."
To summarize, they say that Pius XII, before three reliable eyewitnesses, commanded that the Poem be published. When the first edition was published, it was placed on the Index, perhaps due to a miscommunication. However, the second edition was permitted by the Holy Office in 1961.
Here is additional information and argument it gives on the audience with Pius XII:Quote from: pg. 564Frs. Berti, Migliorini, and Cecchin docuмented the Pope’s words immediately afterwards with signed testimony. The signed testimonies of these three priests are located in Isola del Liri, Italy (Fr. Berti’s signed testimony is also available online). Further docuмentation may be obtained at the Basilica of the Annunciation in Florence, Italy, where Maria Valtorta is buried. Pope Pius XII’s
audience with these three priests was also historically docuмented the next day, February 27, 1948 in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano. These three ecclesiastical eyewitnesses were of distinguished repute, and it may be worth mentioning that in a court of law in the United States, only two eyewitnesses are necessary to convict someone with the death penalty.
It further argues that the prohibition applied only to the first edition, and that officials of the Holy Office permitted the second:Quote from: pg. 563As if that were not enough, the Commissioner of the Holy Office, Fr. Giraudo, O.P., effectively repealed the 1959 censure of the 1st edition of the Poem on the Index when he stated to Fr. Berti, in 1961: “We have no objection to your publishing this 2nd edition. We will see how the work is welcomed.” (728)
In fact, even before Fr. Giraudo’s statement, Fr. Gabriel Roschini, Consultant of the Holy Office, stated in that same year that the new critical second edition of the Poem “was not to be considered to be on the Index, because it was totally renewed, conformed in all to the original, and provided with notes that removed any doubt and which demonstrated the solidity and orthodoxy of the work.” (729)
Here are the relevant endnotes:Quote
(728) The Sources of the Testimony of Fr. Giraudo’s Words: The Official Signed Testimony of Fr. Corrado M. Berti, O.S.M., Bishop Roman Danylak’s Letter, and an Official Publication of Dr. Emilio Pisani. Op. cit.
(729) A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Whatever the truth of that is, I think that Bp. Williamson subjectively could not be held to have committed mortal sin by promoting the Poem for the simple reason that he is a sedeplenist and Paul VI abolished the Index. Within that frame, promoting the Poem doesn't constitute an act of disobedience.
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 similar outrage in "Saint of the Sanhedrin."
This is where Bp. Williamson sadly walks in lockstep with the "Saint of the Sanhedrin" agenda.
"The Poem" or more accurately, the Midrash "of the Man-God," like "The Saint of the Sanhedrin" extols the virtue of the Pharisee Hillel, outrageously putting Jesus on his knees venerating Hillel's grave, among many other absurdities.
Quote "Jesus" as depicted in The Poem of the Man God:
"I love and venerate Hillel, I respect and honour Gamaliel. They are two men through whose justice and wisdom the origin of man is revealed"
Who in their right mind cannot see the pharisaic/rabbinic hand behind this outrageous Pharisee-veneration put in the mouth of Christ?
There is no justice in the Pharisee Hillel. A book that claims that Jesus venerated the Pharisee Hillel who overruled God's law on divorce and allowed divorce for any reason; who nullified God's 7 year release of debts and created loopholes for incest by defining it as "not sex" is absolutely, 100% certainly not from God.
--http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2014/04/bp-williamson-and-midrash-of-man-god.html
339. At Hillel's Sepulchre at Giscala.
24th November 1945.
From the village of Meiron Jesus and His apostles take a mountainous road that runs north-west through woods and pastures rising all the time. They have
perhaps already venerated some sepulchres, because I can hear them speak about them. The Iscariot is now ahead with Jesus. At Meiron they must have received and given alms, and Judas is now giving an account of what he received and what he gave. He concludes saying:
«And here is my offer. I swore last night I would give You it for the poor and as a penance. It is not much. I have not much money with me. But I convinced my mother to send me some frequently through many friends. In the past, when I came away from home, I had a good deal of money. But this time, as I had to travel across mountains by myself or with Thomas only, I took only what was sufficient for our journey. I prefer to do that. The only thing is... sometimes I will have to ask You for permission to leave You and go and see my friends. I have already arranged everything... Master, shall I continue to keep the money? Do You still trust me?»
«Judas, you are saying everything by yourself. And I do not know why you do that. You must know that nothing has changed as far as I am concerned... because I hope that you will change and become once again the disciple you were in the past, and that you will become a just man, for whose conversion I pray and suffer.»
«You are right, Master. But with Your help I will certainly become So. In any case... they are minor imperfections. Things of no importance. Nay, they help us to understand our fellow-men and cure them.»
«Your morals, Judas, are strange indeed! And I should say more than that. I have never heard of any doctor falling voluntarily ill in order to be able to say: “Now I know how to cure people affected by this disease.” So am I an incapable man?»
«Who says that, Master?»
«You do. As I do not commit sins, I cannot cure sinners.»
«You are You. But we are not You, and we need experience to learn...»
«That is your old idea. The very same idea of twenty months ago. The only difference is that you then thought that I should commit sin to be able to redeem. I am really surprised that you have not tried to correct this... fault of Mine, according to your way of judging, and to gift Me with this... ability to understand sinners.»
«You are joking, Master. And I am glad. I felt sorry for You. You were so sad. And it is double joy to me that I have made You joke. But I never thought of claiming to be Your master. In any case, as You can see Yourself, I have corrected my way of thinking as I now say that this experience is necessary only to us. To us, poor men. You are the Son of God, are You not? Your wisdom,
therefore, needs no experience to be what it is.»
«Well, you had better know that innocence is also wisdom, a much greater wisdom than the low dangerous knowledge of sinners. When the holy ignorance of evil should limit our ability to guide ourselves and other people, then the angelical ministry, which is always present in pure hearts, makes up for that. And you may rest assured that the angels, who are most pure, can tell Good
from Evil and they can lead the pure souls, whom they guard, on the just path and to just deeds. Sin does not increase wisdom. It is not light. It is not a guide. Never. It is corruption, it is derangement of mind, it is chaos. Thus, he who commits it, tastes its flavour but at the same time loses the ability to savour many other spiritual things and no longer has an angel of God, a spirit of order and love, to guide him, instead, he has an angel of Satan to lead him into greater and greater disorder, because of the unappeasable hatred that devours those
diabolical spirits.»
«Listen, Master. And if one wanted to attain angelical guidance again? Is repentance sufficient, or does the poison of sin last even after one has repented and has been forgiven?... You know? For instance, one who has taken to drinking, even if he swears that he will not get drunk again, and is really determined in swearing so, always feels the stimulus to drink. And one suffers...»
«One certainly suffers. That is why one should never become the slave of evil. But to suffer is not to sin. It is expiation. And as a repentant drunkard commits no sin but gains merits if he resists the stimulus heroically and does not drink any more, so he who has sinned, and repents and resists all stimuli, gains merit and will not lack supernatural help to resist. It is not a sin to be tempted. On the contrary it is a battle that brings victory. And believe Me, in God there is only the desire to forgive and help who has done wrong but has later repented...»
Judas is silent for a little while... Then he takes Jesus' hand and kisses it, remaining bent over it:
«Last night I exceeded the limit. I insulted You, Master. I told You that I would end up by hating You... How much I blasphemed! Can I ever be forgiven?»
«The greatest sin is to despair of God's mercy... Judas, I said: “Every sin against the Son of man will be forgiven.” The Son of Man has come to forgive, to save, to cure, to lead souls to Heaven. Why do you want to lose Heaven? Judas! Look at Me! Wash your soul in the love emanating from My eyes...»
«Do I not disgust You?»
«Yes, you do... But love is stronger than disgust. Judas, poor leper, the greatest leper in Israel, come and invoke health from Him Who can give it to you...»
«Give me it, Master.»
«No. Not that way. There is no true repentance or firm will in you. There is only a faint effort of surviving love for Me and for your past vocation. There is a hint of repentance, but it is entirely human. That is not entirely bad. Nay, it is the first step towards Good. Cultivate it, increase it, graft it into the supernatural, change it into real love for Me, make it a real return to what you were when you came to Me, at least that! Make it not a temporary, emotional inactive throb of sentimentalism, but a true active feeling attracting you to Good. Judas, I will
wait. I can wait. I will pray. I will take the place of your disgusted angel, while waiting. My pity, patience and love are perfect and therefore greater than the pity, patience and love of angels, and I can remain beside you, in the disgusting stench of what is fermenting in your heart, in order to help you...»
Judas is moved, he is really moved, he is not simulating. With trembling lips and voice made shaky by his emotion, looking pale, he asks:
«Do You really know what I have done?»
«I know everything, Judas. Do you want Me to tell you or shall I spare you this humiliation?»
«I... cannot believe it...»
«Well let us go over the past few days and tell the incredulous apostle the truth. This morning you lied several times. With regard to the money and to where you spent the night. Last night you tried to suffocate in lust your feelings, your hatred, your remorse. You...»
«That's enough! That's enough! For pity's sake, say no more! Or I will run away from Your presence.»
«On the contrary, you ought to cling to My knees and ask to be forgiven.»
«Yes, forgive me, Master! Forgive me! Help me! It's stronger than I am. Everything is stronger than I am.»
«Except the love you ought to have for Jesus... But come here, that I may help you to resist temptation and relieve you of it.»
And He takes Judas in His arms shedding silent tears on his dark, haired head.
The others, who are a few yards behind, have wisely stopped and comment:
«See?! Perhaps Judas is really in trouble.»
«And this morning he has spoken to the Master about it.»
«What a fool! I would have done so straight away.»
«It is probably something painful.»
«Oh! It is certainly not bad behaviour of his mother! She is a holy woman! What can be so painful?»
«Perhaps business not doing well...»
«No! He spends and helps people generously.»
«Well! It's his business! The important thing is that he is in agreement with the Master, and that seems to be the case. They have been talking for some time andpeacefully. They are now embracing each other... Very well.»
«Yes, because he is very capable and has many acquaintances it is a good thingthat he is of good will and in agreement with us and above all with the Master.»
«Jesus at Hebron said that the tombs of the just are places where miracles are worked, or something like that... There are many of them here. Perhaps those of Meiron worked a miracle for Judas' perturbation.»
«Oh! if so, he will become entirely holy now at Hillel's sepulchre. Is it not at Giscala?»
«Yes, Bartholomew.»
«And yet last year we did not come this way...»
«No wonder! We came from the other side!»
Jesus turns round and calls them. They run towards Him joyfully.
«Come. The town is close at hand. We must cross it to arrive at Hillel's tomb. Let us proceed in one group»
says Jesus without any further information, while the eleven apostles cast inquisitive side glances at Him and Judas. The latter's face looks pacified and humble, and Jesus' is certainly not radiant. He is solemn but grave. They enter Giscala, a beautiful large well-kept town. There must be a flourishing rabbinical centre because I see many groups of doctors with disciples
listening to their lessons. The apostles passing through and the Master especially draw the attention of many people and a great deal of them follow the group.
Some sneer, some call Judas of Kerioth. But he is walking beside the Master and does not even turn round. They go out of town towards the house in the neighbourhood of which is Hillel's
sepulchre.
«How impudent of You!»
«He is imprudent and impudent!»
«He is provoking us.»
«Desecrator!»
«Tell Him, Uzziel.»
«I will not be contaminated. Saul, you are only a pupil, you can tell Him.»
«No. Let us tell Judas. Call him.»
The young man, whose name is Saul, a thin pale fellow with very large eyes and mouth, approaches Judas and says to him: «Come. The rabbis want you.»
«I will not come. I am staying where I am. Leave me alone.»
The young man goes back to his masters and tells them.
In the meantime Jesus, in the middle of His apostles, is praying reverently near Hillel's whitewashed sepulchre. The rabbis approach the group slowly, like silent snakes, and watch, and two
elderly bearded ones pull the tunic of Judas, who, since they gathered to pray, is no longer protected by his companions.
«Well, what do you want?» he asks in a low but resentful voice.
«Is one not even allowed to pray?»
«Just one word. Then we will leave you in peace.»
Simon Zealot and Thaddeus turn round and tell the noisy disturbers to be quiet. Judas moves a few steps aside and asks:
«What do you want?»
I do not hear what the older man whispers in Judas' ear. But I distinctly see the gesture of Judas who steps aside resolutely saying:
«No. Leave me in peace, poisoned souls. I don't know you, I don't want to have anything more to do with you.»
The rabbinical group burst into a scornful laugh and threaten:
«Watch what you do, you silly boy!»
«You had better watch. Go away! You can go and tell the others. All the others. Have you understood? You can apply to anybody You like, but not to me, you
devils»
and he leaves them.
He has spoken so loudly that the apostles turn round dumbfounded. Jesus does not. Not even after the scornful laugh and threat:
«We will see you again, Judas of Simon! We will meet again!»
that resounds in the silence of the place.
Judas goes back to his place, he moves aside Andrew who had gone close to Jesus, and as if he wished to be defended and protected, he takes the hem of Jesus' mantle in his hands. The angry men then rage against Jesus. They come forth threatening and shouting:
«What are You doing here, You, anathema of Israel? Go away? Don't make the bones of the Just man, whom You are not worthy to approach, stir in the grave. We will tell Gamaliel and will have You punished.»
Jesus turns round and looks at them, one at a time.
«Why are You looking at us like that, You demoniac?»
«To become better acquainted with your faces and your hearts. Because not only My apostle will see you again. I will, as well. And I want to know you well so that I can recognise you at once.»
«Well have You seen us? Go away. If Gamaliel were here, he would not allow You to be here.»
«I was here last year with him...»
«That is not true, You liar!»
«Ask him, and since he is an honest man, he will tell that I was here with him. Ilove and venerate Hillel, I respect and honour Gamaliel. They are two men through whose justice and wisdom the origin of man is revealed, as they remindus that man was made in the likeness of God.»
«We don't, do we?» interrupt the energumens.
«It is dimmed in you by interests and hatred.»
«Listen to Him! That is how He speaks and offends in the house of other people.Go away from here, corrupter of the best people in Israel! Or we will have to pick up stones. Rome is not here to protect You, You intriguer with the heathen enemy...»
«Why do you hate Me? Why do you persecute Me? What wrong have I done you? Some of you have benefited from Me; everybody has been respected by Me. So why are you so cruel against Me?»
Jesus is humble, meek, afflicted and loving. He implores them to love Him. They take it as a sign of weakness and fear and they become more furious. The first stone flies skimming James of Zebedee, who quickly makes the gesture of reacting by throwing it against the assailers, while all the others gather round Jesus. But they are twelve against about one hundred. Another stone strikes Jesus' hand while He is telling His disciples not to react. The back of His hand is injured and bleeds. It seems to be already wounded by the nail... Jesus then stops praying. He straightens up imposingly, looks at them and crushes them with a glare. But another stone strikes the temple of James of Alphaeus and it begins to bleed. Jesus is now compelled to paralyse their action by means of His power, to defend His apostles, who obeying Him, receive the volley of stones without reacting. And when the cowards are overwhelmed by Jesus' will and by His
frightful imposing attitude, He says:
«I am going. But you must know that Hillel would have cursed you for what you are doing. I am going away. But remember that not even the Red Sea prevented the Israelites from going on the way pointed out to them by God. Everything flattened out and became a level road for the passing God. The same applies to Me. As Egyptians, Philistines, Amorites, Canaanites and other peoples could not stop the triumphal march of Israel, so you, who are worse than they were, will not be able to stop My march and mission: Israel. Remember what they sang at the well of the water given by God: “Rise, o well, that was sunk by the princes and dug by the leaders of the people, with the giver of the Law, with their staves.” I am that Well! It was dug by Heaven in response to the prayers and the justice of the true princes and leaders of the holy People, which you are not. No. You are not. The Messiah would never have come for you, because you do not deserve Him. In fact His coming is your ruin. Because the Most High is aware of all the thoughts of men and has always been aware of them, even before Cain, from whom you descend, existed, and before Abel, whom I resemble, before Noah, My symbol, and before Moses who first used My symbol, before Balaam who prophesied the Star, before Isaiah and all the prophets. And God knows your hearts and is struck with horror at them. He has always been horrified at them as He has always rejoiced at the just for whose sake it was just to send Me and who really drew Me from the depths of Heaven, that I might bring Living Water for the thirst of men. I am the Source of eternal Life. But you do not wish to drink at it. And you will die.»
And He walks slowly through the paralysed rabbis and their pupils and goes on His way, slowly, solemnly, in the amazed silence of men and things.