Matt:

Thank you (nipr) for sharing your first-hand experience on this matter. It helps that you've read the other mystical works, and do lots of spiritual reading. Your testimony should carry great weight.

I think I'm going to close the book on this thread.

nipr claims to have been doing "spiritual reading" for 53 years.  Fine!  But how does all that alleged spiritual reading qualify her/him to pass final judgement on Maria Valtorta?  Spiritual reading does not necessarily constitute "first-hand experience."  You mean, Matthew, that every time some nameless, faceless, unidentified forum person comes on board, advising for or against a certain action, that that unknown, uncredentialed forum person has spoken the final word on a matter?  
No, Matthew, such is just not the case.  It is simply that you agree with nipr, and try to pass off his/her personal assessment as "first-hand experience," worthy of acceptance.  Pretty shoddy, Matthew.  Personally I don't care that the thread is locked.  But let's not pretend that the matter is closed, and that final, irrevocable judgment has been passed on Maria Valtorta.
BTW, I understand, (though not fully confirmed). that Marion Horvat wrote critically of Our Lady of Good Success, as well.  Any comments?  Have a nice day. :scratchchin:

I’d like to see if any honest, unbiased, and intelligent person can still put any credibility or trust in Horvat’s article once they read the thorough refutation of her article in the following e-book about Valtorta (starting on p. 663):

http://www.drbo.org/dnl/Maria_Valtorta_Summa_Encyclopedia.pdf

An excerpt from the e-book which discusses Horvat’s article:

Two articles which attempt to refute the Poem of the Man-God using out-of-context arguments is an article written by a Brother James, and an article written by Marian Horvat, who based most of her article on only one source: Brother James’s article.

Right off the bat, I have to say that Horvat’s article is riddled with falsehoods, wrenching of statements out of context with false unsubstantiated insinuations, deficient theology, poor research, ignorance of too many facts, distortions and sweeping generalizations tantamount to lying, and an obvious unjustified bias against the Poem. It is readily apparent from her article that she carried out a cursory, non-in-depth investigation into Maria Valtorta’s writings and based most of her article on only one source (a source which is highly uncredible). After accounting for her falsehoods and false insinuations which are easily shown as wrong, most of her remaining arguments are based on unsubstantiated subjective impressions which are contradicted by those of greater learning and authority than her.

In the sub-section of this e-book entitled “A Refutation of Marian T. Horvat’s Article”, I go through her article one section at a time and refute each of her claims and show all of its errors and falsehoods.

A “table of contents” of each topic covered in that section is given below:

1.   Assessing the Introduction to Her Article
2.   Refuting Her Section Entitled “A humanized Christ” (First Paragraph)
3.   Refuting Her Section Entitled “Jesus suggests a love-affair between St. Peter and Our Lady”
4.   Refuting Her “New Age” Insinuation of the Face of Jesus Portrait
5.   Refuting Her Section Entitled “A sensual Eve tending toward bestiality”
6.   Refuting Her Section Entitled “Like Luther, Mary thinks: Let us sin to be forgiven”
7.   Refuting Her Statement About Blessed Gabriel Allegra, O.F.M.
8.   Refuting Her Section Entitled “An Adult with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies”
9.   Refuting Her Section Entitled “A humanized Christ” (Second Paragraph)
10.   Refuting Her Claim About Progressives
11.   Refuting Her Claim that the Poem Contains "Endless Idle Conversations"
12.   Refuting Her Section Entitled “An Infant Conceived With Original Sin”
13.   Refuting the Concluding Remarks of Her Article (and Discussing Her Seven Wrong Page Number References and Failure to Reference All Her Citations)

Brother James’s article (Horvat’s main source) has proven to be highly uncredible. I have reviewed Brother James’s article and I have to point out:
   
(1) The worst out-of-context quotations/arguments Brother James gives in his article, Horvat reproduced in her article. All of these out-of-context objections, insinuations, and errors are refuted in this e-book in the sub-section I just referred you to. Therefore, the refutation of Horvat’s article also serves to refute his article as well, since she took his ideas, false insinuations, and out-of-context quotations.

(2) All of the other arguments based on the out-of-context quotations Brother James gives in his article are easily refuted by reading the Poem in the proper context. See the sub-section of this e-book entitled “A Refutation of Marian T. Horvat’s Article” for the refutation of his main out-of-context arguments.

(3) Anyone who takes even a modest amount of time and effort reading the Poem in context can readily see that the “hack-job” Brother James did is so false that it is tantamount to lying. One can take almost any book (including the Holy Scriptures) and use Brother James’s method to make it sound bad. Furthermore, his article is riddled with falsities, wrenching of statements out of context with false unsubstantiated insinuations, deficient theology, poor research, ignorance of too many facts, distortions and sweeping generalizations, and an obvious unjustified bias against the Poem. His article is filled with such obvious errors, poor theology, and ridiculous arguments that it is absurd to think of taking his article seriously. See the sub-section of this e-book entitled “A Refutation of Brother James’s Article” to see why.

Matt:

That is PLENTY of reading material there, just restricting yourself to non-controversial, solid, (Matthew)-approved visionaries.

I couldn't help myself.  :rolleyes:

:whistleblower:

So nothingsworth opened another account to plug the blasphemous and heretical Valtorta.

Would he have ever read it, were it not for Bishop Williamson's chronic plugging of it, for the last few years?

Now that this topic has been retaken, I will answer Hollingsworth´s question that I could not answer before the previous thread was locked.

Adolphus:
Quote:
Because Abp. Lefebvre disliked it (The Poem).


Oh really?  Do you have a quote from the Archbishop to this effect?

Adolphus:
Quote:
Because Valtorta herself confessed that she was not sure whether God or Satan had inspired her to write it.


Did Valtorta believe that her inspiration might have come from Satan?  Do you have her own words in this regard?

I don´t have a quote from the Archbishop to prove he disliked Valtorta´s book.  However, it is Bp. Williamson himself who says so in his Eleison Comments 275:

«Thirdly Archbishop Lefebvre objected to the Poem that its giving so many physical details of Our Lord’s daily life makes him too material, and brings us too far down from the spiritual level of the four Gospels.»

I do not have Valtorta's words regarding her doubts about her inspiration having come from Satan.  However, again, it is Bp. Williamson —in his Eleison Comments 275—, who says so:

«Notes included in the Italian edition (running to over four thousand pages in ten volumes) show how afraid she was of being deceived by the Devil, and many people are not in fact convinced that the Poem truly came from God.»