It had already been condemned in Rome, 4 August, 1681, by the Congregation of the Inquisition, and Innocent XI had forbidden the reading of it, but, at the instance of Charles II, suspended execution of the decree for Spain. But Croset's translation transgressed the order, and caused it to be referred to the Sorbonne, 2 May, 1696. According to Hergenröther, Kirchengeschichte (trad. franc., 1892, V, vi, p. 418), it was studied from the 2d to the 14th of July, and thirty-two sessions were held during which 132 doctors spoke. It was condemned 17 July, 102 out of 152 members of the commission voting against the book. It was found that

Quote

it gave more weight to the revelations alleged to have been received than to the mystery of the Incarnation; that it adduced new revelations which the Apostles themselves could not have supported; that it applied the term 'adoration' to Mary; that it referred all her graces to the Immaculate Conception; that it attributed to her the government of the Church; that it designated her in every respect the Mother of Mercy and the Mediatrix of Grace, and pretended that St. Ann had not contracted sin in her birth, besides a number of other imaginary and scandalous assertions.

This censure was confirmed on the 1st of October. The Spanish Cardinal Aguirre, although a friend of Bossuet who fully approved the censure, strove to have it annulled, and expressed his opinion that the Sorbonne could easily do so, as their judgment was. based on a bad translation. Bossuet denounced it as "an impious impertinence, and a trick of the devil." He objected to its title, The Divine Life, to its apocryphal stories, its indecent language, and its exaggerated Scotist philosophy. However, although this appreciation is found in Bossuet's works (Œuvres, Versailles, 1817, XXX, pp. 637-640, and XL, pp. 172 and 204-207), it is of questionable authenticity. As to the reproach of indecency, her defenders allege that, although there may be some crudities of expression Which more recent times would not admit, it is absurd to bring such an accusation against one whose sanctity is generally conceded. Near investigations of the book were made in 1729, under Benedict XIII, when her canonization was again urged. On 16 January, 1748, Benedict XIV, in a letter which La Fuente, in his Historia eclesiástica de España, finds "sumamente curiosa", wrote to the General of the Observantines instructing him as to the investigation of the authenticity of the writings, while conceding that the book had received the approbation of the Universities of Salamanca, Alcalá, Toulouse, and Louvain. It had meantime been fiercely assailed by Eusebius Amort, a canon of Pollingen, in 1744, in a work entitled De revelationibus, visionibus, et apparitionibus privatis, regulae tutae, which, though at first imperfectly answered by Mathes, a Spaniards, and by Maier, a Bavarian, to both of whom Amort replied, was subsequently refuted in another work by Mathes, who showed that in eighty places Amort had not understood the Spanish text of Maria de Agreda. With Mathes, in this exculpation, was P. Dalmatius Kich, who published, at Ratisbon, 1750, his Revelationum Agredanarum justa defensio, cuм moderamine inculpatae tutelae. Hergenröther, in his Kirchengeschichte (trad. franc., VI, p. 416 — V. Palmé, Paris, 1892), informs us that the condemnation of the book by the Roman Inquisition, in 1681, was thought to have come from the fact either that, in its publication, the Decree of Urban VIII, of 14 March, 1625, had been disregarded, or because it contained apocryphal stories, and maintained opinions of the Scotist school as Divine revelations. Some blamed the writer for having said that she saw the earth under the form of an egg, and that it was a globe slightly compressed at the two poles, all of which seemed worthy of censure. Others condemned her for exaggerating the devotion to the Blessed Virgin and for obscuring the mystery of the Incarnation. The Spaniards were surprised at the reception the book met with in France, especially as the Spanish Inquisition had given it fourteen years of study before pronouncing in its favor. As noted above, the suspension of the Decree of Innocent XI, condemning the book, was made operative only in Spain, and although Charles II asked to have the permission, to read it extended to the whole of Christendom, Alexander VIII not only refused the petition, but confirmed the Brief of his predecessor. The King made the same request to innocent XII, who did nothing, however, except to institute a commission to examine the reasons alleged by the Court of Spain. The King renewed his appeal more urgently, but the Pope died without having given any decision.

La Fuente, in his Historia eclesiástica de España (V, p. 493), attributes the opposition to the impatience of the Thomists at seeing Scotist doctrines published as revelations, as if to settle various Scholastic controversies in the name of the Blessed Virgin and in the sense of the Franciscans, to whose order Agreda belonged. Moreover, it was alleged that her confessors had tampered with the text, and had interpolated many of the apocryphal stories which were then current, but her most bitter enemies respected her virtues and holy life, and were far from confounding her with the deluded illuminatae of that period. Her works had been put on the Index, but when the Franciscans protested they were accorded satisfaction by being assured that it was a trick of the printer (supercheria), as no condemnation appeared there.

See the very beginning the book volume 1 in PDF http://themostholyrosary.com/mystical-city-vol-i.pdf  Here is a snippet:

APPROBATIONS THE first Pope officially to take notice of "Ciudad de Dios" was Pope Innocent XI, who, on July 3, 1686, in response to a series of virulent attacks and machinations of some members of the Sorbonne, known to be Jansenists, issued a breve permitting the publication and reading of the "Ciudad de Dios." Similar decrees were afterward issued by Popes Alexander VIII, Clement IX and Benedict XIII. These decrees were followed by two decrees of the Congregation of Rites, approved by Benedict XIV and Clement XIV, in which the authenticity of "Ciudad de Dios" as extant and writ ten by the Venerable Servant of God, Mary of Jesus, is officially established. The great pope Benedict XIII, when he was archbishop of Benevent, used these revela tions as material for a series of sermons on the Blessed Virgin. On Sept. 26, 1713, the bishop of Ceneda, Italy, objecting to the publication of the "City of God," was peremptorily ordered by the Holy Office to withdraw his objections as interfering with the decree of pope Innocent XI for the universal Church. The process of canonization of Mary of Agreda was promoted by the Spanish bishops and other eminent men of the Church soon after her death in 1666. It has re sulted so far in securing her the title of VenerabUis, thus clearing the way to her beatification, for which, let us hope, God will soon raise a promoter among the many pious and eminent men who hold in esteem her writings xxi xxii APPROBATIONS and have learned of her holy life and of the miracles wrought at her tomb. The Redemptorist Fathers published a new German translation in 1885, which was approved and highly recommended by the Bishop of Ratisbon in the follow ing* terms : "We take pleasure in giving our episcopal approba tion to the annotated translation of the Spanish original "Ciudad de Dios" of Mary of Jesus and recommend this book, which will surely edify all readers and be the occa sion of great spiritual blessings." Ratisbon, September 29, 1885. )j( IGNATIUS, Bishop of Ratisbon. Notable is the high recommendation of the PrinceArchbishop of Salzburg, Apost. Legate, Primate of Ger many, etc. "According to the decrees of Pope Innocent XI and Clement XI the book known as Ciudad de Dios written by the Venerable Servant of God, Maria de Jesus, may be read by all the faithful." "A number of episcopal approbations, the recommen dations of four renowned universities, namely, of Tou louse, Salamanca, Alcala and Louvain, and of prominent members of different orders, coincide in extolling the above-named work. The learned and pious Cardinal D Aguirre says that he considers all the studies of fifty years of his previous life as of small consequence in com parison with the doctrines he found in this book, which in all things are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Fathers and Councils of the Church. The Ven erable Superior-General of St. Sulpice, Abbe Emery, adds: "Only since I read the revelations of Mary of Agreda do I properly know Jesus and his Holy Mother." APPROBATIONS xxiii "We therefore do not hesitate in granting our epis copal approbation to "Ciudad de Dios" and wish to recommend it to the faithful and especially to our clergy." ^FRANZ ALBERT, Archbishop. Archiepiscopal Chancery, Salzburg. September 12, 1885. A more recent official approbation of "Ciudad de Dios" is from the Bishop of Tarazona, prefacing the new edi tion of 1911-1912. "We, Dr. James Ozoidi y Udave, by the grace of God and of the Apostolic See, Bishop of Tarazona, Admin istrator Apostolic of the Diocese of Tudela, etc., etc. Having charged the priest Don Eduardo Royo, chaplain and confessor at the convent of the Immacu late Conception of Agreda, carefully and exactly to compare the manuscript which is to serve as copy for the printing of the new edition of the "City of God" now about to be published by the religious of the abovenamed convent, with the authenticated autograph manuscript of that work there preserved, and hav ing ascertained by a personal revision of a great part of the manuscript that the said priest has diligently and faithfully fulfilled this charge imposed upon him by us: We now therefore certify that this present edition of Ciudad de Dios/ with the exception of a few mere orthographic modifications, is entirely conformable to the autograph of that work as composed and written by the Venerable Mother Mary of Jesus of Agreda. Tarazona, April 7, 1911. [Diocesan Seal] %JAMES, Bishop of Tarazona. xxiv APPROBATIONS Finally follows the official approbation of the Right Reverend Bishop of the Fort Wayne Diocese, where this English translation is published. Rome City, Ind., Aug. 24, 1912. The Rev. George J. Blatter, Dear Rev. Father: My Imprimatur is herewith granted to your English translation of the work entitled Ciudad de Dios. Wish ing you every blessing, I remain, Devotedly in Domino, )JiH. J. ALERDING, Bishop of Fort Wayne. The author has made use of capital letters in the text slightly at variance with common usage, in order to avoid complication and se cure greater clearness. The paragraph numbers are those of the newest Spanish edition of "Ciudad de Dios" in 1912. In the abridg ment they vary slightly. City of God is divided into three Parts and eight Books. Part I contains Books 1 and 2. Part II contains Books 3, 4, 5 and 6. Part III contains Books 7 and 8. As circuмstances compel a serial publi cation of the four volumes, the author judged it best to head these divisions as follow : THE CONCEPTION, Books 1 and 2. THE INCARNATION, Books 3 and 4. THE TRANSFIXION, Books 5 and 6. THE CORONATION, Books 7 and

Yeah, I sort of doubt Maria of Agreda....