Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: hollingsworth on April 07, 2015, 11:01:38 AM
-
Words of Jesus to Maria Valtorta, excerpted from Notebooks, April 9, 1944:
“The Father is weary, and to cause the human race to perish He will let the punishments of Hell be unleashed.”…..
“I would like to come a second time to die to save them from an even more atrocious death… but the Father does not allow this… He knows it would be useless… Oh, if only men were still able to turn to Me, who am salvation!”…
Reminding Maria of a Dictation from June 5, 1943: “You would like Me to appear and show Myself…But, even if I showed Myself, where is that residue of faith and respect in hearts which would make them bend with their faces to the ground to ask Me for forgiveness and mercy?”…
“I repeat what I have said a thousand times- the great sinners exist because the mass is all more or less guilty of the same sins as they are…”
"Nothing is impossible for Me as God, But it is the hour of the power of Darkness. And men have spontaneously wanted it. The kingdom of Evil is already established. Anything I were to do would be rendered null by man’s will. Any Good would be destroyed by Evil...
“I impotently witness all humanity’s race towards spiritual death. There is no gift, benefit, call, or punishment by Me that will serve to arrest this spontaneous shipwreck in Satan of mankind, redeemed by Me. Like an enraged bull, humanity is demolishing everything: reason, morality, and faith, and it is heading for a crash against what slays it. The profaning hand of man rises up for a new crime which does not deserve forgiveness. And the Father does not want to forgive. He lets you perish as you have wanted to.
“The only thing I can do and do- and I do it out of mercy on the saints, who, as rare as flowers in the desert, still pray; they pray, not making an avowal of custom and hypocrisy- is to hold back the wrath of My Father, who, weary of the crimes of a race for which my Blood has been shed to no avail, goes on wanting and wanting to apply Justice to you. And justice, since you are blameworthy, would mean tremendous punishments which my Mercy does not want to be added to those you cause yourselves by your own.
“Maria, I know I am wounding and demoralizing you. You had hoped for joy from my Easter. Roses after thorns. Smiles after tears. You are a victim. The thorns and tears remain even in the time of Easter, for it is necessary to stay on the cross for the sake of this perverse humanity…..”
-
False locutions.
-
ladislaus:
False locutions.
Whoops! Better talk to Bp. Williamson about that. :sign-surrender:
-
False locutions.
I read a critique about them and the things they showed from these "revelations" were incredibly heretical, disgusting and just plain silly.
Why do people push around this filth? Why is it plastered prominently on the drbo.org site?
-
False locutions.
I read a critique about them and the things they showed from these "revelations" were incredibly heretical, disgusting and just plain silly.
Why do people push around this filth? Why is it plastered prominently on the drbo.org site?
Amen Malleus. Any simple investigation into these so called revelations will reveal precisely what you describe. There's more than one thread on Cathinfo with citations and commentary.
-
Whoops again! Some of you sweet trads had better go immediately to your bookshelf, and sweep from it the fairly new work by Hugh Aikins entitled ѕуηαgσgυє Rising. (Maybe some of you already have, being the smug, righteous lot that a good number of you are)
Mr. Aikins wrote the following to Maurice Pinay on Apr 14, 2014
"My friends:
I wish my brother trads would set their priorities higher and busy themselves fighting the combats of Christ and stop letting so many self-appointed
experts keep diverting our attention and splitting our ranks on relatively insignificant issues.
The great Pope Pius XII strongly favored The Poem of the Man-God. The great Abp. Lefebvre approved of it. The great Bp. Williamson gives it
his blessing. THAT'S ENOUGH FOR ME. "
Well now, unless one of you feverishly righteous folks can produce quotes from both Pius XII and Abp. Lefebvre to the contrary, then I guess I'm going to have to say, along with Mr. Aikins, that the alleged endorsements of these clerics are enough for me too. Have a nice day! :furtive:
-
placed on the index of forbidden books 1/5/1960
Good enough for me! :read-paper:
-
thats how these "apparitions -locutions" spread by hearsay and rumor. they die on the vine when you look at what the church actually says by DOcuмENTATION
-
Words of Jesus to Maria Valtorta, excerpted from Notebooks, April 9, 1944:
“The Father is weary, and to cause the human race to perish He will let the punishments of Hell be unleashed.”…..
“I would like to come a second time to die to save them from an even more atrocious death… but the Father does not allow this… He knows it would be useless… Oh, if only men were still able to turn to Me, who am salvation!”…
Reminding Maria of a Dictation from June 5, 1943: “You would like Me to appear and show Myself…But, even if I showed Myself, where is that residue of faith and respect in hearts which would make them bend with their faces to the ground to ask Me for forgiveness and mercy?”…
“I repeat what I have said a thousand times- the great sinners exist because the mass is all more or less guilty of the same sins as they are…”
"Nothing is impossible for Me as God, But it is the hour of the power of Darkness. And men have spontaneously wanted it. The kingdom of Evil is already established. Anything I were to do would be rendered null by man’s will. Any Good would be destroyed by Evil...
“I impotently witness all humanity’s race towards spiritual death. There is no gift, benefit, call, or punishment by Me that will serve to arrest this spontaneous shipwreck in Satan of mankind, redeemed by Me. Like an enraged bull, humanity is demolishing everything: reason, morality, and faith, and it is heading for a crash against what slays it. The profaning hand of man rises up for a new crime which does not deserve forgiveness. And the Father does not want to forgive. He lets you perish as you have wanted to.
“The only thing I can do and do- and I do it out of mercy on the saints, who, as rare as flowers in the desert, still pray; they pray, not making an avowal of custom and hypocrisy- is to hold back the wrath of My Father, who, weary of the crimes of a race for which my Blood has been shed to no avail, goes on wanting and wanting to apply Justice to you. And justice, since you are blameworthy, would mean tremendous punishments which my Mercy does not want to be added to those you cause yourselves by your own.
“Maria, I know I am wounding and demoralizing you. You had hoped for joy from my Easter. Roses after thorns. Smiles after tears. You are a victim. The thorns and tears remain even in the time of Easter, for it is necessary to stay on the cross for the sake of this perverse humanity…..”
There is a ring of truth to these words. Very terrifying, very heart-breaking. I think that when The Chastisement comes, it's going to be so much worse than anyone can imagine.
-
There is a ring of truth to these words. Very terrifying, very heart-breaking. I think that when The Chastisement comes, it's going to be so much worse than anyone can imagine.
I was thinking the same thing, Miserere, but that does not mean there's sufficient poison in Valtorta to stay well away.
This has all been done before on CathInfo. See http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Maria-Valtorta-and-her-Poem-of-the-Man-God
Better still I will post this here:
From Tradition in Action: Valtorta's Poem of the Man-God (http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_042_Valtorta.htm)
Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
Book review of Peom of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta, 10 volumes, online edition
A friend recently sent me an e-mail asking about Maria Valtorta and her Poem of the Man-God. She received a recent issue of Kyrie Eleison comments of Bishop Richard Williamson titled “Home Reading” (October 20, 2012). In it, he recommends parents read selected chapters of the Poem of the Man-God to children every night.
He admits the Poem is controversial and has many enemies, but he defends Valtorta’s massive tome (4,000 pages in 10 volumes of supposed visions she received of the life of Christ). The Bishop supports it, despite the objections he lists: that it is riddled with doctrinal errors, that it humanizes Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that the work was placed on the Church’s Index of Forbidden Books in the 1950s.
He lightly dismisses all the arguments against it and concludes children will learn much about Our Lord and Our Lady from the Poem, which “will fortify a home.”
“I have not read this book,” my friend continues, “but, for Heaven’s sake, why didn’t Bishop W. recommend reading the wonderful, approved, written-by-a-canonized saint 4-volume City of God by Mother Mary of Agreda? But that is beside the point. I really do wish to know if you approve of the Poem of the Man-God. Even the title upsets my Catholic sensibilities.”
A humanized Christ
I believe my friend should follow her good Catholic sense. The very title, the Man-God , expresses the spirit of the work. It is Jesus as a man that Valtorta presents: a babe suckling greedily at his Mother’s breasts, a youth hardly aware of Who He is, a Man who laughs and jokes with His Apostles and is constantly kissing them on the mouth and embracing them closely. Yes, at the least, it is difficult not to suspect this showy Jesus pictured in such way as having ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies.
Valtorta’s natural approach is supposed to attract the modern man to the Life of Christ. It is in tune with the progressivist doctrine that tries to deny the supernatural and instead presents Our Lady as a simple Jєωιѕн woman and focuses on Our Lord as being a man “like us.” As Atila Guimaraes points out in Animus Injuriandi I, the progressivist Church aims to de-mythify and de-supernaturalize Christ and His Mother under the guise of presenting a natural “historical” Christ and Mary.” I believe Valtorta’s Jesus and Mary fit this mold.
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/ImagesA/A_042_Jesus.jpg)
An illustration of Valtorta's Jesus, a somewhat occult figure with a magnetic gaze
Valtorta’s Man-God depiction is the opposite of the God-Man portrayed by Anne Catherine Emmerich and Ven. Mary of Agreda, whose life of Christ is presented from an elevated, supernatural vantage point. One cannot help but wonder why the traditionalist Bishop would not recommend these works, instead of the Valtorta tomes, which were officially condemned by the Holy Office and placed on the Index in December 1959 and defined by L’Osservatore Romano of January 6,1960 as “a badly fictionalized life of Jesus.”
After Vatican II, Paul VI abolished the Index of Forbidden Books, and Valtorta’s supporters claim this nullifies the suppression of 1959. Unfortunately, the official position of the Church today is less than clear, with important Prelates and Catholic figures on both sides of the issue. Obviously, the progressivists, almost to the man, defend it.
The Poem of the Man-God, I believe, is riddled with banalities, vulgarities, blasphemies and even doctrinal errors. There are endless idle conversations between Our Lord, Our Lady and the Apostles, all on a natural level. I think the best way to confirm these points is simply to cite some texts, which are so revolting that they speak for themselves.
The quotes that follow are taken from an online edition of The Poem of the Man-God. A 48-page critique written in the 1980s – when the Poem’s popularity surged for a period, as it seems to be resurging now – by a Salesian, Brother James, S.D.B., can be read in its entirety here.
An Infant conceived with original sin
Valtorta portrays the Christ Child as a greedy infant of a sentimental Mother. It is difficult to find the respect we owe to Our Lord Jesus Christ in this imaginary immodest description of a nursing scene:
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/ImagesA/A_042_Mary.jpg)
The Man-God presents a naturalistic view of Our Lady and the Christ Child
“Jesus opens His eyes, sees His Mother and smiles and stretches His little hands toward Her breast.
“[Mary] ‘Yes, love of Your Mummy. Yes. Your milk. Before the usual time. But You are always ready to suck Your Mummy's breast, My little holy Lamb!’
“Jesus laughs and plays, kicking His feet out of the blankets, moving His arms happily in a typical childish style, so beautiful to see. He pushes His feet against His Mummy's stomach. He arches His back leaning His fair head on Her breast, and then throws Himself back and laughs, holding with His hands the laces that tie Mary's dress to Her neck, endeavoring to open it. …
“Mary nurses Him and Jesus avidly sucks His Mother's good milk, and when He feels that only a little is coming from Her right breast, He looks for the left one, laughing while doing so and looking up at His Mother. Then He falls asleep again on Her breast, His rosy round little cheek resting against Her white round breast.” (Vol 1, n. 35, p. 106).
An Adult with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies
Valtorta’s Jesus suspiciously displays ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies since he is constantly kissing and embracing the Apostles. When Jesus tells James of His approaching Passion, James reacts with great emotion. Jesus comforts him thus:
“’Come, I will kiss you thus, to help you forget the burden of My fate as Man. Here, I kiss your lips that will have to repeat My words to the people of Israel and your heart that will have to love as I told you, and there, on your temple, where life will cease.’ … They remain embraced for a long time and James seems to doze off in the joy of God's kisses that make him forget his suffering.”
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/ImagesA/A_042_Allegra.jpg)
Recently beatified Gabriel Allegra, a Teilhard de Chardin colleague, was a promoter of the Man-God Poem [Chardin was a condemned heretic naturalistic Pantheist and practitioner of witchcraft]
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.”
John begs Jesus not to tell the others of what has passed between them. Jesus replies, “Do not worry, John. No one will be aware of your wedding with the Love. Get dressed, come. We must leave.” (Vol. 2, n. 165, pp. 57-58)
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)
Like Luther, Mary thinks: Let us sin to be forgiven
Some passages are tantamount to heresy. For example, Valtorta presents the child Mary as expressing her desire to be a big sinner in order to merit the grace of Redemption:
“[Mary]: ‘Tell Me, mummy, can one be a sinner out of love of God?
“[Anne]: ‘What are you saying, my dear? I don't understand you.’
“[Mary]:’I mean: to commit a sin in order to be loved by God, Who becomes the Savior. Who is lost, is saved. Isn’t that so? I would like to be saved by the Savior to receive His loving look." (Vol. 1, n. 7, p. 23).
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)
These are some excerpts I offer to my readers to evaluate Valtorta’s work. I believe they are sufficient for the reader to make a judgment of the whole.
It is thus understandable that the Holy Office placed the work on the Index of Forbidden Books, which is reproduced below. It is also understandable that the Salesian Brother James concluded his critique of the first two volumes with these words: “Poem of the Man-God is so demonic that without a special grace from Our Lord Jesus, we could be deceived by the seemingly harmless statements by Valtorta’s Jesus, but they enclose lies and heresy, contrary to the teachings of One, Holy Catholic Church.”
*
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/ImagesA/A_042_Decree.jpg)
Supreme Congregation of
the Holy Office
Decree
Proscription of Books
Wednesday, December 16, 1959
The Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinals of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, to whom the safeguarding of things of the Faith and Moral is confided, after receiving the previous opinions of the Consultors, have unanimously condemned and ordered that the books by an anonymous author, in four volumes, be inscribed in the Index of Forbidden Books, the first of those books being:
Il Poema di Gesù [The Poem of Jesus] (Tipografia Editrice M. Pisani);
followed by,
Il Poema dell'Uomo-Dio [The Poem of the Man-God], (Ibidem).
On Friday of that same month and year, the Most Holy and Dignified Lord John XXIII, Pope by the grace of Divine Providence, in an audience given to the Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinal Secretary of the Holy Office, after hearing the report of the Most Reverend Fathers, approved this resolution and commanded that it be published.
Given in Rome, in the seat of the
Holy Office on January 5, 1960.
Sebastian Masala, Notary
-
It's been well-docuмented that Pope Pius XII loved the Poem of the Man-God and gave it his unqualified approval. It was placed on the Index and signed off on by John XXIII 12 years later, and the primary reason seems to be that the Holy Office got its knickers in a twist because it had been bypassed when Vatican officials funneled the book directly to Pope Pius for approval.
The Maria Valtorta website http://www.maria-valtorta.net (http://www.maria-valtorta.net) has extensive history and docuмentation of the controversy posted there.
-
MMD:
It's been well-docuмented that Pope Pius XII loved the Poem of the Man-God and gave it his unqualified approval. It was placed on the Index and signed off on by John XXIII 12 years later, and the primary reason seems to be that the Holy Office got its knickers in a twist because it had been bypassed when Vatican officials funneled the book directly to Pope Pius for approval.
Thanks for this little historical vignette. I honestly didn't know this. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for some righteous trad hovering about this forum, as many of them do, to produce quotes from Abp Lefebvre and Pius XII, to the effect that both repudiated. excoriated or otherwise shunned the woman. We know the good bishop recommends her highly. Now, one of you shining keyboard knights needs to come forward with proof that the other two esteemed clerics reputidated her and warned the faithful against her. BTW, unless one of you can produce, I plan in future posts to be thoroughly obnoxious. :wink:
-
I said:
I was thinking the same thing, Miserere, but that does not mean there's sufficient poison in Valtorta to stay well away.
Oops! I meant to say:
I was thinking the same thing, Miserere, but that does not mean there's NOT sufficient poison in Valtorta to stay well away.
-
... I'm still waiting for some righteous trad hovering about this forum, as many of them do, to produce quotes from Abp Lefebvre and Pius XII, to the effect that both repudiated. excoriated or otherwise shunned the woman. We know the good bishop recommends her highly. Now, one of you shining keyboard knights needs to come forward with proof that the other two esteemed clerics reputidated her and warned the faithful against her. BTW, unless one of you can produce, I plan in future posts to be thoroughly obnoxious. :wink:
I don't give a rat's behind if St. Pius X or an angel from heaven "recommended her highly"; this putrid blasphemous and heretical filth is the product of a disturbed mind and soul, and quite possibly of diabolical origin. Not until the full authority of the Church Magisterium would approve this will I accept this garbage ... and I assure you that this will not happen. Even the Novus Ordo's Father Mitch Pacwa, of EWTN fame, denounced the work as blasphemous and heretical.
And stop the arrogant self-righteous "righteous trad" comments. I will maintain that you have a deeply disturbed spirituality if you consider this work to be good and wholesome and true.
Bishop Williamson is known to be excessively credulous vis-a-vis private revelation ... as evidenced by his long-standing support for the epic failure known as Garabandal.
Sufficiently obnoxious for you, self-righteous pseudo-trad?
Despite your appeal to "two esteemed clerics", the last authoritative position of the Church on this subject was uananimous condemnation by the Holy Office. That's above the private opinion of any person, even that of Pius XII (his non-authentic opinion means absolutely nothing).
-
then I guess I'm going to have to say, along with Mr. Aikins, that the alleged endorsements of these clerics are enough for me too. Have a nice day! :furtive:
Then you are a lunatic and disturbed, "along with Mr. Akins"; how does the endorsement of clerics trump the condemnation by the Holy Office?
-
Since this book was on the Index, it is furthermore YOUR burden of proof to docuмent from primary sources, not anecdotal stories, the endorsement of these esteemed clerics. Bishop Williamson's opinion has been self-docuмented. What of the others? There are 10,000 people who claim apocryphal endorsements from Padre Pio, and 9,999 are made up.
-
There is a ring of truth to these words. Very terrifying, very heart-breaking. I think that when The Chastisement comes, it's going to be so much worse than anyone can imagine.
I was thinking the same thing, Miserere, but that does not mean there's sufficient poison in Valtorta to stay well away.
But even the passages in the OP have an air of banality and poor diction about them that disqualify them as true private revelation.
-
Words of Jesus to Maria Valtorta, excerpted from Notebooks, April 9, 1944:
“The Father is weary, and to cause the human race to perish He will let the punishments of Hell be unleashed.”…..
So the Father is "weary"? And the Father will "cause the human race to perish"? That's contrary to Catholics Tradition concerning The Last Things.
“I would like to come a second time to die to save them from an even more atrocious death… but the Father does not allow this… He knows it would be useless… Oh, if only men were still able to turn to Me, who am salvation!”…
So the will of Jesus and the Father are not completely in line, with the Two having differing opinions on the matter? And was not the Passion of Our Lord of INFINITE value so that there would be no need whatsoever for Him to do it again?
Reminding Maria of a Dictation from June 5, 1943: “You would like Me to appear and show Myself…But, even if I showed Myself, where is that residue of faith and respect in hearts which would make them bend with their faces to the ground to ask Me for forgiveness and mercy?”…
Just weird imagery here: "residue of faith and respect in hearts" (what does that mean?) and "bend with their faces to the ground to ask Me for forgiveness"? That's an extremely weird contorted body posture.
“I repeat what I have said a thousand times- the great sinners exist because the mass is all more or less guilty of the same sins as they are…”
So "the mass is all more or less guilty"? What is this "mass"?
"Nothing is impossible for Me as God, But it is the hour of the power of Darkness. And men have spontaneously wanted it. The kingdom of Evil is already established. Anything I were to do would be rendered null by man’s will. Any Good would be destroyed by Evil...
How can anything Our Lord could do be "rendered null" and "good destroyed by evil"?
“I impotently witness all humanity’s race towards spiritual death.
Jesus impotent?
There is no gift, benefit, call, or punishment by Me that will serve to arrest this spontaneous shipwreck in Satan of mankind, redeemed by Me. Like an enraged bull, humanity is demolishing everything: reason, morality, and faith, and it is heading for a crash against what slays it. The profaning hand of man rises up for a new crime which does not deserve forgiveness.
Stupid banal imagery and metaphor.
And the Father does not want to forgive.
You're kidding me, right, that God "does not want to forgive"?
He lets you perish as you have wanted to.
“The only thing I can do and do- and I do it out of mercy on the saints, who, as rare as flowers in the desert, still pray; they pray, not making an avowal of custom and hypocrisy- is to hold back the wrath of My Father, who, weary of the crimes of a race for which my Blood has been shed to no avail, goes on wanting and wanting to apply Justice to you.
Absurd babbling. God "goes on wanting and wanting to apply Justice to you"? What's stopping God from doing so?
And justice, since you are blameworthy, would mean tremendous punishments which my Mercy does not want to be added to those you cause yourselves by your own.
“Maria, I know I am wounding and demoralizing you. You had hoped for joy from my Easter. Roses after thorns. Smiles after tears. You are a victim. The thorns and tears remain even in the time of Easter, for it is necessary to stay on the cross for the sake of this perverse humanity…..”
"Maria, I know I am wounding and demoralizing you. ... Roses after thorns. Smiles after tears." My 10-year-old can write better than this. Banal and stupid, from beginning to end.
-
Ladislaus, please shut up! :rolleyes:
-
Now, now boys........can't we imagine some of this strange writing? Perhaps when we are imagining the sincerely good intentions of the conciliar popes................ :facepalm:
-
Ladislaus, please shut up! :rolleyes:
Is that the best you can come up with to defend Maria?
-
No one can possibly read the excerpts that Nadir posted below and still promote this filth, or believe that our Savior speaks and acts thus.
From Tradition in Action: Valtorta's Poem of the Man-God (http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_042_Valtorta.htm)
Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
Book review of Peom of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta, 10 volumes, online edition
A friend recently sent me an e-mail asking about Maria Valtorta and her Poem of the Man-God. She received a recent issue of Kyrie Eleison comments of Bishop Richard Williamson titled “Home Reading” (October 20, 2012). In it, he recommends parents read selected chapters of the Poem of the Man-God to children every night.
He admits the Poem is controversial and has many enemies, but he defends Valtorta’s massive tome (4,000 pages in 10 volumes of supposed visions she received of the life of Christ). The Bishop supports it, despite the objections he lists: that it is riddled with doctrinal errors, that it humanizes Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that the work was placed on the Church’s Index of Forbidden Books in the 1950s.
He lightly dismisses all the arguments against it and concludes children will learn much about Our Lord and Our Lady from the Poem, which “will fortify a home.”
“I have not read this book,” my friend continues, “but, for Heaven’s sake, why didn’t Bishop W. recommend reading the wonderful, approved, written-by-a-canonized saint 4-volume City of God by Mother Mary of Agreda? But that is beside the point. I really do wish to know if you approve of the Poem of the Man-God. Even the title upsets my Catholic sensibilities.”
A humanized Christ
I believe my friend should follow her good Catholic sense. The very title, the Man-God , expresses the spirit of the work. It is Jesus as a man that Valtorta presents: a babe suckling greedily at his Mother’s breasts, a youth hardly aware of Who He is, a Man who laughs and jokes with His Apostles and is constantly kissing them on the mouth and embracing them closely. Yes, at the least, it is difficult not to suspect this showy Jesus pictured in such way as having ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies.
Valtorta’s natural approach is supposed to attract the modern man to the Life of Christ. It is in tune with the progressivist doctrine that tries to deny the supernatural and instead presents Our Lady as a simple Jєωιѕн woman and focuses on Our Lord as being a man “like us.” As Atila Guimaraes points out in Animus Injuriandi I, the progressivist Church aims to de-mythify and de-supernaturalize Christ and His Mother under the guise of presenting a natural “historical” Christ and Mary.” I believe Valtorta’s Jesus and Mary fit this mold.
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/ImagesA/A_042_Jesus.jpg)
An illustration of Valtorta's Jesus, a somewhat occult figure with a magnetic gaze
Valtorta’s Man-God depiction is the opposite of the God-Man portrayed by Anne Catherine Emmerich and Ven. Mary of Agreda, whose life of Christ is presented from an elevated, supernatural vantage point. One cannot help but wonder why the traditionalist Bishop would not recommend these works, instead of the Valtorta tomes, which were officially condemned by the Holy Office and placed on the Index in December 1959 and defined by L’Osservatore Romano of January 6,1960 as “a badly fictionalized life of Jesus.”
After Vatican II, Paul VI abolished the Index of Forbidden Books, and Valtorta’s supporters claim this nullifies the suppression of 1959. Unfortunately, the official position of the Church today is less than clear, with important Prelates and Catholic figures on both sides of the issue. Obviously, the progressivists, almost to the man, defend it.
The Poem of the Man-God, I believe, is riddled with banalities, vulgarities, blasphemies and even doctrinal errors. There are endless idle conversations between Our Lord, Our Lady and the Apostles, all on a natural level. I think the best way to confirm these points is simply to cite some texts, which are so revolting that they speak for themselves.
The quotes that follow are taken from an online edition of The Poem of the Man-God. A 48-page critique written in the 1980s – when the Poem’s popularity surged for a period, as it seems to be resurging now – by a Salesian, Brother James, S.D.B., can be read in its entirety here.
An Infant conceived with original sin
Valtorta portrays the Christ Child as a greedy infant of a sentimental Mother. It is difficult to find the respect we owe to Our Lord Jesus Christ in this imaginary immodest description of a nursing scene:
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/ImagesA/A_042_Mary.jpg)
The Man-God presents a naturalistic view of Our Lady and the Christ Child
“Jesus opens His eyes, sees His Mother and smiles and stretches His little hands toward Her breast.
“[Mary] ‘Yes, love of Your Mummy. Yes. Your milk. Before the usual time. But You are always ready to suck Your Mummy's breast, My little holy Lamb!’
“Jesus laughs and plays, kicking His feet out of the blankets, moving His arms happily in a typical childish style, so beautiful to see. He pushes His feet against His Mummy's stomach. He arches His back leaning His fair head on Her breast, and then throws Himself back and laughs, holding with His hands the laces that tie Mary's dress to Her neck, endeavoring to open it. …
“Mary nurses Him and Jesus avidly sucks His Mother's good milk, and when He feels that only a little is coming from Her right breast, He looks for the left one, laughing while doing so and looking up at His Mother. Then He falls asleep again on Her breast, His rosy round little cheek resting against Her white round breast.” (Vol 1, n. 35, p. 106).
An Adult with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies
Valtorta’s Jesus suspiciously displays ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies since he is constantly kissing and embracing the Apostles. When Jesus tells James of His approaching Passion, James reacts with great emotion. Jesus comforts him thus:
“’Come, I will kiss you thus, to help you forget the burden of My fate as Man. Here, I kiss your lips that will have to repeat My words to the people of Israel and your heart that will have to love as I told you, and there, on your temple, where life will cease.’ … They remain embraced for a long time and James seems to doze off in the joy of God's kisses that make him forget his suffering.”
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/ImagesA/A_042_Allegra.jpg)
Recently beatified Gabriel Allegra, a Teilhard de Chardin colleague, was a promoter of the Man-God Poem [Chardin was a condemned heretic naturalistic Pantheist and practitioner of witchcraft]
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.”
John begs Jesus not to tell the others of what has passed between them. Jesus replies, “Do not worry, John. No one will be aware of your wedding with the Love. Get dressed, come. We must leave.” (Vol. 2, n. 165, pp. 57-58)
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)
Like Luther, Mary thinks: Let us sin to be forgiven
Some passages are tantamount to heresy. For example, Valtorta presents the child Mary as expressing her desire to be a big sinner in order to merit the grace of Redemption:
“[Mary]: ‘Tell Me, mummy, can one be a sinner out of love of God?
“[Anne]: ‘What are you saying, my dear? I don't understand you.’
“[Mary]:’I mean: to commit a sin in order to be loved by God, Who becomes the Savior. Who is lost, is saved. Isn’t that so? I would like to be saved by the Savior to receive His loving look." (Vol. 1, n. 7, p. 23).
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)
These are some excerpts I offer to my readers to evaluate Valtorta’s work. I believe they are sufficient for the reader to make a judgment of the whole.
It is thus understandable that the Holy Office placed the work on the Index of Forbidden Books, which is reproduced below. It is also understandable that the Salesian Brother James concluded his critique of the first two volumes with these words: “Poem of the Man-God is so demonic that without a special grace from Our Lord Jesus, we could be deceived by the seemingly harmless statements by Valtorta’s Jesus, but they enclose lies and heresy, contrary to the teachings of One, Holy Catholic Church.”
*
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/ImagesA/A_042_Decree.jpg)
Supreme Congregation of
the Holy Office
Decree
Proscription of Books
Wednesday, December 16, 1959
The Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinals of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, to whom the safeguarding of things of the Faith and Moral is confided, after receiving the previous opinions of the Consultors, have unanimously condemned and ordered that the books by an anonymous author, in four volumes, be inscribed in the Index of Forbidden Books, the first of those books being:
Il Poema di Gesù [The Poem of Jesus] (Tipografia Editrice M. Pisani);
followed by,
Il Poema dell'Uomo-Dio [The Poem of the Man-God], (Ibidem).
On Friday of that same month and year, the Most Holy and Dignified Lord John XXIII, Pope by the grace of Divine Providence, in an audience given to the Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinal Secretary of the Holy Office, after hearing the report of the Most Reverend Fathers, approved this resolution and commanded that it be published.
Given in Rome, in the seat of the
Holy Office on January 5, 1960.
Sebastian Masala, Notary
-
Nadir:
Is that the best you can come up with to defend Maria?
It was not a defense of Maria. this thread was not initiated as a defense of Maria; nor do I care to turn it into one. But as was requested earlier, I am still waiting for a condemnation of her works by either Pius XII or Abp. Lefebvre. I've heard a lot of vituperation spewing forth from the keyboards of righteous voluble trads, but, thus far anyway, no quotes from either of the illustrious clerics mentioned.
-
Ladislaus, please shut up! :rolleyes:
Aww.
(http://www.thenerdpocalypse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ImaCryingBaby.jpg)
-
Words of Jesus to Maria Valtorta, excerpted from Notebooks, April 9, 1944:
“The Father is weary, and to cause the human race to perish He will let the punishments of Hell be unleashed.”…..
So the Father is "weary"? And the Father will "cause the human race to perish"? That's contrary to Catholics Tradition concerning The Last Things.
“I would like to come a second time to die to save them from an even more atrocious death… but the Father does not allow this… He knows it would be useless… Oh, if only men were still able to turn to Me, who am salvation!”…
So the will of Jesus and the Father are not completely in line, with the Two having differing opinions on the matter? And was not the Passion of Our Lord of INFINITE value so that there would be no need whatsoever for Him to do it again?
Reminding Maria of a Dictation from June 5, 1943: “You would like Me to appear and show Myself…But, even if I showed Myself, where is that residue of faith and respect in hearts which would make them bend with their faces to the ground to ask Me for forgiveness and mercy?”…
Just weird imagery here: "residue of faith and respect in hearts" (what does that mean?) and "bend with their faces to the ground to ask Me for forgiveness"? That's an extremely weird contorted body posture.
“I repeat what I have said a thousand times- the great sinners exist because the mass is all more or less guilty of the same sins as they are…”
So "the mass is all more or less guilty"? What is this "mass"?
"Nothing is impossible for Me as God, But it is the hour of the power of Darkness. And men have spontaneously wanted it. The kingdom of Evil is already established. Anything I were to do would be rendered null by man’s will. Any Good would be destroyed by Evil...
How can anything Our Lord could do be "rendered null" and "good destroyed by evil"?
“I impotently witness all humanity’s race towards spiritual death.
Jesus impotent?
There is no gift, benefit, call, or punishment by Me that will serve to arrest this spontaneous shipwreck in Satan of mankind, redeemed by Me. Like an enraged bull, humanity is demolishing everything: reason, morality, and faith, and it is heading for a crash against what slays it. The profaning hand of man rises up for a new crime which does not deserve forgiveness.
Stupid banal imagery and metaphor.
And the Father does not want to forgive.
You're kidding me, right, that God "does not want to forgive"?
He lets you perish as you have wanted to.
“The only thing I can do and do- and I do it out of mercy on the saints, who, as rare as flowers in the desert, still pray; they pray, not making an avowal of custom and hypocrisy- is to hold back the wrath of My Father, who, weary of the crimes of a race for which my Blood has been shed to no avail, goes on wanting and wanting to apply Justice to you.
Absurd babbling. God "goes on wanting and wanting to apply Justice to you"? What's stopping God from doing so?
And justice, since you are blameworthy, would mean tremendous punishments which my Mercy does not want to be added to those you cause yourselves by your own.
“Maria, I know I am wounding and demoralizing you. You had hoped for joy from my Easter. Roses after thorns. Smiles after tears. You are a victim. The thorns and tears remain even in the time of Easter, for it is necessary to stay on the cross for the sake of this perverse humanity…..”
"Maria, I know I am wounding and demoralizing you. ... Roses after thorns. Smiles after tears." My 10-year-old can write better than this. Banal and stupid, from beginning to end.
You're right, the language is plain terrible.
Just compare it with the Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden for example, which are highly edifying and elevated in tone, unlike this thing.
-
Just a word about how the Church deals with private revelation as a whole without getting into further details. Per the CCC,
"Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations"."
-
Ladislaus, please shut up! :rolleyes:
Oh, my. Really?
Why not "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" or "I know you are, but what am I?"
-
Some passages of this filthy work remind one of nothing so much as the execrable blasphemies of Nikos Kazantsakis. He too, has a richly deserved place on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
-
PerE:
No one can possibly read the excerpts that Nadir posted below and still promote this filth, or believe that our Savior speaks and acts thus.
The 'shining lights' on Cathinfo' imply that Bp. Williamson, Pius XII and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre promoted this "filth." Because to date, no one has come forward with proof that they didn't. H.E., the Archbishop, and the last of the pre-Conciliar popes apparently liked what Valtorta wrote. But PerE, Nadir, Ladislaus and other loquacious trad experts say terrible things about the poor woman. I'm so confused! Not really though.. just somewhat amused. :jester:
-
PerE: No one can possibly read the excerpts that Nadir posted below and still promote this filth, or believe that our Savior speaks and acts thus.
The 'shining lights' on Cathinfo' imply that Bp. Williamson, Pius XII and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre promoted this "filth." Because to date, no one has come forward with proof that they didn't. H.E., the Archbishop, and the last of the pre-Conciliar popes apparently liked what Valtorta wrote. But PerE, Nadir, Ladislaus and other loquacious trad experts say terrible things about the poor woman. I'm so confused! Not really though.. just somewhat amused. :jester:
So what? It means only that Pope Pius XII, Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre were in error on this specific issue. The idea that Jesus' efforts are being somewhat thwarted is completely heretical - Satan can do only as much as God allows him to, he can't go one inch further. It is actually the same error which exposes (among many other heresies) the falsehood of Maria Divine Mercy - in one of her messages Jesus allegedly said that "every attempt by Him to intervene to save sinners is thwarted by the evil one" - blasphemy.
-
Arvinger:
So what? It means only that Pope Pius XII, Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre were in error on this specific issue.
Well, of course they were. How silly of me not to realize immediately that the collective wisdom of faceless Cathinfo Illuminati must trump the positive affirmations of the better known three. :roll-laugh2:
-
The Holy City of God by Mary of Agreda was once on the Index. Sr Faustina's Divine Mercy book was put on the Index the same day as Maria Valtorta's book. The Poem of the Man-God has since received formal Imprimaturs from Bishop Roman Danylak, Titular bishop of Nyssa, in 2001 for the English translation, and previously Archbishop Soosa Pakiam M. of Trivandrum, India, granted an Imprimatur for the Malayalam translation of Poem of the Man-God in 1992.
It is insanely presumptuous for someone to howl like a possessed madman about imaginary "filth" in such a work under these circuмstances. The lack of respect is appalling, and suggests TROLLING.
-
The Poem of the Man-God has since received formal Imprimaturs from Bishop Roman Danylak, Titular bishop of Nyssa, in 2001 for the English translation, and previously Archbishop Soosa Pakiam M. of Trivandrum, India, granted an Imprimatur for the Malayalam translation of Poem of the Man-God in 1992.
So two Novus Ordo Bishops approved of it. That should mean nothing to anyone who posts on this forum. At least the argument that Bishop Williamson approves of it has weight among traditional Catholics.
-
Ladislaus, please shut up! :rolleyes:
I'll shut up only if you do. So long as you continue promoting this blasphemous and heretical insult against Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother, I will do no such thing.
-
The 'shining lights' on Cathinfo' imply that Bp. Williamson, Pius XII and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre promoted this "filth." Because to date, no one has come forward with proof that they didn't.
It's not for us to prove a negative, jester. You have not proven that Pius XII or +Lefebvre approved of it. +Williamson's promotion of Valtorta is well known. So the burden of proof is, firstly, on you, and, secondly, even if Pius XII and +Lefebvre did promote it, I don't change my mind for a second; they got it wrong. Pius XII also approved "Maria Esperanza". Look it up. And Pius XII would have approved it as a private person, whereas the Holy Office put it on the Index as an act of the Church's authority, which trumps the opinion of Pacelli.
-
Arvinger: So what? It means only that Pope Pius XII, Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre were in error on this specific issue.
Well, of course they were. How silly of me not to realize immediately that the collective wisdom of faceless Cathinfo Illuminati must trump the positive affirmations of the better known three. :roll-laugh2:
Idiot.
-
PerE: No one can possibly read the excerpts that Nadir posted below and still promote this filth, or believe that our Savior speaks and acts thus.
The 'shining lights' on Cathinfo' imply that Bp. Williamson, Pius XII and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre promoted this "filth." Because to date, no one has come forward with proof that they didn't. H.E., the Archbishop, and the last of the pre-Conciliar popes apparently liked what Valtorta wrote. But PerE, Nadir, Ladislaus and other loquacious trad experts say terrible things about the poor woman. I'm so confused! Not really though.. just somewhat amused. :jester:
:confused1:
I'm certainly no 'shining light', but I am surprised at this entire argument, H.
I understand your penchant for humor, so perhaps this is some kind of joke? I'm not being sarcastic, just trying to make sense of your odd reasoning. This seems to be all about the non infallible thoughts of 3 people (holy people, yes, but...) vs.
1. Condemnation of the Holy Office (which supercedes the private opinions of the 3 cited)
2. Your own (what I thought was well developed) Sensus Catholicus - have you read just some of the excerpts? That should be enough for you.
Honestly, I don't understand this whole rigamarole on your part. Is it pride driven, because now it's difficult to walk back insults and mockery of other good Catholics here because they have read this awful work and align with the Church in condemnation? It appears that you are very much enjoying that.
-
It is insanely presumptuous for someone to howl like a possessed madman about imaginary "filth" in such a work under these circuмstances. The lack of respect is appalling, and suggests TROLLING.
1. You obviously have not read it and the innumerable dissections of the work and this woman's mental condition, or you could not possibly defend it or insult those of us who have. The 'lack of respect' is, ironically, your ignorance causing grave insult to Our Lord and His holy Mother.
2. You use modernist approval to support it, along with citing Divine Mercy garbage. That says it all and where your mindset is. I'm curious why are you on a traditional forum?
-
I find it very difficult to believe that you wordy trads, most of whom, I believe, are now, apparently, somewhat aligned with Bp. Williamson and the newest bishop, Bp. Faure, can continue to trust and follow these two honored clerics. Because Bp. Williamson does not only recommend her writings highly, he encourages folks to reread her works over an over again. You are the same 'shining ones' who went off on the "seer," when H.E. spoke positively and affirmatively of her visions in a fairly recent EC. It appears now, that whenever these "resistance" bishops say anything of potential substance in the future, we'll have to check back with a bevy of all-knowing Cathinfo trads, to see if their Episcopal declarations pass muster. Some of you, IMO, are turning into a joke. :stare:
-
Please can you address my questions and 2 points?
Your last comment underscores my thought that this is more about jabbing forum members than anything else.
-
The 'shining lights' on Cathinfo' imply that Bp. Williamson, Pius XII and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre promoted this "filth." Because to date, no one has come forward with proof that they didn't.
It's not for us to prove a negative, jester. You have not proven that Pius XII or +Lefebvre approved of it. +Williamson's promotion of Valtorta is well known. So the burden of proof is, firstly, on you, and, secondly, even if Pius XII and +Lefebvre did promote it, I don't change my mind for a second; they got it wrong. Pius XII also approved "Maria Esperanza". Look it up. And Pius XII would have approved it as a private person, whereas the Holy Office put it on the Index as an act of the Church's authority, which trumps the opinion of Pacelli.
This is becoming quite humorous. Remember, Pacelli performed the hatchet job on Father Coughlin, and never forget that he promoted and approved Bugnini and his meddling with the liturgy.
There it is.........
I truly find it unsettling that the prelates and priests who are supposed to lead us out of this crisis, often base their thinking upon unusual visions, odd visionaries, constant imaginings and the presumption of good will, and the sincere ignorance of wicked and evil men when there is sound Church dogma and doctrine to rely upon as a guide.
-
Hollingsworth, shame on you for trying to actually defend that vile heretic Maria Valtorta.
In Poem of a Man-God, she details Our Lord in ways that are beneath even the authors of the тαℓмυd. You are wasting your time trying to make any sort of defense for her disgusting anti-Christ opuses - all of which are better off in a public book-burning rather than the eyes of any Catholic on Earth.
-
I find it very difficult to believe that you wordy trads, most of whom, I believe, are now, apparently, somewhat aligned with Bp. Williamson and the newest bishop, Bp. Faure, can continue to trust and follow these two honored clerics. Because Bp. Williamson does not only recommend her writings highly, he encourages folks to reread her works over an over again. You are the same 'shining ones' who went off on the "seer," when H.E. spoke positively and affirmatively of her visions in a fairly recent EC. It appears now, that whenever these "resistance" bishops say anything of potential substance in the future, we'll have to check back with a bevy of all-knowing Cathinfo trads, to see if their Episcopal declarations pass muster. Some of you, IMO, are turning into a joke. :stare:
Supporting someone overall does not mean agreeing with absolutely every opinion and position of theirs. We are not a CULT. How difficult is that to understand? No, we are not the joke; you're just a complete buffoon.
-
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/VALTORTA.TXT
Good overview here.
Evidence for Pius XII's approval is very weak at best, based on a second-hand report from a biased source ... and even the reported comment is extremely vague.
-
PerE: No one can possibly read the excerpts that Nadir posted below and still promote this filth, or believe that our Savior speaks and acts thus.
The 'shining lights' on Cathinfo' imply that Bp. Williamson, Pius XII and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre promoted this "filth." Because to date, no one has come forward with proof that they didn't. H.E., the Archbishop, and the last of the pre-Conciliar popes apparently liked what Valtorta wrote. But PerE, Nadir, Ladislaus and other loquacious trad experts say terrible things about the poor woman. I'm so confused! Not really though.. just somewhat amused. :jester:
:confused1:
I'm certainly no 'shining light', but I am surprised at this entire argument, H.
I understand your penchant for humor, so perhaps this is some kind of joke? I'm not being sarcastic, just trying to make sense of your odd reasoning. This seems to be all about the non infallible thoughts of 3 people (holy people, yes, but...) vs.
1. Condemnation of the Holy Office (which supercedes the private opinions of the 3 cited)
2. Your own (what I thought was well developed) Sensus Catholicus - have you read just some of the excerpts? That should be enough for you.
Honestly, I don't understand this whole rigamarole on your part. Is it pride driven, because now it's difficult to walk back insults and mockery of other good Catholics here because they have read this awful work and align with the Church in condemnation? It appears that you are very much enjoying that.
Excellent post, PER! You've summed up the situation here very well. I too thought that H was a reasonably sensible poster, but there is something amiss here.
Ladi, too, has hit the nail on the head. It is up to Hollingsworth to provide the evidence of the approval of the A+ etc. So far he's produced nothing of any value in the discussion.
-
Interesting that those who castigate others for being unable to resist the personality cult of +Fellay fall into the same trap with +Williamson, hopping from one to another.
-
Here we are not one week out of Good Friday and Easter, and so much energy spent on personal revelations of Maria Valtorta.
What a complete and utter waste of time. No thanks to Hollingsworth for starting it. None of us has to read it, of course, but still it is disappointing the meaninglessness of the woman's writings has caught so much attention for so long.
I am a convert, so personal revelations are something new to me of sorts. I refuse to consider a seer to be a victim of any means of the word. She is a sinner just like everyone else, so when I read that this or that person has a special word from God that we all must know about, I am suspicious and admit it, all or most others who have read such writings must at some time have been dubious also at some time or the other, when reading writings couched in a chummy vernacular.
Our Blessed Lord, I hope, will forgive me, but I personally have not the time to consider such manner of revelation to be true or not and for the building of the faith, there is too much out there to help me without muddling up my mind with private revelation taken public. Even with validation of a bishop, pope, or whomever, there is too much room for pride to enter in to such writings. "Look at me, God has sent me a message for all of you to read". I don't mean to mock all revelation, forgive me for seeming to do so, but really, folks, considering the crisis in the Church, perhaps private revelation like the Man God poem is better left private for those who want to take the time to indulge in it, but please, don't try to cram it down our throats. It is a distraction.
("Father is weary..."? Really??
-
Nickolas:
Our Blessed Lord, I hope, will forgive me, but I personally have not the time to consider such manner of revelation to be true or not and for the building of the faith, there is too much out there to help me without muddling up my mind with private revelation taken public.
Nicklolas, you had enough time to compose this post, and numbers of others besides. Surely you could carve out a little time to look more deeply into the revelation.
Even with validation of a bishop, pope, or whomever, there is too much room for pride to enter in to such writings. "Look at me, God has sent me a message for all of you to read".
Ah, so you're saying that Maria wrote out of pride? Did you get this from ladislaus?
I don't mean to mock all revelation, forgive me for seeming to do so, but really, folks, considering the crisis in the Church, perhaps private revelation like the Man God poem is better left private for those who want to take the time to indulge in it, but please, don't try to cram it down our throats. It is a distraction.
Am I trying to cram Maria Valtorta down anyone's throat? It's the Cathinfo illuminati who have kept this thread alive for so many pages. They've made me feel so bad in the process that I'll probably have only one helping at dinner tonight. Meanwhile, Nickolas, I don't want to be the one who distracts you from paying full attention to the "crisis in the Church." :laugh1:
-
Hollingsworth, this is a forum, after all, not your blog. Let those who disagree with you do so and move on. Have the humility to know that people may not agree with you and that's OK. Nothing personal to you, so don't let it be with you.
-
Nothing can replace the sacrifice of the Cross. No devotion, not even to the Blessed Virgin, can replace the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Indeed, the Blessed Virgin encourages us to come to the cross; she is always present there. -- Archbishop Lefebvre
-
I find it very difficult to believe that you wordy trads, most of whom, I believe, are now, apparently, somewhat aligned with Bp. Williamson and the newest bishop, Bp. Faure, can continue to trust and follow these two honored clerics. Because Bp. Williamson does not only recommend her writings highly, he encourages folks to reread her works over an over again. You are the same 'shining ones' who went off on the "seer," when H.E. spoke positively and affirmatively of her visions in a fairly recent EC. It appears now, that whenever these "resistance" bishops say anything of potential substance in the future, we'll have to check back with a bevy of all-knowing Cathinfo trads, to see if their Episcopal declarations pass muster. Some of you, IMO, are turning into a joke. :stare:
Is shrill, histrionic, irrational hyperbole really the tack you want to take in defending this prohibited work? Because you (and the other person throwing Novus Ordo imprimaturs around) really ought to realize that it only further damages your already irreparably damaged cause.
The placement of the book on the index, as well as the books own manifest objective heresies and blasphemies speak louder than the private, fallible "recommendations" of three or four people, no matter how holy they might be. One needn't be "all-knowing" to accept that very simple fact.
-
“No fault is so great that it is not amenable to Redemption; no memory of past sins or blame should be an obstacle to our advancing in Goodness, and we must not offend the good Lord by thinking that He is so little a Father, as to be more of a Judge than a Saviour.” –Maria Valtorta -
It's interesting how things work. A couple days ago, I innocently posted a passage from the Easter writings of Maria Valtorta from her 1944 book entitled Notebooks. I was immediately set upon by members of what can only be described as the 'Cathinfo Illuminati.' They said terrible things about Maria and about me. So fierce was their assault that it kept me awake last night. I managed only 8 & 3/4 hours of sleep.
The next morning, after an hour or so of devotions and saying the Rosary, I went to the computer, downloaded a short reflection from Maria, and posted it above. I copied, also, a photo of this mystic as a beautiful young woman. I shall now take it to Walmart, get it enlarged, purchase a frame, then hang that image of the mystic on the wall alongside great saints like St. Rose, St. Bernadette, and St. John Vianni. Hereafter, as I stand in front of the woman's picture, I shall ask Maria Valtorta to pray for me and my loved ones. I shall ask her to pray that I may become as holy as I think she was.
Thank you BTNYC, ladislaus, Nadir and others for helping some of us to refocus deserved attention upon this wonderful woman.
-
A couple days ago, I innocently posted a passage from the Easter writings of Maria Valtorta from her 1944 book entitled Notebooks. I was immediately set upon by members of what can only be described as the 'Cathinfo Illuminati.'
Stop it already, you pathetic little drama queen. I simply responded with a two-word post; it's you who got your panties all knotted up about it. At no point have you ever attempted a defense of the contents of Valtorta's but continue on with your puerile ad hominems.
-
I copied, also, a photo of this mystic as a beautiful young woman. ... Hereafter, as I stand in front of the woman's picture, I shall ask Maria Valtorta to pray for me and my loved ones.
Better yet, put her picture under your pillow and periodically take it out during the night and continually kiss her image on the lips. That would be more apropos to her "spirituality".
-
I shall now take it to Walmart, get it enlarged, purchase a frame, then hang that image of the mystic on the wall ...
You don't have much of a life, do you?
-
False locutions.
My vicious attack in the second post of this thread.
-
I don't think I've ever read such an immature, petulant comment on Cathinfo, and that's saying something.
More so, all your comments in this thread H are saturated in pride and reveling in nastiness. There were no honest responses, no civil discussion, no answering questions, but lots of illogical hyperbole. You sound like a man possessed.
They say that like attracts like, so you will enjoy your new picture in your present state of mind.
btw, there was nothing 'innocent' in your motive to begin this topic. You revealed your intent in every sarcastic evasive retort.
-
Bishop Williamson is doing harm to souls by encouraging people to read this crap. Pick up Emmerich or Agreda instead.
-
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/VALTORTA.TXT
Good overview here.
Evidence for Pius XII's approval is very weak at best, based on a second-hand report from a biased source ... and even the reported comment is extremely vague.
How dare you cite the disgusting Novus Ordo filth of EWTN as a credible authority in this respectable intellectual debate?
-
How dare you cite the disgusting Novus Ordo filth of EWTN as a credible authority in this respectable intellectual debate?
A Novus Ordo imprimatur is worthless (i.e., the bishop is in union with a false church, is possibly invalidly consecrated and much of the time isn't even Catholic), while a Novus Ordo website might have some good information. Understand the difference?
-
It seems to me that the hysterical remarks on this thread excoriating Maria Valtorta are almost certainly nothing more than a hatchet job aimed at Bishop Williamson. These people are accusing H.E. of promoting "disgusting heretical filth," and not being terribly subtle about it. I guess they know better than to try playing the "h0Ɩ0cαųst denier" card on this forum, so they've gleefully adopted this tactic instead.
-
How dare you cite the disgusting Novus Ordo filth of EWTN as a credible authority in this respectable intellectual debate?
A Novus Ordo imprimatur is worthless (i.e., the bishop is in union with a false church, is possibly invalidly consecrated and much of the time isn't even Catholic), while a Novus Ordo website might have some good information. Understand the difference?
There's a little more at play here. Mary Agreda's City of God was once placed on the Index. It was subsequently removed. Because the Index was abolished by the Conciliar Church, however, that cannot happen to The Poem of the Man-God. One of your crew overplayed his hand when he declared that the Church never subsequently approved of The Poem, yet when I cited Imprimaturs, your camp argues that they don't count because they were issued by Novus Ordo bishops. On the other hand, Bishop Williamson's de facto Imprimatur doesn't count either, because he is promoting heretical filth.
You can't have it both ways and remain intellectually honest.
-
It seems to me that the hysterical remarks on this thread excoriating Maria Valtorta are almost certainly nothing more than a hatchet job aimed at Bishop Williamson. These people are accusing H.E. of promoting "disgusting heretical filth," and not being terribly subtle about it. I guess they know better than to try playing the "h0Ɩ0cαųst denier" card on this forum, so they've gleefully adopted this tactic instead.
"Hysterical remarks" like... oh... say, terming your opponents "illuminati," or now (tacitly) crypto-Jews working their way around making accusations of "h0Ɩ0cαųst denial?"
Enough with this hyperbole, please. The objectionable passages of the work are known and have been cited. If we are wrong about them, then correct us. If you're so invested in defending this prohibited book, then stop wasting everyone's time with effeminate displays of emotion and catty ad hominems and start actually defending it.
-
MMD:
It seems to me that the hysterical remarks on this thread excoriating Maria Valtorta are almost certainly nothing more than a hatchet job aimed at Bishop Williamson. These people are accusing H.E. of promoting "disgusting heretical filth," and not being terribly subtle about it. I guess they know better than to try playing the "h0Ɩ0cαųst denier" card on this forum, so they've gleefully adopted this tactic instead.
Well, exactly! I could care less what ladislaus and the other thumbsuckers say about me. Their ultimate target is the bishop. It is a "hatchet job aimed at Bishop Williamson." You're right, MMD. The Cathinfo Illuminati accuse the bishop of promoting "disgusting heretical filth." :shocked:
As for the "h0Ɩ0cαųst denier:" Are you saying that these gentle souls would accuse H.E. online of being a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier, but that they dare not? Are you implying that they may be numbered among the Chosen, or, in any case, are very sympathetic to them? Gosh, I wish they would play that card. Then we could really have some fun. :jumping2:
-
Nothing can replace the sacrifice of the Cross. No devotion, not even to the Blessed Virgin, can replace the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Indeed, the Blessed Virgin encourages us to come to the cross; she is always present there. -- Archbishop Lefebvre
:cowboy:
Nobody is targeting anyone.
-
From Fr. Francois Laisney, SSPX, "Question and Answers," The Angelus, January, 1991: (my bolded emphasis)
What do you think of the Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta?
Answer: 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 a 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" (1Cor. 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)
-
MMD: It seems to me that the hysterical remarks on this thread excoriating Maria Valtorta are almost certainly nothing more than a hatchet job aimed at Bishop Williamson. These people are accusing H.E. of promoting "disgusting heretical filth," and not being terribly subtle about it. I guess they know better than to try playing the "h0Ɩ0cαųst denier" card on this forum, so they've gleefully adopted this tactic instead.
Well, exactly! I could care less what ladislaus and the other thumbsuckers say about me. Their ultimate target is the bishop. It is a "hatchet job aimed at Bishop Williamson." You're right, MMD. The Cathinfo Illuminati accuse the bishop of promoting "disgusting heretical filth." :shocked:
As for the "h0Ɩ0cαųst denier:" Are you saying that these gentle souls would accuse H.E. online of being a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier, but that they dare not? Are you implying that they may be numbered among the Chosen, or, in any case, are very sympathetic to them? Gosh, I wish they would play that card. Then we could really have some fun. :jumping2:
Hollingsworth - you're the fellow who passionately defended Michael Hoffman when his heresies and blasphemies were brought to light, aren't you?
Anyway, my post history with regard to Bishop Williamson and the Jews is an open matter of record around here. I happily invite you to peruse it and look for evidence that I am a member fo the Tribe, or in any way "sympathetic" to them. Perhaps you could compare notes with TheKnightVigilant, who considers me to be a rabidly anti-semitic "Islamophile" (and here I suppose would be the place for an emoticon of some kind, that is if I did not personally consider them asinine, infantile and effeminate).
While we're at it, I also invite you to address the objectionable passages from the "Poem of the Man God" and explain to us why we should not find them objectionable.
-
:incense:
From Fr. Francois Laisney, SSPX, "Question and Answers," The Angelus, January, 1991: (my bolded emphasis)
What do you think of the Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta?
Answer: 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 a 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" (1Cor. 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)
-
Medjagorje, Divine Mercy, maria Voltaire ?????
All banned.
Leviticus 20:6
“If a person turns to mediums and necromancers, whoring after them, I will set my face against that person and will cut him off from among his people.
Leviticus 19:31
“Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God.
Deuteronomy 18:10-13
There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the Lord your God,
1 John 4:1-3
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
-
I have in my possession a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre advising against their reading (it is still in my packed trunks!)
Oh really? That "statement" must still be in Fr. Laisney's trunks. I've never seen it. Have any of you?
-
I have in my possession a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre advising against their reading (it is still in my packed trunks!)
Oh really? That "statement" must still be in Fr. Laisney's trunks. I've never seen it. Have any of you?
tmw89:
--- Quote from: Bishop Williamson, "Eleison Comments" Issue CCLXXV - 275 (English) - 20 October 2012 ---HOME READING
When a while back these “Comments” advised readers to fortify their homes in case public bastions of the Faith might, due to the wickedness of the times, prove to be a thing of the past, a few readers wrote in to ask just how homes might be fortified. In fact various spiritual and material means of defending home and family have been suggested in previous numbers of the “Comments”, notably of course the Holy Rosary, but one fortification has gone unmentioned which I think I would try in place of television if I had a family to defend: reading aloud each night to the children selected chapters from Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. And when we had reached the end of the five volumes in English, I imagine us starting again from the beginning, and so on, until all the children had left home !
Yet the Poem has many and eloquent enemies. It consists of episodes from the lives of Our Lord and Our Lady, from her immaculate conception through to her assumption into Heaven, as seen in visions received, believably from Heaven, during the Second World War in northern Italy by Maria Valtorta, an unmarried woman of mature age lying in a sick-bed, permanently crippled from an injury to her back inflicted several years earlier. 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. Let us look at three main objections.
Firstly, 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. The reason given for the condemnation was the romanticizing and sentimentalizing of the Gospel events. Secondly the Poem is accused of countless doctrinal errors. 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.
But firstly, how could the modernists have taken over Rome in the 1960’s, as they did, had they not already been well established within Rome in the 1950’s ? The Poem, like the Gospels (e.g. Jn.XI, 35, etc.), is full of sentiment but always proportional to its object. The Poem is for any sane judge, in my opinion, neither sentimental nor romanticized. Secondly, the seeming doctrinal errors are not difficult to explain, one by one, as is done by a competent theologian in the notes to be found in the Italian edition of the Poem. And thirdly, with all due respect to Archbishop Lefebvre, I would argue that modern man needs the material detail for him to believe again in the reality of the Gospels. Has not too much “spirituality” kicked Our Lord upstairs, so to speak, while cinema and television have taken over modern man’s sense of reality on the ground floor ? As Our Lord was true man and true God, so the Poem is at every moment both fully spiritual and fully material.
From non-electronic reading of the Poem in the home, I can imagine many benefits, besides the real live contact between parents reading and children listening. Children soak in from their surroundings like sponges soak in water. From the reading of chapters of the Poem selected according to the children’s age, I can imagine almost no end to how much they could learn about Our Lord and Our Lady. And the questions they would ask ! And the answers that the parents would have to come up with ! I do believe the Poem could greatly fortify a home.
Kyrie eleison.
--- End quote ---
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=202.0
-
From Fr. Francois Laisney, SSPX, "Question and Answers," The Angelus, January, 1991: (my bolded emphasis)
What do you think of the Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta?
Answer: 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 a 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" (1Cor. 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)
This is the complete statement:
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?
Who is lost, is saved. Isn't that so? I would like to be saved by the Savior to receive His loving look. That is why I 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?
The second half of the statement puts it in context. And of course, here Our Lady is a very small child, and is speaking innocently. She has no desire to offend God. And then her parents gently correct her. By presenting only part of the statement out of context, the entire meaning is twisted to mean its opposite.
-
From Fr. Francois Laisney, SSPX, "Question and Answers," The Angelus, January, 1991: (my bolded emphasis)
What do you think of the Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta?
Answer: 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 a 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" (1Cor. 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)
This is the complete statement:
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?
Who is lost, is saved. Isn't that so? I would like to be saved by the Savior to receive His loving look. That is why I 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?
The second half of the statement puts it in context. And of course, here Our Lady is a very small child, and is speaking innocently. She has no desire to offend God. And then her parents gently correct her. By presenting only part of the statement out of context, the entire meaning is twisted to mean its opposite.
.
It was taken from the Angelus.
-
From Fr. Francois Laisney, SSPX, "Question and Answers," The Angelus, January, 1991: (my bolded emphasis)
What do you think of the Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta?
Answer: 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 a 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" (1Cor. 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)
This is the complete statement:
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?
Who is lost, is saved. Isn't that so? I would like to be saved by the Savior to receive His loving look. That is why I 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?
The second half of the statement puts it in context. And of course, here Our Lady is a very small child, and is speaking innocently. She has no desire to offend God. And then her parents gently correct her. By presenting only part of the statement out of context, the entire meaning is twisted to mean its opposite.
.
It was taken from the Angelus.
.
Also, it proves that Archbishop Lefebvre did not approve of the poem of the mangod.
-
I have in my possession a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre advising against their reading (it is still in my packed trunks!)
Oh really? That "statement" must still be in Fr. Laisney's trunks. I've never seen it. Have any of you?
tmw89:
--- Quote from: Bishop Williamson, "Eleison Comments" Issue CCLXXV - 275 (English) - 20 October 2012 ---HOME READING
When a while back these “Comments” advised readers to fortify their homes in case public bastions of the Faith might, due to the wickedness of the times, prove to be a thing of the past, a few readers wrote in to ask just how homes might be fortified. In fact various spiritual and material means of defending home and family have been suggested in previous numbers of the “Comments”, notably of course the Holy Rosary, but one fortification has gone unmentioned which I think I would try in place of television if I had a family to defend: reading aloud each night to the children selected chapters from Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. And when we had reached the end of the five volumes in English, I imagine us starting again from the beginning, and so on, until all the children had left home !
Yet the Poem has many and eloquent enemies. It consists of episodes from the lives of Our Lord and Our Lady, from her immaculate conception through to her assumption into Heaven, as seen in visions received, believably from Heaven, during the Second World War in northern Italy by Maria Valtorta, an unmarried woman of mature age lying in a sick-bed, permanently crippled from an injury to her back inflicted several years earlier. 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. Let us look at three main objections.
Firstly, 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. The reason given for the condemnation was the romanticizing and sentimentalizing of the Gospel events. Secondly the Poem is accused of countless doctrinal errors. 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.
But firstly, how could the modernists have taken over Rome in the 1960’s, as they did, had they not already been well established within Rome in the 1950’s ? The Poem, like the Gospels (e.g. Jn.XI, 35, etc.), is full of sentiment but always proportional to its object. The Poem is for any sane judge, in my opinion, neither sentimental nor romanticized. Secondly, the seeming doctrinal errors are not difficult to explain, one by one, as is done by a competent theologian in the notes to be found in the Italian edition of the Poem. And thirdly, with all due respect to Archbishop Lefebvre, I would argue that modern man needs the material detail for him to believe again in the reality of the Gospels. Has not too much “spirituality” kicked Our Lord upstairs, so to speak, while cinema and television have taken over modern man’s sense of reality on the ground floor ? As Our Lord was true man and true God, so the Poem is at every moment both fully spiritual and fully material.
From non-electronic reading of the Poem in the home, I can imagine many benefits, besides the real live contact between parents reading and children listening. Children soak in from their surroundings like sponges soak in water. From the reading of chapters of the Poem selected according to the children’s age, I can imagine almost no end to how much they could learn about Our Lord and Our Lady. And the questions they would ask ! And the answers that the parents would have to come up with ! I do believe the Poem could greatly fortify a home.
Kyrie eleison.
--- End quote ---
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=202.0
More proof that Archbishop Lefebvre did not approve the poem of the mangod.
-
Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
-
From Fr. Francois Laisney, SSPX, "Question and Answers," The Angelus, January, 1991: (my bolded emphasis)
What do you think of the Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta?
Answer: 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 a 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" (1Cor. 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)
This is the complete statement:
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?
Who is lost, is saved. Isn't that so? I would like to be saved by the Savior to receive His loving look. That is why I 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?
The second half of the statement puts it in context. And of course, here Our Lady is a very small child, and is speaking innocently. She has no desire to offend God. And then her parents gently correct her. By presenting only part of the statement out of context, the entire meaning is twisted to mean its opposite.
.
It was taken from the Angelus.
Correct. Fr. Laisney published a quote out of context in the Angelus in such a way as to misrepresent it.
-
A very good and holy woman. I am appalled that she should be treated so shabbily and unjustly. May God have mercy on us.
(http://www.valtorta.org/images/MariaValtortaCollegiale.JPG)
-
From Fr. Francois Laisney, SSPX, "Question and Answers," The Angelus, January, 1991: (my bolded emphasis)
What do you think of the Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta?
Answer: 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 a 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" (1Cor. 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)
This is the complete statement:
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?
Who is lost, is saved. Isn't that so? I would like to be saved by the Savior to receive His loving look. That is why I 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?
The second half of the statement puts it in context. And of course, here Our Lady is a very small child, and is speaking innocently. She has no desire to offend God. And then her parents gently correct her. By presenting only part of the statement out of context, the entire meaning is twisted to mean its opposite.
.
It was taken from the Angelus.
.
Also, it proves that Archbishop Lefebvre did not approve of the poem of the mangod.
It may appear to, but in fact it doesn't. Archbishop LeFebvre was uncertain about the work and had some concerns about it, but he at no time came out against it. He hadn't even read it; when he discussed it at the Conference to the Carmelites of Quievrain in July of 1986, he said it was very long and he thought it was about 13 volumes. In fact, it was only 5 volumes long. Additionally, he said that his primary concern involved a passage that he had apparently been told about and hadn't read for himself, since it didn't exist — a supposed horribly inappropriate (because of the setting) discussion between Mary Magdalene and Our Lady at the foot of the Cross in which Mary Magdalene accuses herself of her shameful history — that does not occur in the book. However, the identical scene does take place in volume two in the house of a prostitute, not Mary Magdalene, using the same back and forth dialogue that ABL references. And in spite of that, the Archbishop never even said that the book was not of inspired origin, let alone that people shouldn't read it.
-
Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
A wonderful passage from the Gospel According to St. John. May I ask its relevance to this thread?
-
A very good and holy woman. I am appalled that she should be treated so shabbily and unjustly. May God have mercy on us.
We're treating of her work, not her person. No one here has made any subjective judgment of Maria Valtorta. Your implication to the contrary is utterly disingenuous.
These outbursts of wounded feelings and appeals to emotion do nothing whatever to address the objections to the prohibited book we're discussing and they are most unbecoming and unseemly in a dialogue between Catholic men.
-
I have in my possession a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre advising against their reading (it is still in my packed trunks!)
Oh really? That "statement" must still be in Fr. Laisney's trunks. I've never seen it. Have any of you?
tmw89:
--- Quote from: Bishop Williamson, "Eleison Comments" Issue CCLXXV - 275 (English) - 20 October 2012 ---HOME READING
When a while back these “Comments” advised readers to fortify their homes in case public bastions of the Faith might, due to the wickedness of the times, prove to be a thing of the past, a few readers wrote in to ask just how homes might be fortified. In fact various spiritual and material means of defending home and family have been suggested in previous numbers of the “Comments”, notably of course the Holy Rosary, but one fortification has gone unmentioned which I think I would try in place of television if I had a family to defend: reading aloud each night to the children selected chapters from Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. And when we had reached the end of the five volumes in English, I imagine us starting again from the beginning, and so on, until all the children had left home !
Yet the Poem has many and eloquent enemies. It consists of episodes from the lives of Our Lord and Our Lady, from her immaculate conception through to her assumption into Heaven, as seen in visions received, believably from Heaven, during the Second World War in northern Italy by Maria Valtorta, an unmarried woman of mature age lying in a sick-bed, permanently crippled from an injury to her back inflicted several years earlier. 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. Let us look at three main objections.
Firstly, 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. The reason given for the condemnation was the romanticizing and sentimentalizing of the Gospel events. Secondly the Poem is accused of countless doctrinal errors. 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.
But firstly, how could the modernists have taken over Rome in the 1960’s, as they did, had they not already been well established within Rome in the 1950’s ? The Poem, like the Gospels (e.g. Jn.XI, 35, etc.), is full of sentiment but always proportional to its object. The Poem is for any sane judge, in my opinion, neither sentimental nor romanticized. Secondly, the seeming doctrinal errors are not difficult to explain, one by one, as is done by a competent theologian in the notes to be found in the Italian edition of the Poem. And thirdly, with all due respect to Archbishop Lefebvre, I would argue that modern man needs the material detail for him to believe again in the reality of the Gospels. Has not too much “spirituality” kicked Our Lord upstairs, so to speak, while cinema and television have taken over modern man’s sense of reality on the ground floor ? As Our Lord was true man and true God, so the Poem is at every moment both fully spiritual and fully material.
From non-electronic reading of the Poem in the home, I can imagine many benefits, besides the real live contact between parents reading and children listening. Children soak in from their surroundings like sponges soak in water. From the reading of chapters of the Poem selected according to the children’s age, I can imagine almost no end to how much they could learn about Our Lord and Our Lady. And the questions they would ask ! And the answers that the parents would have to come up with ! I do believe the Poem could greatly fortify a home.
Kyrie eleison.
--- End quote ---
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=202.0
[/quote
But even Bishop Williamson says that Archbishop objects to the man god poem.
-
Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
A wonderful passage from the Gospel According to St. John. May I ask its relevance to this thread?
This is Jesus in His own words. How awesome is that? We have the Bible, the Mass of all time, the Sacraments and the Rosary.
All these other devotions, prophesies, ministries etc seem to be a distraction to the true Catholic Faith just like Vatican II. Do we need all of this to believe in Christ?
Even many Holy priests and laity can be fooled by the devil like Medjegorie. The devil always attacks holy people.
-
Sister Faustina's diary, father Gobbi, Eileen George, Marie Voltarta, etc
Very Holy people. But they aren't God.
-
Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. Douay-Rheims Bible St John 14
-
Nothing can replace the sacrifice of the Cross. No devotion, not even to the Blessed Virgin, can replace the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Indeed, the Blessed Virgin encourages us to come to the cross; she is always present there. -- Archbishop Lefebvre
-
Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
A wonderful passage from the Gospel According to St. John. May I ask its relevance to this thread?
This is Jesus in His own words. How awesome is that? We have the Bible, the Mass of all time, the Sacraments and the Rosary.
All these other devotions, prophesies, ministries etc seem to be a distraction to the true Catholic Faith just like Vatican II. Do we need all of this to believe in Christ?
Even many Holy priests and laity can be fooled by the devil like Medjegorie. The devil always attacks holy people.
And yet, the Rosary is a personal devotion based on a private revelation (St. Dominic), the Brown Scapular is a private revelation (St. Simon Stock), and the Fatima devotion is one as well (the three children and the 10,000 people who saw the Miracle of the Sun). Would you call them distractions to the true Catholic Faith?
Private revelations are not assured to be of Divine origin, and yet many of them are very powerful helps in the spiritual life.
-
These are words from Jesus during Easter:
Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
-
True making a point.
-
Meant TRY making a point. This is the second time in half a dozen posts that you've just repeated yourself. Neither time did you address the points I made, most recently your self-contradiction upholding the Rosary while decrying personal revelations (like the Rosary). You are not engaging in meaningful discussion. Are you now repudiating your earlier endorsement of the Rosary? It seems you're not saying anything to the point, just trying to sound holy.
-
I am done with this thread. People know that Pope Pius XII and Bishop Williamson both recommend the books, and everyone on this forum should know that personal revelations, even when fully and unequivocally endorsed by the Church, are not guaranteed to be true. I've said my piece.
-
However, Archbishop Lefebvre never recommended it.
-
The Rosary is backed by the Bible which is the Word of God.
-
Happy Easter! Alleluia!
-
MMD:
And yet, the Rosary is a personal devotion based on a private revelation (St. Dominic), the Brown Scapular is a private revelation (St. Simon Stock), and the Fatima devotion is one as well (the three children and the 10,000 people who saw the Miracle of the Sun). Would you call them distractions to the true Catholic Faith?
Private revelations are not assured to be of Divine origin, and yet many of them are very powerful helps in the spiritual life.
Hear, hear!
-
Better to spend your time reading The Mystical City of God. It's a safer read, for it was never put on the Index, and it's approved by the Church.
Case closed. :judge:
-
Better to spend your time reading The Mystical City of God. It's a safer read, for it was never put on the Index, and it's approved by the Church.
Case closed. :judge:
Earlier on this thread, MiserereMeiDeus claimed that it was on the index for a while. I don't know if that is true or not.
-
Better to spend your time reading The Mystical City of God. It's a safer read, for it was never put on the Index, and it's approved by the Church.
Case closed. :judge:
I would check the history for this statement a lot more closely if I were you ! Here Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01229a.htm)
-
Earlier on this thread, MiserereMeiDeus claimed that it was on the index for a while. I don't know if that is true or not.
I would check the history for this statement a lot more closely if I were you ! Here Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01229a.htm)
Thanks for correcting me. I thought it was never put on the Index. It does seem that it was placed on the Index due to misinterpretations of the volumes. Either way, Holy Mother Church, through Blessed Innocent XI, removed the writings from the Index only three months later. So it's all good to read :cool:.
-
:incense:
-
I bought the first volume of "The Poem of the Man-God" because I had to see what the controversy was about. I couldn't stand it. It's basically sentimental slop. But there are people out there that like that sentimentality. What are you going do do?
Bp. Williamson admits it sentimental and has heretical elements. So he must not believe that it is locutions from God. He just likes sentimental stories. Same for Pius XII.
-
What I would like to see is some attempt, by devotees of the Poem, to explain how the apparently objectionable passages are not objectionable. The Poem's supporters seem not to have a problem with passages that its critics see as blasphemous. How?
-
I bought the first volume of "The Poem of the Man-God" because I had to see what the controversy was about. I couldn't stand it. It's basically sentimental slop. But there are people out there that like that sentimentality. What are you going do do?
Bp. Williamson admits it sentimental and has heretical elements. So he must not believe that it is locutions from God. He just likes sentimental stories. Same for Pius XII.
Yes, I find this quite puzzling with regard to Bishop Williamson; he's always been decidedly ANTI-SENTIMENTALIST. He's even denounced The Sound of Music on those grounds.
-
For what it is worth to this thread:
Having studied carefully the subject of the doctrine of geocentrism and the destruction the heliocentric heresy did to the Bible as a literal source of Revelation, I could not believe when a friend told me Maria Valtorta gives as good a description of the heliocentric heresy in her poem as one could get in a Dawkins diatribe.
When I heard this I put aside this person as having been duped by herself or the Devil somewhere and took no more interest in her. What it did was shatter any absolute belief I had in personal revelations.
There are three sources of personal revelation. 1) From one's own imagination, 2) from the Devil himself, 3) From God. In other words, I can think of nothing more dangerous than presauming God is the author. we already know what God said, and any 'correction' has to be from the Devil. Remember he will use 99% tradition to fool us with the 1%.
Pope John XXIII said his - to hold Vatican II - came from God. Presumption of the highest level.
-
I bought the first volume of "The Poem of the Man-God" because I had to see what the controversy was about. I couldn't stand it. It's basically sentimental slop. But there are people out there that like that sentimentality. What are you going do do?
Bp. Williamson admits it sentimental and has heretical elements. So he must not believe that it is locutions from God. He just likes sentimental stories. Same for Pius XII.
Yes, I find this quite puzzling with regard to Bishop Williamson; he's always been decidedly ANTI-SENTIMENTALIST. He's even denounced The Sound of Music on those grounds.
For a Bishop to urge the faithful, (most of whom are theologically untrained and thus vulnerable to error), to read such a docuмent, which he admits has unsound elements, must by necessity place him as suspect in his other counsels and pronouncements.
So far there has been no repudiation of this position, but this may go on to explain some of his other more confusing and inconsistent musings.
He has made himself a "grain of salt" teacher at this point. It is clear that many folks filter his writings and pronouncements, looking to discern the good from the not so good.
-
A thread that began with an in-your-face attitude on a disturbing topic has evolved into one of thoughtful discussion - the work of the Holy Ghost.
Clare, thank you for your comment re: how does one justify the outrageous statements in Valtorta's writings. I pray someone will answer, not in general terms, but specific address to each one.
-
And yet, the Rosary is a personal devotion based on a private revelation (St. Dominic), the Brown Scapular is a private revelation (St. Simon Stock), and the Fatima devotion is one as well (the three children and the 10,000 people who saw the Miracle of the Sun). Would you call them distractions to the true Catholic Faith?
Private revelations are not assured to be of Divine origin, and yet many of them are very powerful helps in the spiritual life.
Apples and rotten apples.
The three you note are approved by the Church, and yes very powerful helps!
The Valtorta writings were condemned. Meditation on just a few of the passages posted here are "powerful" for sure, but not in a holy sense.
Please help us understand how to reconcile the disturbing passages and explain away the reasoning in the Church condemnation.
-
J.Paul:
He (Bp. Williamson) has made himself a "grain of salt" teacher at this point. It is clear that many folks filter his writings and pronouncements, looking to discern the good from the not so good.
But we have clear headed folks among the Cathinfo Illuminati who can sound the alarm when Bp. Williamson wanders off the path of truth. and into the thicket of sentimentalism. We have J.Paul. who can help us discern "the good from the not so good." We have Paul9, who bought the first volume of the Poem. We can rest assured, now, from his perusal of that single volume that the Poem is just "sentimental slop." Who is Paul9, one may ask? Well, I don't know, but he says what he says with so much conviction that we scarce can doubt it.
Then there's Clare, challenging "devotees of the Poem" to explain "apparently objectionable passages," which its enlightened critics find "blasphemous." Clare doesn't reproduce any of these "objectionable passages," nor has any other contributing Cathinfo Illuminatus thus far. Assuming that Clare has read any or all of the five volumes, we must trust that she can readily serve up juicy tidbits of Maria's "blasphemies."
Let's not ignore Cassini, who has "studied carefully the subject of the doctrine of geocentrism." We would naturally assume that she had studied just as carefully the writings of Maria Valtorta. Yet it appears that what she knows of the seer was passed on to her by a "friend." This friend, apparently, accuses Maria of (gasp!) embracing the heliocentric heresy. Well, Cassini, not to worry. The majority of "traditional Catholics" today probably still adhere to the heliocentric theory. So, if Maria had actually done this, she would be in good company, wouldn't she?
I can not close without at least a mention of ladislaus. I suspect that some forum members regard him as one of Cathinfo's scholars emeriti. After all, if I remember correctly, he was an SSPX seminarian. Ladislaus did not hesitate to rush to judgment. "False locution," he boldly intoned at the beginning of the thread. Naturally, we must all assume that ladislaus has a through acquaintance with Maria Valtorta, and has read her extensively. In any case, he, J.Paul, and a number of other trad lights on this forum are convinced that His Excellency must be watched closely. His Excellency is perceived at times to deviate recklessly from the truth. He does and says "puzzling" things. He must, perforce, come under greater scrutiny. Well, Cathinfo has the personnel ready to accomplish that task. :shocked:
-
J.Paul: He (Bp. Williamson) has made himself a "grain of salt" teacher at this point. It is clear that many folks filter his writings and pronouncements, looking to discern the good from the not so good.
But we have clear headed folks among the Cathinfo Illuminati who can sound the alarm when Bp. Williamson wanders off the path of truth. and into the thicket of sentimentalism. We have J.Paul. who can help us discern "the good from the not so good." We have Paul9, who bought the first volume of the Poem. We can rest assured, now, from his perusal of that single volume that the Poem is just "sentimental slop." Who is Paul9, one may ask? Well, I don't know, but he says what he says with so much conviction that we scarce can doubt it.
Then there's Clare, challenging "devotees of the Poem" to explain "apparently objectionable passages," which its enlightened critics find "blasphemous." Clare doesn't reproduce any of these "objectionable passages," nor has any other contributing Cathinfo Illuminatus thus far. Assuming that Clare has read any or all of the five volumes, we must trust that she can readily serve up juicy tidbits of Maria's "blasphemies."
Let's not ignore Cassini, who has "studied carefully the subject of the doctrine of geocentrism." We would naturally assume that she had studied just as carefully the writings of Maria Valtorta. Yet it appears that what she knows of the seer was passed on to her by a "friend." This friend, apparently, accuses Maria of (gasp!) embracing the heliocentric heresy. Well, Cassini, not to worry. The majority of "traditional Catholics" today probably still adhere to the heliocentric theory. So, if Maria had actually done this, she would be in good company, wouldn't she?
I can not close without at least a mention of ladislaus. I suspect that some forum members regard him as one of Cathinfo's scholars emeriti. After all, if I remember correctly, he was an SSPX seminarian. Ladislaus did not hesitate to rush to judgment. "False locution," he boldly intoned at the beginning of the thread. Naturally, we must all assume that ladislaus has a through acquaintance with Maria Valtorta, and has read her extensively. In any case, he, J.Paul, and a number of other trad lights on this forum are convinced that His Excellency must be watched closely. His Excellency is perceived at times to deviate recklessly from the truth. He does and says "puzzling" things. He must, perforce, come under greater scrutiny. Well, Cathinfo has the personnel ready to accomplish that task. :shocked:
Effeminate, emotionalistic drivel.
-
But we have clear headed folks among the Cathinfo Illuminati who can sound the alarm when Bp. Williamson wanders off the path of truth. and into the thicket of sentimentalism.
And yet Bishop Williamson can sound the alarm when an Ecuмenical Council wanders off the path of truth?
We have J.Paul. who can help us discern "the good from the not so good."
We have the witty and erudite nothingsworth hypocritically engaging in the very same discernment, except of course that these others cite concrete examples to make their point and the illuminated genius among us finds it sufficient to
1) make ad hominem attacks
2) lie about Archbishop Lefebvre approving Valtorta
3) exaggerate the approval from Pius XII based on nothing but an alleged vague comment reported by biased sources (the publishers of Valtorta who insisted on publishing despite the fact that Rome refused the imprimatur)
Clare doesn't reproduce any of these "objectionable passages," nor has any other contributing Cathinfo Illuminatus thus far.
They were cited earlier in the thread, and Clare assumed that you were erudite enough to find them yourself.
Let's not ignore Cassini, who has "studied carefully the subject of the doctrine of geocentrism."
On the other hand, let us ignore nothingsworth.
I can not close without at least a mention of ladislaus.
Indeed.
I suspect that some forum members regard him as one of Cathinfo's scholars emeriti. After all, if I remember correctly, he was an SSPX seminarian. Ladislaus did not hesitate to rush to judgment. "False locution," he boldly intoned at the beginning of the thread. Naturally, we must all assume that ladislaus has a through acquaintance with Maria Valtorta, and has read her extensively.
As yourself conceded, it may be that I have read enough Valtorta to be able to make an informed judgment. There was no "rush to judgment"; that judgment had been made earlier. I dissected the passages you cited in the OP line by line. No response from nothingsworth except for his lame attempt at satire and ad hominem attacks. In succinctly commenting "False locution" I was concurring with the assessment of L'Osservatore Romano that Valtorta's narrative constitutes nothing more than a "badly fictionalized" life of Christ.
In any case, he, J.Paul, and a number of other trad lights on this forum are convinced that His Excellency must be watched closely. His Excellency is perceived at times to deviate recklessly from the truth. He does and says "puzzling" things. He must, perforce, come under greater scrutiny. Well, Cathinfo has the personnel ready to accomplish that task. :shocked:
No, we just don't believe that Bishop Williamson is an infallible rule of faith; but apparently nothingsworth believes that +Williamson trumps the judgment of the Holy Office. Except of course that +Williamson conceded that there are problems with Valtorta.
Move along now.
-
ladislaus:
I dissected the passages you cited in the OP line by line.
Well, just as I told you, we have ladislaus and other forum experts on the job. Ladislaus doesn't just glance at a passage, he dissects it "line by line." :detective: How will the Poem be able to withstand the whithering scrutiny from such as ladislaus? He and his forum buddies are the Poem-busters alright! :rolleyes:
-
ladislaus: I dissected the passages you cited in the OP line by line.
Well, just as I told you, we have ladislaus and other forum experts on the job.
You have been invited to defend and analyze the same passages but refuse to do so.
-
H, you are demonstrating rather dysfunctional behavior. Who are you talking to?
- You ignore each member who speaks directly to you.
- Then you cherry pick who/ what you'll address.
- Which is then addressed in 3rd person to some imaginary friend out there instead of directly addressing the members.
You act like we are invisible and your enemy. Each retort is not an exercise in debate, but an ugly rejoicing in what you perceive as a "clever" comment, trying to cut each Catholic who aligns with the Church on this issue - the majority so far in this thread and others that discuss Valtorta's writings.
A better man would acknowledge the arguments, provide civil refute, answer questions, then, if you fail in convincing, agree to disagree.
-
I think we ought to thank Hollingsworth for demonstrating, with his posts in this thread, the dangers inherent in ignoring the warnings of the Church and attempting to defend the indefensible.
I don't think any of us has provided so convincing an argument for not reading the "Poem of the Man God" as he himself inadvertently has.
-
J.Paul: He (Bp. Williamson) has made himself a "grain of salt" teacher at this point. It is clear that many folks filter his writings and pronouncements, looking to discern the good from the not so good.
Let's not ignore Cassini, who has "studied carefully the subject of the doctrine of geocentrism." We would naturally assume that HE had studied just as carefully the writings of Maria Valtorta. Yet it appears that what she knows of the seer was passed on to her by a "friend." This friend, apparently, accuses Maria of (gasp!) embracing the heliocentric heresy. Well, Cassini, not to worry. The majority of "traditional Catholics" today probably still adhere to the heliocentric theory. So, if Maria had actually done this, she would be in good company, wouldn't she?
Tempted as I am to pursue the fact that it was not I but the Church who defined belief in heliocentrism as formal heresy, I shall not allow your prejudice and heresy to diminish my point about Valtorta's 'spiritual writings.'
First let us introduce Saint Hildegard of Bingen, O.S.B. (1098- 1179), also known as Saint Hildegard and Sibyl of the Rhine, was a German writer, composer, philosopher, Christian mystic, Benedictine abbess, visionary, and polymath.
This saint came into high prominence a few years ago when a feature film was made of her life, and, after almost a thousand years, she was made a saint and a doctor of the Church on May 10 and October 7, 2012, respectively.
Among her writings were those describing the doctrine of Geocentrism. Robert Sungenis has written a book on them called: The Geocentric Universe: According to the Visions of St. Hildegard of Bingen.
Her visions of course came when Catholicism was at its height, long before Galileo heliocentrism was defined and declared formal heresy.
Let us now press on to 1943-1947 when the Catholic world, even traditionalists, were nearly all Copernican heretics. In Maria Valtorta'a Poem of the Man-God, which I had not read, nor will bother, a friend who has read it, told me she describes a God-created solar system, one similar to that condemned as formal heresy in 1616 and 1633. My friend is an honest man with a profound interest in this subject, and his word is good enough for me.
So, who was telling the lie, St Hildegard visions, or Valtorta's Modernist version of the 1616 decree? For me, Valtorta's poem. And is that not under debate here Hollingsworth?
Oh, and thanks for the support Ladislaus.
-
Cassini:
Let us now press on to 1943-1947 when the Catholic world, even traditionalists, were nearly all Copernican heretics. In Maria Valtorta'a Poem of the Man-God, which I had not read, nor will bother, a friend who has read it, told me she describes a God-created solar system, one similar to that condemned as formal heresy in 1616 and 1633. My friend is an honest man with a profound interest in this subject, and his word is good enough for me.
With all respect, this friend of yours may well be an honest man, and his word may be good enough for you. It is not good enough for me. Since you admit not having read the Poem, and vowing, apparently, not to read it, I would hardly count you as one qualified to expostulate upon the work. Maria may well be included in the ranks of millions of Catholics whom you describe as "Copernican heretics." Nevertheless, I would like for you, or for your friend, or for anyone, to reproduce Valtorta's description of a "God-created solar system," which you testify obeys the Copernican model. Right now we're in the hearsay stage. It may be true, I don't know. I don't regard Maria's visions as Scriptural Canon, no more than any other apocryphal writing. So maybe she did get it wrong in this instance, or may she did succuмb in her visions to the heliocentric prejudices of the time. Whatever the truth may be, Maria Valtorta is, in my opinion, a wonderful woman, and her Poem is a marvelous work of literature, if nothing else.
-
Hollingsworth said:
Whatever the truth may be, Maria Valtorta is, in my opinion, a wonderful woman, and her Poem is a marvelous work of literature, if nothing else.
This is a Catholic forum, Hollingsworth. We do care about Truth.
Why did you leave me off your hate list, Hollingsworth? Could it be that you did not want to face this?
From Tradition in Action: Valtorta's Poem of the Man-God (http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_042_Valtorta.htm)
Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
Book review of Peom of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta, 10 volumes, online edition
A friend recently sent me an e-mail asking about Maria Valtorta and her Poem of the Man-God. She received a recent issue of Kyrie Eleison comments of Bishop Richard Williamson titled “Home Reading” (October 20, 2012). In it, he recommends parents read selected chapters of the Poem of the Man-God to children every night.
He admits the Poem is controversial and has many enemies, but he defends Valtorta’s massive tome (4,000 pages in 10 volumes of supposed visions she received of the life of Christ). The Bishop supports it, despite the objections he lists: that it is riddled with doctrinal errors, that it humanizes Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that the work was placed on the Church’s Index of Forbidden Books in the 1950s.
He lightly dismisses all the arguments against it and concludes children will learn much about Our Lord and Our Lady from the Poem, which “will fortify a home.”
“I have not read this book,” my friend continues, “but, for Heaven’s sake, why didn’t Bishop W. recommend reading the wonderful, approved, written-by-a-canonized saint 4-volume City of God by Mother Mary of Agreda? But that is beside the point. I really do wish to know if you approve of the Poem of the Man-God. Even the title upsets my Catholic sensibilities.”
A humanized Christ
I believe my friend should follow her good Catholic sense. The very title, the Man-God , expresses the spirit of the work. It is Jesus as a man that Valtorta presents: a babe suckling greedily at his Mother’s breasts, a youth hardly aware of Who He is, a Man who laughs and jokes with His Apostles and is constantly kissing them on the mouth and embracing them closely. Yes, at the least, it is difficult not to suspect this showy Jesus pictured in such way as having ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies.
Valtorta’s natural approach is supposed to attract the modern man to the Life of Christ. It is in tune with the progressivist doctrine that tries to deny the supernatural and instead presents Our Lady as a simple Jєωιѕн woman and focuses on Our Lord as being a man “like us.” As Atila Guimaraes points out in Animus Injuriandi I, the progressivist Church aims to de-mythify and de-supernaturalize Christ and His Mother under the guise of presenting a natural “historical” Christ and Mary.” I believe Valtorta’s Jesus and Mary fit this mold.
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/ImagesA/A_042_Jesus.jpg)
An illustration of Valtorta's Jesus, a somewhat occult figure with a magnetic gaze
Valtorta’s Man-God depiction is the opposite of the God-Man portrayed by Anne Catherine Emmerich and Ven. Mary of Agreda, whose life of Christ is presented from an elevated, supernatural vantage point. One cannot help but wonder why the traditionalist Bishop would not recommend these works, instead of the Valtorta tomes, which were officially condemned by the Holy Office and placed on the Index in December 1959 and defined by L’Osservatore Romano of January 6,1960 as “a badly fictionalized life of Jesus.”
After Vatican II, Paul VI abolished the Index of Forbidden Books, and Valtorta’s supporters claim this nullifies the suppression of 1959. Unfortunately, the official position of the Church today is less than clear, with important Prelates and Catholic figures on both sides of the issue. Obviously, the progressivists, almost to the man, defend it.
The Poem of the Man-God, I believe, is riddled with banalities, vulgarities, blasphemies and even doctrinal errors. There are endless idle conversations between Our Lord, Our Lady and the Apostles, all on a natural level. I think the best way to confirm these points is simply to cite some texts, which are so revolting that they speak for themselves.
The quotes that follow are taken from an online edition of The Poem of the Man-God. A 48-page critique written in the 1980s – when the Poem’s popularity surged for a period, as it seems to be resurging now – by a Salesian, Brother James, S.D.B., can be read in its entirety here.
An Infant conceived with original sin
Valtorta portrays the Christ Child as a greedy infant of a sentimental Mother. It is difficult to find the respect we owe to Our Lord Jesus Christ in this imaginary immodest description of a nursing scene:
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/ImagesA/A_042_Mary.jpg)
The Man-God presents a naturalistic view of Our Lady and the Christ Child
“Jesus opens His eyes, sees His Mother and smiles and stretches His little hands toward Her breast.
“[Mary] ‘Yes, love of Your Mummy. Yes. Your milk. Before the usual time. But You are always ready to suck Your Mummy's breast, My little holy Lamb!’
“Jesus laughs and plays, kicking His feet out of the blankets, moving His arms happily in a typical childish style, so beautiful to see. He pushes His feet against His Mummy's stomach. He arches His back leaning His fair head on Her breast, and then throws Himself back and laughs, holding with His hands the laces that tie Mary's dress to Her neck, endeavoring to open it. …
“Mary nurses Him and Jesus avidly sucks His Mother's good milk, and when He feels that only a little is coming from Her right breast, He looks for the left one, laughing while doing so and looking up at His Mother. Then He falls asleep again on Her breast, His rosy round little cheek resting against Her white round breast.” (Vol 1, n. 35, p. 106).
An Adult with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies
Valtorta’s Jesus suspiciously displays ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies since he is constantly kissing and embracing the Apostles. When Jesus tells James of His approaching Passion, James reacts with great emotion. Jesus comforts him thus:
“’Come, I will kiss you thus, to help you forget the burden of My fate as Man. Here, I kiss your lips that will have to repeat My words to the people of Israel and your heart that will have to love as I told you, and there, on your temple, where life will cease.’ … They remain embraced for a long time and James seems to doze off in the joy of God's kisses that make him forget his suffering.”
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/ImagesA/A_042_Allegra.jpg)
Recently beatified Gabriel Allegra, a Teilhard de Chardin colleague, was a promoter of the Man-God Poem [Chardin was a condemned heretic naturalistic Pantheist and practitioner of witchcraft]
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.”
John begs Jesus not to tell the others of what has passed between them. Jesus replies, “Do not worry, John. No one will be aware of your wedding with the Love. Get dressed, come. We must leave.” (Vol. 2, n. 165, pp. 57-58)
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)
Like Luther, Mary thinks: Let us sin to be forgiven
Some passages are tantamount to heresy. For example, Valtorta presents the child Mary as expressing her desire to be a big sinner in order to merit the grace of Redemption:
“[Mary]: ‘Tell Me, mummy, can one be a sinner out of love of God?
“[Anne]: ‘What are you saying, my dear? I don't understand you.’
“[Mary]:’I mean: to commit a sin in order to be loved by God, Who becomes the Savior. Who is lost, is saved. Isn’t that so? I would like to be saved by the Savior to receive His loving look." (Vol. 1, n. 7, p. 23).
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)
These are some excerpts I offer to my readers to evaluate Valtorta’s work. I believe they are sufficient for the reader to make a judgment of the whole.
It is thus understandable that the Holy Office placed the work on the Index of Forbidden Books, which is reproduced below. It is also understandable that the Salesian Brother James concluded his critique of the first two volumes with these words: “Poem of the Man-God is so demonic that without a special grace from Our Lord Jesus, we could be deceived by the seemingly harmless statements by Valtorta’s Jesus, but they enclose lies and heresy, contrary to the teachings of One, Holy Catholic Church.”
*
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/ImagesA/A_042_Decree.jpg)
Supreme Congregation of
the Holy Office
Decree
Proscription of Books
Wednesday, December 16, 1959
The Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinals of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, to whom the safeguarding of things of the Faith and Moral is confided, after receiving the previous opinions of the Consultors, have unanimously condemned and ordered that the books by an anonymous author, in four volumes, be inscribed in the Index of Forbidden Books, the first of those books being:
Il Poema di Gesù [The Poem of Jesus] (Tipografia Editrice M. Pisani);
followed by,
Il Poema dell'Uomo-Dio [The Poem of the Man-God], (Ibidem).
On Friday of that same month and year, the Most Holy and Dignified Lord John XXIII, Pope by the grace of Divine Providence, in an audience given to the Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinal Secretary of the Holy Office, after hearing the report of the Most Reverend Fathers, approved this resolution and commanded that it be published.
Given in Rome, in the seat of the
Holy Office on January 5, 1960.
Sebastian Masala, Notary
-
Dear Lord! This discussion has devolved.
I am not bothered that I have come under the critical eye of Bishop Williamson's loyal supporters. I am, in fact one myself.
But,I must point out that any cleric who, from time to time, puts forth unsound ideas or hearkens to unapproved visionaries and visions, does so by risking a certain amount of his credibility as a reliable teacher in other areas.
Is it not the Bishop himself who has told us that 5% poison will kill you as surely as a larger dose?
A little perspective might be in order here, as I only suggest that it is only logical that one would seek to separate the Bishop's personal opinions from his doctrinal
counsels when the first might appear to influence how the latter is perceived by the faithful.
No one is right all of the time save the Triune God. Men are not perfect in their likes and desires.
Let us cool off our passions and return to Christian brotherhood and exchange.
If we cannot, we are indeed doomed to fail in any restoration which the future may hold.
-
Nadir:
This is a Catholic forum, Hollingsworth. We do care about Truth.
Who's "we?" :thinking:
Nadir: Why did you leave me off your hate list, Hollingsworth? Could it be that you did not want to face this?
Nadir, I apologize for leaving your name off my "hate list." If ever I draw up another, I promise to include you on it. :wink:
-
Who's we?
Matthew tell us that there are 2,540 users registered on this forum, of course many not still active. But even if 1/10 of those still active care about truth, well that requires a plural pronoun.
We want to know when you will answer the question asked by Clare, Per Evangelica Dicta and now me, (3 is plural) as to how you explain away the heresies of Valtorta. I just reposted the article demonstrating them to make it easy for you to answer our questions. Of course the reason why you don't is because you can't.
Your mind has become befuddled and warped by reading too much Valtorta.
-
Oh, and thanks for the support Ladislaus.
I too am a convinced geocentrist. I didn't used to be one, but upon examining the evidence it's quite clear. Matthew apparently was the same way, that he dismissed it initially but then changed his mind upon actually looking at the evidence.
-
Oh, and thanks for the support Ladislaus.
I too am a convinced geocentrist. I didn't used to be one, but upon examining the evidence it's quite clear. Matthew apparently was the same way, that he dismissed it initially but then changed his mind upon actually looking at the evidence.
Same here.
Cue roscoe:
"E rev around S :fryingpan: "
-
Oh, and thanks for the support Ladislaus.
I too am a convinced geocentrist. I didn't used to be one, but upon examining the evidence it's quite clear. Matthew apparently was the same way, that he dismissed it initially but then changed his mind upon actually looking at the evidence.
Same here.
Cue roscoe:
"E rev around S :fryingpan: "
Hi, same here :dancing:
-
We have quite a "heretics club" going here............ :heretic:
-
I too am a convinced geocentrist. Now, produce for me a passage from Maria Valtorta that she was a convinced heliocentrist.
-
Cassini has provided outstanding information on geocentrism, which was the crux of my conversion. (Thank you for your time and effort, C.)
I do agree with Hollingworth's request to see those Valtorta passages which point to heliocentrism. Not that I doubt the claim, but out of interest, and adding to the big picture of understanding her writings.
-
PerEvanD:
I do agree with Hollingworth's request to see those Valtorta passages which point to heliocentrism. Not that I doubt the claim, but out of interest, and adding to the big picture of understanding her writings.
Well, thank you for that. Yeah, let's see the passage or passages.
Meanwhile, getting back to the issue of men kissing men, forum art connoisseurs might be interested in viewing this 16th century painting of Sts Peter and Paul parting tenderly at the last moment of their lives. I thought is was interesting.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Alonzo_Rodriguez_Commiato_dei_santi_Pietro_e_Paolo_Messina_Museo_Regionale.jpg/220px-Alonzo_Rodriguez_Commiato_dei_santi_Pietro_e_Paolo_Messina_Museo_Regionale.jpg)
-
Well, thank you for that. Yeah, let's see the passage or passages.
Meanwhile, getting back to the issue of men kissing men, forum art connoisseurs might be interested in viewing this 16th century painting of Sts Peter and Paul parting tenderly at the last moment of their lives. I thought is was interesting.
Yeah, as we all know, there was no homoerotic art in the 16th century. In many cultures men kiss one another on the cheek, but prolonged kissing on the lips (as described by the fraud Valtorta) is always sensual. What would you say to a prolonged kiss by Our Lord with Mary Magdalene? If nothing else, both of these would occasion scandal. St. Pius X wouldn't even ride in the same cart/wagon with a woman relative of his lest it give rise to scandal. But I guess he was just a prude. I was actually scanning some Valtorta trying to find the heliocentric passages, and the stuff is just plain garbage. I don't see how anyone can read that junk without getting a headache. Even when there isn't heresy or blasphemy, the incoherent rambling nonsensical prose attributed to Our Lord is enough to disprove its authenticity. Some of it is little more than idiotic babbling.
-
lad:
What would you say to a prolonged kiss by Our Lord with Mary Magdalene? If nothing else, both of these would occasion scandal.
What would you say, lad, if I asked you to reprint such a scene directly from the Poem? Think you can come up with that?
lad: I was actually scanning some Valtorta trying to find the heliocentric passages, and the stuff is just plain garbage. I don't see how anyone can read that junk without getting a headache.
So you were looking for a heliocentric passage, but you got a headache, and had to quit. Is that what you're saying? I assume, then, that a headache prevented you from going on in your search. Very well. Guess the job will have to be left to one of you who doesn't get headaches from reading Valtorta. Someone not prone to headaches might like to search, as well, for any passage(s) containing "prolonged" and inappropriate kisses. :rolleyes:
-
I too am a convinced geocentrist. Now, produce for me a passage from Maria Valtorta that she was a convinced heliocentrist.
In the light of this conversation, I contacted my friend asking him if he could point me to the heliocentric references of Maria Voltorta he once told me about. He replied they are to be found in her NOTEBOOKS of 1943. He made no references to the Poem.
http://issuu.com/ricardodeleon/docs/divine_dictations_to_maria_valtorta__1943_notebook
Now these notes represent the words of Jesus to her.
On page 111 we find Jesus telling her He made many INHABITED worlds. Jesus supposedly tells her the Earth 'of which you are so proud and fierce, is nothing but one of the bits of fine dust rotating in unboundless, and not the biggest one. Lives upon lives are teeming in the millions of worlds which are the joys of your gaze on peaceful nights.'.
Now look up Denzinger 717c, Pope Pius II (1458-1464) Errors of Zanini de Solcis:
(3) Condemned: That God created another world than this one, and in its time many other men and women existed.........
Page 117, The Eternal Knowledge of Events in Creation...
'For if you tell me the world is evolving, I reply to you this evolution is not an obstacle to the Faith, but rather, should make it increasingly easy for you to believe...'
'Nothing is unknown to the Triune God, All the events in the universe, the births and deaths of planets, the formation and dissolution of nebulae, life or death on the worlds launched into space ..,. one of the millions of worlds
P.119 'How many mysteries the universe still holds for you? You are immersed in mystery. .... the mystery of the relations between this PLANET of yours and the other worlds,
How many souls have been lost to atheism and agnosticism because of this false science, supposedly here coming from the mouth of Jesus Christ? This morning on radio I heard the son of Ronald Regan say his atheism became known to him when he saw science eliminated the need for God by way of all the theories Valtorta here UNWITTINGLY says are confirmed by Christ.
There are probably many other such evolutionary references in these notes but they confirm to me how cunning Satan can be, mixing some wonderful descriptions of faith with the 'scientific' crap that will undo it at the same time.
-
Cassini:
In the light of this conversation, I contacted my friend asking him if he could point me to the heliocentric references of Maria Voltorta he once told me about. He replied they are to be found in her NOTEBOOKS of 1943. He made no references to the Poem.
Interesting, Cassini. I happen to have NOTEBOOKS of 1943, published by Centro Editoriale Valtortiano srl and translated by David G. Murray 1996. It cites a 1976 edition under the original title: I Quaderni del 1943 by Emilio Pisani. Another edition in 1985 apparently, and then the one I possess of 1996.
Let's be certain we're on the right page here. In other words, let's be certain that were dealing with the same translations and publications of Notebooks. Because I'll tell you, not one word of what you reprint in red is to be found on the pages you indicate, at least in my edition.
Page 111 makes absolutely no reference to "inhabited worlds" "rotating in unboundless (whatever)"
Page 117 has nothing of "evolution" discussed in its contents.
Page 119 does not deal in any way with "the mystery of the relations between this PLANET of yours and the other worlds, ..."
So, when we can be certain that we're talking about the same edition of Notebooks from the same publisher, then we can discuss the matter further. I would say that your "friend" may be, as I suspected from the beginning, a not too reliable source. There is no use talking about quotes from a source that neither of us can verify.
-
What is more,Cassini, I don't see anything in the passages which you cite that in any way touches the matter of heliocentrism.. aside from the question of their authenticity.
-
What is more,Cassini, I don't see anything in the passages which you cite that in any way touches the matter of heliocentrism.. aside from the question of their authenticity.
Wouldn't it be logical presumption of the obvious? Cassini's quotes = Maria Valtorta claims our Lord told her aliens exist on other planets. Heresy. Heliocentrism is a foundation to belief in aliens according to space.com (NASA), sciencebrainwaves.com and this from Discovery Science:
Copernicus wanted to better describe what was going on in the heavens. In the 1540s, he came to a conclusion that was radically different from popular thought at the time — that Earth, along with the other planets in our solar system, orbits around the sun rather than the other way around.
It took nearly a decade for his heliocentric theory to gain ground with the public. Once it did, his view led to more people pondering whether we're really alone in the universe. If Earth wasn't special enough to be the center of everything, it would also mean there could be other planets out there, with foreign worlds potentially mirroring our own.
I'm not sure why you rec'd a downthumb re: wanting to ensure you are both referencing the same version of Notebooks though.
Perhaps your later translation may have been edited, presuming Cassini is quoting an earlier one?
-
Did I not provide a reference for reading?
http://issuu.com/ricardodeleon/docs/divine_dictations_to_maria_valtorta__1943_notebook
Click on this and read away on the pages I quote from. There is also a good chapter on Jesus arguing against Darwinism near the end.
-
Click on this and read away ...
Or not. We do have to remember that her stuff was on the Index and so we should respect that. I think we needn't continue trying to prove to hollingsworth that the subject matter is unacceptable. We need cite nothing more than its appearance on the Index. End of discussion. For hollingsworth to promote something that was on the Index is sinful and scandalous.
-
ladislaus:
I think we needn't continue trying to prove to hollingsworth that the subject matter is unacceptable. We need cite nothing more than its appearance on the Index. End of discussion. For hollingsworth to promote something that was on the Index is sinful and scandalous.
Is that the royal "we," ladislaus? "End of discussion.".. Not quite, my friend. To promote The Poem, you pontificate, "is sinful and scandalous," followed by, I'm sure, a supercilious sniff or two. Fortunately, none of us can hear it. :laugh1:
Actually, ladislaus, the one most actively promoting The Poem is Bp. Williamson. Are you now declaring that the bishop's behavior in this regard is both "sinful and scandalous?"
Read the little quote below, lad. Hopefully, it will not give you a headache. :cowboy:
The Poem itself was placed on the Index due to a legal principle--the lack of an Imprimatur--not because it was deemed to "endanger faith or good morals". No Bishop or Cardinal, in print, has ever found a single doctrincal error in the Poem.
-
It's not for you or Bishop Williamson to second-guess the Index based on unfounded speculation as to why the book may have been placed there. Yours is simply to obey. Unlike in the case of Vatican II, there's no issue of faith requiring disobedience. In no way can there be a danger to the faith by NOT reading Valtorta. Consequently, you are to obey and shut up. If the Church forbids it, it's forbidden, regardless of why you think it was forbidden. You commit a mortal sin by disregarding the Index and promoting the reading of this filth. You are a deeply disturbed individual, nothingsworth.
So here you see more fruits of false R&R in Bishop Williamson, the ability to disregard anything one doesn't like in the Church and disobey anything one finds distasteful due to a constant second-guessing of the Church.
-
It seems we've moved from debate, since your latest comment has brought us full circle.
Is that the royal "we," ladislaus?
Gotta love the royal "we". And in this instance, apropos.
followed by, I'm sure, a supercilious sniff or two. Fortunately, none of us can hear it. :laugh1:
I can surely hear yours in just about every comment. I presume you're familiar with "projection".
Re: +W
How many members and how often must this be explained to you?
A great majority of the forum hold the good bishop in high esteem, to include those who have contributed in this thread, myself included. But he is not a censor, nor can he infallibly pronounce, so his thoughts on any private revelations can be in error.
For those who have had conversation with him, it's quickly obvious that he has a big heart, which goes to the pattern that he tends toward the benefit of the doubt. I hold the opinion with many others that his penchant toward private revelations (certainly with holy intent) allows him generous overlooking of conflict.
There's much too much diabolical disorientation in these evil times to be entertaining controversial private revelations. That's a no brainer. Rome can hardly weigh in to assist us w/ nihil obstat and grant imprimaturs. So, as in all things related to our Faith, be safe with tradition to minimize satanic influence.
-
ladislaus:
You commit a mortal sin by disregarding the Index and promoting the reading of this filth. You are a deeply disturbed individual, nothingsworth.
N.B. Ladislaus accuses His Excellency Bp. Williamson of committing:
1) committing "mortal sin," and of
2) "disregarding" the (non-existent) Index, and of
3) promoting "filth."
Oh yes, it's all there, every word of it :surprised:
On top of that, he says I'm "deeply disturbed." Well...! :really-mad2:
Then he calls me "nothingsworth." I'm going to tell his mommy.
-
Valtorta, like many female "seers" she seems to channel eroticism into her "visions". From the quotes I've seen, I have absolutely no desire to see anything more. Hollingsworth, when it comes to these things you have to be willing to leave it at the door rather than cause a scandal.
Even when it comes Emmerich's visions, I had to take a step back after the strange ancient Jєωιѕн family vision she described. Taken together with the fact that a man... a writer... actually wrote the book down for her made me reluctant to accept everything 100%. However, I do think that even if it is fiction, the passages on the life of Our Lord, Our Lady, Magdalene, are some of the most inspiring meditations I've ever read. If only Gibson's Passion contained more than 1% of her take on it!
With just the small excerpts I've read from this "Poem" my trad spider-sense is tingling. Not only is the writing amateurish and syrupy, but the willingness to describe John in feminine terms makes me want to burn it with fire. Even the title makes me want to say God-Man, God-Man.
I haven't read it, but can someone who has tell me if it's true that she depicted Jesus using a screwdriver? :furtive:
-
Croixalist:
I haven't read it, but can someone who has tell me if it's true that she depicted Jesus using a screwdriver?
I am not aware of that passage, Croix. Our Lord may have drunk one from time to time, but I don't think they had that kind of screwdriver then either. I wish I could help. :thinking:
-
Croixalist: I haven't read it, but can someone who has tell me if it's true that she depicted Jesus using a screwdriver?
I am not aware of that passage, Croix. Our Lord may have drunk one from time to time, but I don't think they had that kind of screwdriver then either. I wish I could help. :thinking:
Ha, right. Well, for what it's worth I wish I could back you on this. I know we have more in common than Valtorta, so here's to water under the bridge. Peace brothers!
-
Even when it comes Emmerich's visions, I had to take a step back after the strange ancient Jєωιѕн family vision she described. Taken together with the fact that a man... a writer... actually wrote the book down for her made me reluctant to accept everything 100%. However, I do think that even if it is fiction, the passages on the life of Our Lord, Our Lady, Magdalene, are some of the most inspiring meditations I've ever read. If only Gibson's Passion contained more than 1% of her take on it!
I think that most of Emmerich's content seems genuine; yet we cannot, as you pointed out, be sure that any particular part of the work can't be attributed to Brentano's embellishment and poetic license on his part. I suspect that the text we have is NOT even close to word-for-word dictations from Emmerich herself.
-
Even when it comes Emmerich's visions, I had to take a step back after the strange ancient Jєωιѕн family vision she described. Taken together with the fact that a man... a writer... actually wrote the book down for her made me reluctant to accept everything 100%. However, I do think that even if it is fiction, the passages on the life of Our Lord, Our Lady, Magdalene, are some of the most inspiring meditations I've ever read. If only Gibson's Passion contained more than 1% of her take on it!
I think that most of Emmerich's content seems genuine; yet we cannot, as you pointed out, be sure that any particular part of the work can't be attributed to Brentano's embellishment and poetic license on his part. I suspect that the text we have is NOT even close to word-for-word dictations from Emmerich herself.
Agreed. One thing that does work in her favor and which subsequently helps me give her a pass is the holy life she lead. I think all mystics ought to at least have a consecrated life and one that embraces suffering and penance. They also shouldn't crave the spotlight and make every effort to retire from public view. Anne Catherine by all accounts was fairly secluded and bedridden a good portion of her life with the Lord's wounds to boot. It also helps she didn't try to throw any homoerotic innuendo in her writings.
-
Croix:
Agreed. One thing that does work in her favor and which subsequently helps me give her a pass is the holy life she lead. I think all mystics ought to at least have a consecrated life and one that embraces suffering and penance. They also shouldn't crave the spotlight and make every effort to retire from public view. Anne Catherine by all accounts was fairly secluded and bedridden a good portion of her life with the Lord's wounds to boot. It also helps she didn't try to throw any homoerotic innuendo in her writings.
Are you implying that Maria Valtorta craved the spotlight? She, like Emmerich, spent many years in bed, 27 to be exact. I think it is safe to say that Valtorta was also tucked away from public view. She too had a "consecrated life." She embraced suffering and penance, as well.
But, as it touches Maria, we can't seem to get away from phony issues like heliocentrism, screwdrivers, and men giving "prolonged" kisses to other men. Croix, you may a bit more honest than ladislaus. Let me ask you to isolate specific "homoerotic innuendo" from the writings of Maria Valtorta. Can you do that? Something specific now- not the pharisaical mutterings of ladislaus and his phylacteried companions. BTW, you want "homoerotic innuendo?" Let me direct you to the Song of Songs in the Old Testament.
As for laddy wanting me banned: Unless I'm totally mistaken, Matthew will not do that. I'm good for Cathinfo business, like some 7000 hits on this topic alone, and counting. :ready-to-eat:
-
Are you implying that Maria Valtorta craved the spotlight? She, like Emmerich, spent many years in bed, 27 to be exact. I think it is safe to say that Valtorta was also tucked away from public view. She too had a "consecrated life." She embraced suffering and penance, as well.
That wasn't all aimed at just Valtorta, but as a litmus test to help separate true from false mystics. She might have had some seemingly positive aspects to her life, but one misstep and the house of cards falls down. My issue at first glance is the content of her writings.
But, as it touches Maria, we can't seem to get away from phony issues like heliocentrism, screwdrivers, and men giving "prolonged" kisses to other men. Croix, you may a bit more honest than ladislaus. Let me ask you to isolate specific "homoerotic innuendo" from the writings of Maria Valtorta. Can you do that?
Just this once, I really don't have any interest in delving into her writings:
Jesus turns around, and looks at him. There are now only a few steps between them. They look at each other: Jesus with His serious, scrutinising look, John with his pure eyes smiling in his beautiful, youthful face, that looks like the face of a girl. He is about twenty years old, and on his rosy cheeks there is only the sign of a blond down, like a golden veil.
Sounds more like a Brian Singer version of the Gospel to me.
Something specific now- not the pharisaical mutterings of ladislaus and his phylacteried companions. BTW, you want "homoerotic innuendo?" Let me direct you to the Song of Songs in the Old Testament.
Uh... homoerotic the Song of Songs is certainly not.
-
Let me ask you to isolate specific "homoerotic innuendo" from the writings of Maria Valtorta.
Just a few were originally posted by Nadir, then re-posted a few more times in this thread.
The heliocentrism issue was also addressed, but you ignored the answers and/or did not investigate the link provided by Cassini to answer your question; thus, you throw it into the 'phony' category.
Considering these tactics and many others, it's ironic you would say that Ladislaus is less than honest.
Dysfunction exhibits in hallmark traits, especially manipulation and projection. You've illustrated both quite well; however, almost from the first I had a suspicion: you are deliberately evading facts presented and questions asked, and shamefully baiting and blanket insulting members to drive hits.
Truth will out:
As for laddy wanting me banned: Unless I'm totally mistaken, Matthew will not do that. I'm good for Cathinfo business, like some 7000 hits on this topic alone, and counting. :ready-to-eat:
I'm bowing out of manipulation. Here are some prayers, especially in reparation for your disgraceful comment that Holy Scripture is homoerotic, to justify your pride.
-
Croix:
Just this once, I really don't have any interest in delving into her writings:
Valtorta Man-God Poem Chapter 47 said:
Jesus turns around, and looks at him. There are now only a few steps between them. They look at each other: Jesus with His serious, scrutinising look, John with his pure eyes smiling in his beautiful, youthful face, that looks like the face of a girl. He is about twenty years old, and on his rosy cheeks there is only the sign of a blond down, like a golden veil.
You have no interest in "delving into her writings," but you seem not to mind commenting upon her at length. Well, that may not be entirely fair to you. You certainly do not comment about her to the extent that ladislaus has. He hasn't even read her works, but that doesn't keep him from posing as an authority and running off at the mouth righteously. When lad makes an initial attempt to read the Poem, he gets a "headache." Please forgive me, but I need something to laugh about from time to time. Ladislaus pushes my mirth button. :roll-laugh2:
As for the passage which you cite: I see nothing homoerotic in it at all. As for PerEvan's going to say a prayer for me, I want to correct myself, lest she and other Cathinfo droolers pounce to fiercely upon me. I did not mean that Song of Songs is "homoerotic." But it is certainly heavily erotic in some of the images which it evokes.
Do I understand, PerEvan, that you're dropping out of this discussion? You mean, you're not going to stick around until this one topic alone receives 9,000 hits? You don't want to make your already ample contribution to what may become a record? Well, if so, we'll all miss you. :laugh1:
-
The Words of Jesus:
Douay-Rheims Bible
Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.
John 20:27
-
I made a post on another thread on Valtorta but it has been closed down so not appeared. I will repeat it here and it centres around the article of Marian Horvath, but can be applied to all those work so hard against the Poem -
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.
-
Who cares that people like Padre Pio, Pius XII, Bp. Williamson and even Abp Lefebvre advise about reading The Poem? We've got such as ladislaus, per evangelica dicta, nipr and Marian Horvat warning us against those books. That's enough for me. I vow not to read it again.... until tomorrow early. I like to use it as part of my morning devotions. :rolleyes:
-
BTW, you want "homoerotic innuendo?" Let me direct you to the Song of Songs in the Old Testament.
Stop! Blasphemer! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnyMUpPdVqw)
-
Who cares that people like Padre Pio, Pius XII, Bp. Williamson and even Abp Lefebvre advise about reading The Poem? We've got such as ladislaus, per evangelica dicta, nipr and Marian Horvat warning us against those books. That's enough for me. I vow not to read it again.... until tomorrow early. I like to use it as part of my morning devotions. :rolleyes:
Archbishop Lefebvre did not recommend the reading of those books.
-
Malleus:
Stop! Blasphemer!
Malleus, stop acting like a total idiot! I apologized for the "homoerotic" reference. I meant 'erotic.'
-
VCR:
Archbishop Lefebvre did not recommend the reading of those books.
Perhaps you can reproduce a quote from ABL to that effect. I think it was Fr. Francois Laisney who mentioned (1991?) that he had a statement of the Archbishop stuck away in a trunk some place. Can you find it, and be kind enough to reprint it for our perusal? But even if you managed to come up with something, we'd still have to work our way back through expressions of approval from such as Pius XII, Padre Pio, not to mention other holy prelates. :dancing:
-
Malleus: Stop! Blasphemer!
Malleus, stop acting like a total idiot! I apologized for the "homoerotic" reference. I meant 'erotic.'
Did you click the link? Haha
-
VCR: Archbishop Lefebvre did not recommend the reading of those books.
Perhaps you can reproduce a quote from ABL to that effect. I think it was Fr. Francois Laisney who mentioned (1991?) that he had a statement of the Archbishop stuck away in a trunk some place. Can you find it, and be kind enough to reprint it for our perusal? But even if you managed to come up with something, we'd still have to work our way back through expressions of approval from such as Pius XII, Padre Pio, not to mention other holy prelates. :dancing:
Bishop Williamson says that Archbishop Lefebvre wasnt for it.
-
VCR:
Archbishop Lefebvre did not recommend the reading of those books.
I won't dispute what you assert now. He may not have recommended tdhem, because either he hadn't read them, or was not well enough acquainted with their contents to be fairly objective. BTW, do you have H.E.'s remarks on the subject? It seems that he did say something like this at one time, but I can not remember where.
-
He may not have recommended tdhem, because either he hadn't read them, or was not well enough acquainted with their contents to be fairly objective.
So if Archbishop Lefebvre recommended against Valtorta then it could only have been due to ignorance?
:roll-laugh1:
You continue to discredit yourself. You started by falsely alleging that +Lefebvre actively approved of Valtorta.
Then you turn an anecdotal vague reference from biased sources about a comment that could possibly be construed as an endorsement from Pius XII made in no official capacity into an unqualified stamp of approval from the Church ... while at the same time ignoring the only official statement from the Church on the subject, which was to put Valtorta on the Index.
And you completely ignore +Williamson's comments that there are indeed some extremely problematic things in Valtorta; you have claimed that everything is fine and great. So the illuminated sage nothingsworth knows better than +Williamson?
Be gone now; you've made a complete fool of yourself.
-
Who cares that people like Padre Pio, Pius XII, Bp. Williamson and even Abp Lefebvre advise about reading The Poem?
And as of 6PM yesterday you're STILL pretending that +Lefebvre approved of it. Shamless and pathetic. You demand proof that +Lefebvre did NOT endorse the work. You made the allegation that he did, so the burden of proof rests squarely on you. On the other side, we have the testimony of +Williamson who was very close to +Lefebvre and knew his thinking; if +Lefebvre had endorsed Valtorta, +Williamson would have been the first to say that, not the opposite.
-
Among the (ahem) "fruits" of reading Maria Valtorta seem to be an increase of traits common to 14 year old girls - bratty petulence; prideful, stubborn contrarianism; irrational emotionalism, and an unseemly overuse of emoticons - in ostensibly grown Catholic men.
At times in this thread, one feels like he is reading the blog of a Sylvia Plath fangirl. Militant, virilie Catholicism this most certainly is not.
-
VCR and others: This link was forwarded to me today. You may find it instructive. I don't know.
The Archbishop did not reject the work. He was, at worst, tentative about it, and preferred that Catholics read the Gospels, and not dwell so much on the particulars of them.
http://gloria.tv/media/HihZdQCsRYy
-
BTNYC:
At times in this thread, one feels like he is reading the blog of a Sylvia Plath fangirl. Militant, virilie Catholicism this most certainly is not.
I get it. You want a virile Maria Valtorta, a Valtorta with hair on her chest. Not a limp wristed, girlie Valtorta. You want Maria to be a man. Well sorry, BT, I can't help you. :boxer: :laugh2: :surprised:
-
Ladislaus, I want to thank you for directing my attention to The Poem in a way that it was never directed before. You see, my wife is quite taken with the Poem. In fact she's read almost the entire body of her work. Now I am doing likewise :rolleyes:. Now I have Maria's portrait hanging on the wall. I face that portrait daily, asking this blessed woman to pray for me, for my family, and for the Church at large. That would not have happened but for your encouragement. I want to thank you again, ladislaus. Keep up the good work. God bless. :rolleyes:
-
BTNYC: At times in this thread, one feels like he is reading the blog of a Sylvia Plath fangirl. Militant, virilie Catholicism this most certainly is not.
I get it. You want a virile Maria Valtorta, a Valtorta with hair on her chest. Not a limp wristed, girlie Valtorta. You want Maria to be a man. Well sorry, BT, I can't help you. :boxer: :laugh2: :surprised:
No, I'm asking you to start behaving like a man.
It's becoming increasingly obvious, however, that that might be expecting too much.
-
You see, my wife is quite taken with the Poem. In fact she's read almost the entire body of her work. Now I am doing likewise.
Does your "cycle" sync up with hers also?
-
Ladislaus, I want to thank you for directing my attention to The Poem in a way that it was never directed before. You see, my wife is quite taken with the Poem. In fact she's read almost the entire body of her work. Now I am doing likewise :rolleyes:. Now I have Maria's portrait hanging on the wall. I face that portrait daily, asking this blessed woman to pray for me, for my family, and for the Church at large. That would not have happened but for your encouragement. I want to thank you again, ladislaus. Keep up the good work. God bless. :rolleyes:
On my walls are the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Our Lady of Guadalupe, etc.
-
ladislaus:
Does your "cycle" sync up with hers also?
Not sure what you mean by that, ladislaus. If you mean what I think you mean, we can always exchange addresses, arrange some common ground and have it out. I'd let you select the weapons of your own choice. You just let me know, pal.
-
Not sure what you mean by that, ladislaus.
I meant exactly what BTNYC wrote earlier.
-
ladislaus, I'd love to get my hands on you and kick your candy ass all over the lot. Thereafter we could re-discuss my alleged femininity . You're a prize jerk, ladislaus. And I as I wrote earlier it would be possible for us to meet. Even as an old guy, I still think I could slap you silly. :rolleyes:
-
ladislaus, I'd love to get my hands on you and kick your candy ass all over the lot. Thereafter we could re-discuss my alleged femininity . You're a prize jerk, ladislaus. And I as I wrote earlier it would be possible for us to meet. Even as an old guy, I still think I could slap you silly. :rolleyes:
So you can dish out the insults but can't take them back, eh?
-
ladislaus, I'd love to get my hands on you and kick your candy ass all over the lot. Thereafter we could re-discuss my alleged femininity . You're a prize jerk, ladislaus. And I as I wrote earlier it would be possible for us to meet. Even as an old guy, I still think I could slap you silly. :rolleyes:
For crying out loud, stop acting like a petulant child. Grow up and stop blaspheming, especially for defending Valtorta and calling Holy Writ "homoerotic".
-
Even as an old guy, I still think I could slap you silly. :rolleyes:
Could it be a case of senile dementia?
-
Hollingworth, are you an American?
-
The fruits of the poem.
-
Folks!..................Charity!....disagree but, love the brethren. Do not be unkind to one another.
And if you are angry, remember who strongly encouraged your fellow Catholics to read this unapproved visionary's work.
Send to him your irate comments.
-
:tv-disturbed:
-
Folks!..................Charity!....disagree but, love the brethren. Do not be unkind to one another.
* CS hits J.Paul with a folded-chair... twice *
.....
:wink:
-
Owww!.............................
-
Cool. Virtual fights on CI.
Ladislaus starts by giving hollingsworth a right hook; hollingsworth is down. 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... ... 10 [ding ding ding]
-
Bishop Williamson is doing harm to souls by encouraging people to read this crap. Pick up Emmerich or Agreda instead.
Retracted. Shame on me.
-
I believe the history of the works, includes it's introduction to Pope Pius XII in the 1950s by Cardinal Bea.
He is said to have ushered it into the Vatican and protected it, even though it was still banned.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9uyl9oEEwrk/VOPijvndq5I/AAAAAAAAEus/SsYHk-MGtJU/s1600/ajc_heschel-bea.jpg)
As the above photo demonstrates, the Cardinal is known for dragging some other ugly things into the Church.
-
Cardinal Bea did some good things early on in his career. In 1940 (as rector of he Pontifical Biblical Institute) he wrote an expert assessment for the trial of some Swiss youths who had disseminated scandalous quotes from the тαℓмυd, establishing that Judaism does indeed teach that non-Jews are animals without souls. I don't know if he was corrupted at some point or if he was always putting on a show.
-
Cardinal Bea did some good things early on in his career. In 1940 (as rector of he Pontifical Biblical Institute) he wrote an expert assessment for the trial of some Swiss youths who had disseminated scandalous quotes from the тαℓмυd, establishing that Judaism does indeed teach that non-Jews are animals without souls. I don't know if he was corrupted at some point or if he was always putting on a show.
Maybe Judas was a good guy at one point too?
No, Bea was a judas goat who sold us "down the river".
Here's an exceprt from just one of many links: "How the Jews changed Catholic Thinking" (Look Magazine 1966) (http://www.adlagainstmel.com/how_jews_changed_catholic_thinking.htm)
Quote:"Bea's declaration, set for voting at the first Council session, carried a clear refutation of the decide charge"
Read the тαℓмυd and always remember: "The Jews are the enemies of Jesus Christ and our Holy religion" (Holy Padre Pio)