Maria Valtorta's Poem of the Man-God.
#21
(03-23-2021, 01:41 AM)XavierSem Wrote: The book has an Imprimatur.

If we accept your PDF, then, it would seem that the Malayam edition published in 15 volumes does have an Imprimatur.

That does not grant Imprimatur to all editions or languages. It means only that Msgr Pakiam approved this specific translation and edition.

If the other editions have an Imprimatur, it should be easy to demonstrate. It would be printed in the book, like every other such work, typically on the verso of the title page. Instead, one finds in the English edition, for instance, no imprimatur, but a leaflet explaining an alleged "Supreme Apostolic Imprimatur" by Pius XII who in an audience supposedly approved it (despite it being over 10,000 pages of notebooks and only just finished before this audience with Pius XII in 1948).

So, while I have me doubts, let's concede that the Malayam edition received approval. So?

(03-23-2021, 01:41 AM)XavierSem Wrote: It is endorsed by many traditional Bishops and Priests.

So far you've cited :
  • Msgr Williamson, who is not exactly a very reliable source, has a bit of a history, and whose last act as a member of the SSPX was calumniating his superior and calling for his deposition,
  • Fr Kevin Robinson, who seems to have either not checked the Summa reference (so in a rush to defend, was negligent in checking what he said, and thus is not really 100% trusthworthy with the rest of what he says or claims), or intentionally modified it to say what St Thomas Aquinas specifically denies (in which case he should not be trusted at all); add to this, he was forbidden by his superiors to speak publicly about Maria Valtorta during at least at one point in time, yet seems to have continued doing this.
The track record is not good.

(03-23-2021, 01:41 AM)XavierSem Wrote: So we are free to read it or encourage others to read it.

Not if you are encouraging them to read an edition which is not approved.

Are you promoting the Malayam translation?

(03-23-2021, 01:41 AM)XavierSem Wrote: It is absurd to call the book an idol. Disagree all you want but please don't say such things which have no basis in reality. I love Mystical City of God too, and that's not an idol either.

It is an idol if one is putting it ahead of the True God. Plenty of things are idols in this manner. Our opinions and ideas can become idols. Our self image or what we label ourselves to promote our honor, this can also be an idol. A book could easily become this, even one which were approved. An idol is anything one willingly values above the Gospels, the Liturgy, the approved devotions of the Church, a solid ascetical life based on the principles of the great ascetical authors, etc.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • HailGilbert, Ioannes_L, jovan66102
Reply
#22
Xavier,

Since you seem keen to debate the orthodoxy and goodness of The Poem of the Man God, how about defend this passage in which Our Lord jokingly accuses St Peter of trying to have a sexual encounter with Our Lady (Vol. II, n. 199, §9) :


Quote:Jesus stands up and calls out loud: "Simon of Jonas: come here."

Peter starts and rushes down the steps. "What do You want, Master?"

"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?"

But Jesus smiles and Peter recovers confidence. "Oh!" he says. "You really frightened me! But now You are laughing... What do You want from me, Master? My life? I have but that, because You have taken everything... But if You want, I will give it to You."


I'd be keen for it to be explained why Our Lord is impurely joking with St Peter when St Paul, warns us (Eph 5.3) "fornicatio autem, et omnis immunditia, aut avaritia, nec nominetur in vobis, sicut decet sanctos."

If Our Lady and St Peter were "saints" (and even more) according to St Paul's language, then why would it be "becoming" for Sanctity Itself, to jokingly accuse St Peter of trying to have his way with the Blessed Virgin?

Perhaps it was such episodes which saw the Holy Office in 1959 condemned the work (and the assessors unanimously do so)?
[-] The following 4 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • HailGilbert, Ioannes_L, jovan66102, newenglandsun
Reply
#23
Completely taken out of context. I have vol. 2 and that portion is about St. Peter adopting a son. The Lord first refused to grant him one. Then, after Mother Mary interceded, just as at Cana, the wish was granted. That's it. Anyone who reads the passage in its context (the books can be downloaded online) will see that.

I promote the book for mainly two reasons (1) When non-Christians find there has been extraordinary archaeological confirmation etc, it kindles their interest in the Bible, in Christ and in Christianity. (2) Among us Catholics, the book very movingly speaks of Jesus' Love for us, presents Mary as Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix etc.

Anything can become an idol. Even clinging to one's prejudged thoughts on a work said to be given by God can be. I, and others, believe this work to be Church approved, for good reasons, and thus give it the due honor, after Sacred Scripture, that we give to other Church-approved books like Mystical City of God. I agree about the importance of asceticism, and both MCOG and the Poem also promote it vigorously, as the great spiritual masters do. The work speaks of the importance of accepting one's daily cross and offering it to God as a sacrifice for the Church and the world. Very traditional in that respect.

Fr. Bareille also promoted the work and Archbishop Lefebvre, like Gamaliel, was at least neutral. Perhaps the book's opponents can learn from +ABL's neutrality.

The book is definitely approved for circulation in Malayalam. I'm from India, and know Malayalam. I'll have to ask His Grace Archbishop Soosa Pakiam if the Imprimatur was only for Malayalam or not. The other Cardinals and Archbishops who congratulated him apparently didn't think so. 

Anyway, as documented in the article mentioned earlier, yet another Archbishop, this time in Brazil, gave an Imprimatur as well: "6. Archbishop Alberto Ramos of Belem, Brazil, granted the imprimatur to an anthology of The Poem of the Man-God that was published in 1978.2"

To each his own. If the book doesn't edify and increase your faith, all right. Then read another good book that does. For us, the book is Imprimatured, and so safe to read.
Rosary Crusade to end Abortion: https://rosarycrusadingarmytoendabortion.home.blog/

"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with Your Most Precious Blood and Your Sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the Intention of Your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at Your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/
Reply
#24
Just a note too, as an Eastern rite Catholic, I find the notion of Jesus laughing incredibly blasphemous too! Sts. John Climacus, Symeon the New Theologian, and Nicodemos the Hagiorite would have taken that work and burned it up and then gave Christians the discourse on how Jesus wept four times in Scriptures and not once did you see him laughing.
https://historyofnewengland.blogspot.com/?m=1
"This guy gets it." Fan mail I've received.
Reply
#25
Pages and pages and pages of fluff.
[-] The following 3 users Like Florus's post:
  • HailGilbert, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#26
(03-23-2021, 11:22 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: Just a note too, as an Eastern rite Catholic, I find the notion of Jesus laughing incredibly blasphemous too! Sts. John Climacus, Symeon the New Theologian, and Nicodemos the Hagiorite would have taken that work and burned it up and then gave Christians the discourse on how Jesus wept four times in Scriptures and not once did you see him laughing.
Surely, if "Jesus was like us in all things but sin" He probably would have laughed at some point, even if, like most of His life on earth, it is not reflected in the Gospels. 

And I have no time whatsoever at all for Valtorta's "poem".
“But all will be well, and all will be well, and every kind of thing will be well.” ~Julian of Norwich

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug."~Mark Knopfler (?)

"No matter who you are somebody thinks you're a heretic. Wear it like a badge of honor........... :LOL:"~Silouan

The fact that I "like" a post is not necessarily an endorsement or approval of its content.
Reply
#27
(03-23-2021, 12:26 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(03-23-2021, 11:22 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: Just a note too, as an Eastern rite Catholic, I find the notion of Jesus laughing incredibly blasphemous too! Sts. John Climacus, Symeon the New Theologian, and Nicodemos the Hagiorite would have taken that work and burned it up and then gave Christians the discourse on how Jesus wept four times in Scriptures and not once did you see him laughing.
Surely, if "Jesus was like us in all things but sin" He probably would have laughed at some point, even if, like most of His life on earth, it is not reflected in the Gospels. 

And I have no time whatsoever at all for Valtorta's "poem".
I am only basing on what MM has cited but no, it is held in sacred tradition that Jesus most certainly did not break out into bursts of laughter.
https://historyofnewengland.blogspot.com/?m=1
"This guy gets it." Fan mail I've received.
Reply
#28
(03-23-2021, 01:04 PM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(03-23-2021, 12:26 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(03-23-2021, 11:22 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: but no, it is held in sacred tradition that Jesus most certainly did not break out into bursts of laughter.
Can you give me a reference for that?  I just find it hard to believe that even as a child, and almost every child except for one severely maltreated or mentally incompetent does it, Jesus never laughed.  Really?  Maybe not "bursts of laughter" inappropriate to the context, but maybe so.  It's a small point really and I didn't mean to derail the thread, but again, if He was like us in all things, that certainly must include childhood laughter.  Or, is that sinful?

Ecclesiates 3:1-4--
Quote:[1] All things have their season, and in their times all things pass under heaven. [2] A time to be born and a time to die. A time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted. [3] A time to kill, and a time to heal. A time to destroy, and a time to build. [4] A time to weep, and a time to laugh. A time to mourn, and a time to dance.
“But all will be well, and all will be well, and every kind of thing will be well.” ~Julian of Norwich

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug."~Mark Knopfler (?)

"No matter who you are somebody thinks you're a heretic. Wear it like a badge of honor........... :LOL:"~Silouan

The fact that I "like" a post is not necessarily an endorsement or approval of its content.
[-] The following 1 user Likes J Michael's post:
  • HailGilbert
Reply
#29
"Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh."  Luke 6:21.

If laughter is promised in the Beatitudes, there cannot be something unholy about it.  Jesus embodied the Beatitudes.  It is not unthinkable therefore that Jesus laughed.

That said, I in no way wish to defend The Poem of the Man-God. I am persuaded that it is voluminous junk.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Evangelium's post:
  • HailGilbert
Reply
#30
(03-23-2021, 09:49 AM)XavierSem Wrote: Completely taken out of context. I have vol. 2 and that portion is about St. Peter adopting a son. The Lord first refused to grant him one. Then, after Mother Mary interceded, just as at Cana, the wish was granted. That's it. Anyone who reads the passage in its context (the books can be downloaded online) will see that.

I know it's available, because I copied it directly out of the book.

Firstly, to claim "anyone who reads in context" would understand is fallacious way of arguing (basically a combination of the argumentum ad populum and 'No True Scotsman' fallacies). I have not misrepresented what is in the text at all, nor pulled the section out of context.

I did read it all in context. What you are effectively saying is that "no reasonable person" if they read the whole chapter would see this as problematic, but I did (and I am not the only one, looking through other critiques). So either one of two things is true: (1) Actually, reasonable people do find this problematic, or (2) I'm not reasonable.

Which do you assert?

Secondly, let us consider the rest of the section as "context".

Indeed the section is about St Peter wanting a son, and because Jesus will not allow him to have one through natural procreation (Our Lady says to Jesus that she understands why), this young boy is St Peter's chance to practice fatherhood because, as she says, he needs to learn how to be a father if he will be the Pope one day. Uncharacteristically of the Blessed Virgin, the dialog with Jesus here is several hundreds of words long, and follows a very long private conversation between Mary and Peter.

The problem with this is that proper Christian culture would never permit such a private meeting between a woman and man who were not family members for such a conversation. It would be considered grossly inappropriate, and that is especially the case for the Jewish culture of the time. So, the social norms argue against said conversation between Peter and Mary, but even if it happened, there are real problems with the words of Our Lord quoted.

Then Our Lord, jokingly (something he never does in Scripture), accuses Peter of "wanting to be alone" with the Blessed Mother, and "corrupting" her.

This could mean in context two things.

The natural meaning of the words in Engish (but also in Italian), are an euphemistic accusation of sexual impropriety. If I said to anyone "Bob wanted to be alone with that woman to corrupt her," the unequivocal understanding of everyone would naturally suggest Bob wanted to commit some gross impropriety. The context of the conversation being about St Peter having a son only suggests this the more.

However, it also could be metaphorical, even though that is not what people would normally understand by such language. Our Lord could be accusing St Peter of manipulating the Blessed Virgin's emotions in order to get her to try to convince Our Lord to allow an adoption, as a kind of literary parallel to Cana. If that were true, that Our Lord is joking about, what amounts to, intercessory prayer being "a corruption" and then speaking of the sinless Virgin as being "corrupted".

So, in one case it's scandalously blasphemous as accusing St Peter of wanting to commit fornication with the Blessed Virgin, in the other case it mocks religion. I see no way this passage is not either blasphemous or sacrilegious, and it's one of the tamer ones, as others certainly have homoerotic overtones.

If I've missed an alternative, and you don't just want to parrot what you copy from a website, be my guest to provide the context I have supposedly removed that makes this passage decent.

(03-23-2021, 09:49 AM)XavierSem Wrote: I promote the book for mainly two reasons (1) When non-Christians find there has been extraordinary archaeological confirmation etc, it kindles their interest in the Bible, in Christ and in Christianity. (2) Among us Catholics, the book very movingly speaks of Jesus' Love for us, presents Mary as Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix etc.

How about providing them the Catechism? How about promoting St Francis de Sales and the other spiritual authors who are the classics before promoting what, at the very least is a "controversal" book?

You said the same about promoting Protestant-style Creationism ... it was a "help".

I've helped a dozens of people convert. Never once have I presented Creationism or Valtorta.

(03-23-2021, 09:49 AM)XavierSem Wrote: I agree about the importance of asceticism, and both MCOG and the Poem also promote it vigorously, as the great spiritual masters do. The work speaks of the importance of accepting one's daily cross and offering it to God as a sacrifice for the Church and the world. Very traditional in that respect.

Fr. Bareille also promoted the work and Archbishop Lefebvre, like Gamaliel, was at least neutral. Perhaps the book's opponents can learn from +ABL's neutrality.

Msgr Lefebvre was not in the least "neutral" about it. Perhaps he was not absolutely condemnatory of it, but that is also because he, admittedly only read parts of it because of Fr Barielle's favoring it, and did not like what he read.

Consider what he said about it and the ascetical life in a 1986 retreat to priests :

Quote:It is better for us…not to spend too much time on the material details of the life of Our Lord.

These books which present themselves as revelations of the Life of Our Lord, in my opinion, can be a danger, precisely because they represent Our Lord in a too concrete manner, too much in the details of His life. I am thinking of course of Maria Valtorta. And perhaps for some this reading can do good, it can bring them close to Our Lord, to try to imagine what would have been the life of the Apostles with Our Lord, the life at Nazareth, the life of Our Lord as the visits of the cities of Israel.

But there is a danger, a great danger; that is to humanize too much, to concretize too much, and to not sufficiently show the face of God, in this Life of Our Lord. This is the danger. I do not know if we should recommend so much to people the reading of these books, if they are not forewarned. I do not know if that would raise them up and make them know Our Lord, such as He was, such as He is, such as we should know Him and believe Him to be.

Granted that is not an outright condemnation, and perhaps because someone he trusted (and thus some priests as a result) were devotees. It is couched in softer language, but Msgr Lefebvre was clear that he thought this work, and these kinds of works, dangerous for the ascetical life, precisely because they claim to present so much detail (which is not true, but is at best a Romanic depiction) that they impeded contemplation and meditation.

He advised the Carmelites who had asked his opinion in stronger terms not to read Valtorta, according to the SSPX priest I asked who has the letter.

(03-23-2021, 09:49 AM)XavierSem Wrote: The book is definitely approved for circulation in Malayalam. I'm from India, and know Malayalam. I'll have to ask His Grace Archbishop Soosa Pakiam if the Imprimatur was only for Malayalam or not. The other Cardinals and Archbishops who congratulated him apparently didn't think so.

Canon 824 requires that the local ordinary of the author or the place where the book is published is the only competent person to give the imprimatur. Canon 829 extends the imprimatur only to the edition given this imprimatur, and not to other translations or editions.

So the Malayalam edition, if published in the Diocese of Trivandrum would be approved. If not, then the imprimatur would need to come from the bishop who was the ordinary of the translator.

No matter his intention Msgr Pakiam could not "approve" other editions. Also, any changes would require a new imprimatur, including retypsetting, since this could introduce new things into the text. Any opportunity for new material to be incorporated or things to be changed means it needs a new grant.

(03-23-2021, 09:49 AM)XavierSem Wrote: Anyway, as documented in the article mentioned earlier, yet another Archbishop, this time in Brazil, gave an Imprimatur as well

And?

If we can find that the Tuvan edition is approved, that still says nothing about the English edition or Italian original, which have not be approved, but always come with (as suggested) a long tract on how they don't need an imprimatur because Pope Pius XII allegedly said (as reported only by Valtortites) "print it as it is," despite it being virtually impossible for him to have read it (since it was over 10,000 handwritten pages), and that it was unequivocally and unanimously condemned by the Holy Office in 1959.

(03-23-2021, 09:49 AM)XavierSem Wrote: To each his own.

This is not a Catholic principle, but a Liberal one.

(03-23-2021, 09:49 AM)XavierSem Wrote: If the book doesn't edify and increase your faith, all right. Then read another good book that does. For us, the book is Imprimatured, and so safe to read.

So you're going to read and quite from the Malayalam edition only then, not the English?

Because if you are claiming that the English is approved, this is simply false.
[-] The following 4 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • HailGilbert, Ioannes_L, jovan66102, newenglandsun
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)