|
Post by shane on Apr 1, 2011 0:45:27 GMT
I took a look at valtorta.org. It is a deeply unedifying website written by someone who really ought to be admitted to a nice bouncy rubber room. One page calls on the pope to resign and attacks him for supporting the UN ("a communist or fascist totalitarian oligarchy"), even though that institution was supported by Popes Pius XII all the way through John Paul II inclusive. It calls on bishops to stop sending money to the Vatican "until #67 (of Caritas in Veritate) is rescinded or the pope resigns. There is no provision for impeaching a pope in Canon Law. Unless the pope rescinds paragraph #67 it will cause a great schism in the Roman Catholic Church."
http://www.valtorta.org./pope_rejects_catechism_defaultpage.html
Stay away from this nonsense (and also Medjugorje which is demonic and evil).
|
|
|
Post by stephentlig on Apr 1, 2011 2:23:29 GMT
Sorry. It appears I have given both you and my blog readers the wrong site in defense of Poem of the Man God. This is my fault. It is obviously ( after careful review ) not an appropiate site and I will have to make some adjustments.
Here is the site I've been meaning to qoute:http://maria-valtorta.net/: It gives an exact account and history from top to bottom of the history upon poem of the man God finishing with: 1994: Pope John Paul II initiates the beatification process for Fr. Gabriel Allegra--an outspoken supporter of Maria Valtorta [18] and renowned Scripture scholar--who is then declared Venerable. The decree of beatification was promulgated in 2002.
[18] Venerable Fr. Allegra writes; "When completed the Poem makes us better understand the Gospel, but does not contradict it….. I find no other works of eminent scripture exegetes which complete and clarify the Canonical Gospels so naturally, so spontaneously, with such liveliness as does The Poem of Valtorta." 18
2001: Bishop Roman Danylak grants an additional written Imprimatur of the Poem. 1
It contains all the documents one needs peruse in order to check that it is quite alright to read Poem of the Man God.
You also have no right shane to call an apparition evil or demonic. That is for the Church to decide. So far the Church has sent in a commision to make final judgment upon the apparitions there. The pharisees called the works of Jesus demonic. Such rash and aggressive behaviour is not called for and I invite you to think twice before making such an awful statement.
Pax Stephen
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 1, 2011 10:45:21 GMT
I object to being called a modernist and a heretic. (Do you have any idea how serious those accusations are?) I came across your endorsement of THE POEM OF THE MAN-GOD when I visited your blog to check the text of your letter from Archbishop Dolan; I happened to be aware that Valtorta's ravings explicitly state that the evangelists did not include everything necessary in the Gospels because they did not understand Jesus properly. THAT is certainly heretical, and the fact that you endorse a text of that sort shows how little you understand what heresy is and is not in relation to scriptural interpretation, and how much value is to be placed upon the accusations you made against me. The Protestant polemic use of St John is false because it was directed against the Catholic doctrine thatscripture is not self-interpreting and must be read with the aid of tradition. If Catholics taught, as Valtorta taught, that the texts of scripture are inherently insufficient and that private revelation can be equal or superior in authority to the texts of the Gospels, then the Protestant critique would be perfectly justified. I might add that the apocalypse is not the only book of the Bible which contains grave warnings against claiming to make additions to the Scriptural text. I do believe that there are such things as private revelations; I have never denied that, and Stephentlig's statement that I do not believe in privaterevelation is absolutely false. What I do deny is that Medjugorje and the Poem of the Man-God are genuine examples. Belief in the existence of private revelations does not entail believing in every claimed private revelation. The fact that a beatus believed THE POEM OF THE MAN-GOD to be orthodox does not prove anything. Sanctity is not equivalent to infallibility. It is well-known that at least three Doctors of the Church (St Catherine of Siena, St Thomas Aquinas, St Bernard of Clairvaux) held that belief in the Immaculate Conception was mistaken; I know of saints who held that Savonarola was a saint and others who believed him a heretic, and they can't both have been correct. To take a more recent example, the late Fr Michael O'Carroll was unquestionably a holy man, but in his 1980s pro-Medjugorje books he declares Fr Tomislav Vlasic to be "a man of obvious sanctity" and calls on Bishop Zanic to apologise for making accusations of immorality against him - which accusations have turned out to be true (there is written evidence to confirm them) and which have led to Fr Vlasic being defrocked by Rome. It is very instructive to compare more recent Medjugorje apologists' denial that Fr Vlasic was ever important to the Medjugorje phenomenon with Fr O'Carroll's books in which Vlasic is described as absolutely central to it. I must say I don't agree with Shane in that I don't think Medjugorje is demonic - I think it is simply a scam, and treating it as essential to the faith is paving the way to schism. The fact that there has not yet been a final Church pronouncement on Medjugorje does not mean that someone who is convinced it is false and possibly demonic is precluded from saying so, any more than it precludes those who believe it a genuine apparition from promoting it; indeed if they are truly convinced they have a duty to do so, and their debates will assist the Magisterium in making its final determination. (I would point out that it is well known for demonic apparitions to accompany a genuine apparition in order to discredit it by association, saying that no apparition should be described as demonic abset a magisterial ruling, as Stephentlig does, would play into the devil's hands by putting the demonic apparitions on the same level as the real one)> I happen to be well-acquainted with Sandra Miesel's work and her orthodoxy (try her contributions to the IGNATIUS INSIGHT blog). If you wish to dismiss her criticisms of Valtorta show where she is mistaken in the very precise references to the text that she gives, don't just refer us to pro-Valtorta sites which do not address the criticism directly. Please refrain from dismissing someone who has done more to vindicate the Church's teaching on the Divinity of Jesus and other matters than you have done in your entire existence; reasoned criticism is another matter.
|
|
|
Post by stephentlig on Apr 1, 2011 13:46:40 GMT
4. Assuming the Poem is true, then how is it to be considered? A 5th Gospel?
As a private revelation, the Poem may never be considered equal to Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, but instead is judged in light of it. It would thus be an error to consider the Poem a kind of 5th gospel. Instead, it is more proper to consider it a sort of commentary to Scripture; one that clarifies and enriches, but does not add or modify any tenets of the faith.
"...no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
"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." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, p.66,67
Quote me sites that include magisterial judgments Hib and not just some critics biased view of Poem of the Man God. Catholics have a tendency to read private revelation like protestants do scripture and impose their own view upon it.
The site I gave you gives a clear and succinct report upon the history of Poem of the Man God.
People have the right to believe or dis believe in Private revelation. But to call it demonic? Take Pope Urban VIIIs advice on this: His Holiness, Pope Urban VIII stated: "In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true."(Pope Urban VIII, 1623-44)
Hib thinks that if he can somehow get me with Poem of the Man God that he can persuade people that I'm wrong. But he cant do that. Because private revelation is private revelation. We have a choice to believe or disbelieve in it.
But when it comes to the authenticity of Gods Holy Word, we must according to magisterial teaching accept its inerrancy in matters pertaining to Historicity amongst other things. But hib is a historian, he knows it all, hes the man whose intellectually more correct than Gods Holy word. and because he is a ''historian'' ( he even used this claim in recent posts to persuade us of his position ) we must now obey our mentality of ''the historian says so so it must be true''.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of Archbishop Timothys report. I've quite a lot more letters to get sending upon this heresy and abuse in Ireland at the moment. Ireland is bad enough as it is and this forum is just one example of that bad fruit and poor Catholic education and formation.
Adios O wise Historian.
Stephen
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 1, 2011 15:37:13 GMT
Once again Stephentlig misses the point. What we are talking about is a private revelation which claims to have the same authority as scripture, even to be superior to it (cf the specific passage cited by Miesel accusing the Evangelists of misunderstanding Jesus). A private revelation which makes THAT claim should be rejected without waiting for a formal official declaration, just as one should instantly reject a private revelation which claimed (e.g.) that the Blessed Virgin was the fourth Member of the Trinity, or that the recipient of the revelation is authorised by God to take 120 wives starting with your 15-year-old daughter, should be rejected. The statement of Pope Urban is not a mandate for universal credulity - it assumes that the reader should use their own intelligence rather than accepting every self-proclaimed seer who may come along in bayside, Palmar de Troya, or wherever. I support my arguments with evidence - I don't ask you to accept them because I say so. I mention that I am a historian because it means I have some knowledge of church history and of weighing and balancing evidence. That does not make me omnicompetent, but it's not irrelevant either. We have indeed seen some sad displays of poor Catholic education and formation on this thread, but they have not come from me.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Apr 1, 2011 16:04:39 GMT
I would point out that it is well known for demonic apparitions to accompany a genuine apparition in order to discredit it by association, saying that no apparition should be described as demonic abset a magisterial ruling, as Stephentlig does, would play into the devil's hands by putting the demonic apparitions on the same level as the real one)> Indeed. As St John of the Cross said (...I wonder was he 'rash and aggressive'?): "It is always well, then, that the soul should reject these things, and close its eyes to them, whencesoever they come. For, unless it does so, it will prepare the way for those things that come from the devil, and will give him such influence that, not only will his visions come in place of God's, but his visions will begin to increase, and those of God to cease, in such manner that the devil will have all the power and God will have none. So it has happened to many incautious and ignorant souls, who rely on these things to such an extent that many of them have found it hard to return to God in purity of faith; and many have been unable to return, so securely has the devil rooted himself in them; for which reason it is well to resist and reject them all. For, by the rejection of evil visions, the errors of the devil are avoided, and by the rejection of good visions no hindrance is offered to faith and the spirit harvests the fruit of them." The Ascent of Mount Carmel (2.11:8,12)
|
|
|
Post by shane on Apr 1, 2011 16:21:12 GMT
I googled Urban's alleged statement and its authenticity is contested. It seems to be spurious. According to the old Catholic Encyclopedia: [Pope Urban VIII] reserved the beatification of saints to the Holy See and in a Bull, dated 30 October, 1625, forbade the representation with the halo of sanctity of persons not beatified or canonized, the placing of lamps, tablets, etc., before their sepulchres, and the printing of their alleged miracles or revelations.
|
|
|
Post by stephentlig on Apr 1, 2011 16:49:07 GMT
Once again Stephentlig misses the point. What we are talking about is a private revelation which claims to have the same authority as scripture, even to be superior to it (cf the specific passage cited by Miesel accusing the Evangelists of misunderstanding Jesus). A private revelation which makes THAT claim should be rejected without waiting for a formal official declaration, just as one should instantly reject a private revelation which claimed (e.g.) that the Blessed Virgin was the fourth Member of the Trinity, or that the recipient of the revelation is authorised by God to take 120 wives starting with your 15-year-old daughter, should be rejected. The statement of Pope Urban is not a mandate for universal credulity - it assumes that the reader should use their own intelligence rather than accepting every self-proclaimed seer who may come along in bayside, Palmar de Troya, or wherever. I support my arguments with evidence - I don't ask you to accept them because I say so. I mention that I am a historian because it means I have some knowledge of church history and of weighing and balancing evidence. That does not make me omnicompetent, but it's not irrelevant either. We have indeed seen some sad displays of poor Catholic education and formation on this thread, but they have not come from me. I've just quoted you the defense that Poem of the Man God is not to be considered above scripture nor does it ''add'' anything to it. But your still adamant upon accepting a biased source as opposed to a Church stance to which I've quoted by use of the website. a biased critic isnt evidence. Magisterial pronouncements ( official ones ) are evidence upon the disproval of private revelation. There are many historians like you Hib who dont agree with your outlook upon church history and have written many books too. so what does that say about you? Your a historian, St.Peter our first Pope was a fisherman. So what? The only ''revelations'' I'm wary of are the ones from people like you who ''claim'' to ''know it all'' about scripture and that scripture can contain error ( as in your case ) matters of historicity. But we shall see now how this report turns out. Pax Stephen
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 1, 2011 17:36:10 GMT
If you were arguing with St. Peter about the habits of fish, it would be relevant to know tht he was a fisherman and you were not. I never claimed to know all about scripture, and I quoted Pope Pius XII in support of the orthodoxy of my statement. There are many books - Fr Kramer writes books and so does Fr Aidan Nichols; Frank Duff wrote books, and so does Hans Kung. They stand or fall on the cogency of their argument and the quality of their sources. Likewise, there are many Church sources; the question is, what degree of authority does it have and why should it be believed. For example, I would say this one outranks Bishop Danylak: EXTRACT Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, present head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the same office that condemned the "Poem"), informed Cardinal Siri in 1985 of the "Poem's condemnation: After the dissolution of the Index, when some people thought the printing and distribution of the work was permitted, they were reminded again in L'Osservatore Romano (June 15, 1966) that "The Index retains its moral force despite its dissolution." More recently (April 17, 1993, Prot. N. 144/58i), he wrote: "The 'visions' and 'dictations' referred to in the work, "The Poem of the Man-God," are simply the literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in origin." THE ARTICLE FROM WHICH THIS IS EXTRACTED IS AT: www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/VALTORTA.TXT We can settle this very simply. Sandra Miesel's article says that THE POEM OF THE MAN-GOD volume I p.432 and volume V p.947 (I presume the page references are to the English translation) claim that Jesus himself tells Maria Valtorta that the New Testament needs to be supplemented and that the Evangelists, because of their "unbreakable Jewish frame of mind" and their "flowery and pompous Hebrew style" were unable to write everything that God wished. I take it we agree that this statement is heretical, and that if it is indeed present in THE BOOK OF THE MAN-GOD as the supposed words of Jesus, that is heretical also? Very well, then. Check the original BOOK OF THE MAN-GOD and see if it really contains these passages. If it does say this, then the book is heterodox and the article is vindicated. If they are not there, or if the article materially misrepresents them, then the article is biased and its criticisms should be treated with extreme suspicion. Check your sources!
|
|
|
Post by stephentlig on Apr 1, 2011 21:14:05 GMT
If you were arguing with St. Peter about the habits of fish, it would be relevant to know tht he was a fisherman and you were not. I never claimed to know all about scripture, and I quoted Pope Pius XII in support of the orthodoxy of my statement. There are many books - Fr Kramer writes books and so does Fr Aidan Nichols; Frank Duff wrote books, and so does Hans Kung. They stand or fall on the cogency of their argument and the quality of their sources. Likewise, there are many Church sources; the question is, what degree of authority does it have and why should it be believed. For example, I would say this one outranks Bishop Danylak: EXTRACT Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, present head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the same office that condemned the "Poem"), informed Cardinal Siri in 1985 of the "Poem's condemnation: After the dissolution of the Index, when some people thought the printing and distribution of the work was permitted, they were reminded again in L'Osservatore Romano (June 15, 1966) that "The Index retains its moral force despite its dissolution." More recently (April 17, 1993, Prot. N. 144/58i), he wrote: "The 'visions' and 'dictations' referred to in the work, "The Poem of the Man-God," are simply the literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in origin." THE ARTICLE FROM WHICH THIS IS EXTRACTED IS AT: www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/VALTORTA.TXT We can settle this very simply. Sandra Miesel's article says that THE POEM OF THE MAN-GOD volume I p.432 and volume V p.947 (I presume the page references are to the English translation) claim that Jesus himself tells Maria Valtorta that the New Testament needs to be supplemented and that the Evangelists, because of their "unbreakable Jewish frame of mind" and their "flowery and pompous Hebrew style" were unable to write everything that God wished. I take it we agree that this statement is heretical, and that if it is indeed present in THE BOOK OF THE MAN-GOD as the supposed words of Jesus, that is heretical also? Very well, then. Check the original BOOK OF THE MAN-GOD and see if it really contains these passages. If it does say this, then the book is heterodox and the article is vindicated. If they are not there, or if the article materially misrepresents them, then the article is biased and its criticisms should be treated with extreme suspicion. Check your sources! 1992: Cardinal Ratzinger reportedly [17] responds to an inquiry from Bishop Boland regarding the Poem. Bishop Boland summarizes Cardinal Ratzinger's letter, stating that the Poem may be published on the stipulation that it is "clearly indicated from the very first page that the 'visions' and 'dictations' referred to in it are simply the literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in origin." 17 [17] It should first be noted that no one has ever been able to produce a copy of the original letter written by Cardinal Ratzinger (Bishop Boland never released it to the public). The faithful are compelled to rely on Bishop Boland's summary of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter [see Appendix II]. However, let us give assent to Bishop Boland's account, and examine the statement; "They cannot be considered supernatural origin". At first glance, this may seem like a definitive negative judgment. But is it really? The Church has a very precise terminology for judging apparitions. According to the norms of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, alleged apparitions are classified in one of three categories; 1. Constat de supernaturalitate -- It is certain/confirmed of supernatural origin. 2. Constat de non supernaturalitate -- It is certain/confirmed of no supernatural origin. 3. Non-constat de supernaturalitate -- It is not certain/confirmed of supernatural origin. If one examines Cardinal Ratzinger's letter carefully, they will see that he classifies the Poem into the third category (non-constat de supernaturalitate). What has been translated into English to read; "cannot be considered supernatural origin" simply means that the events have not yet been confirmed supernatural. The Cardinal was only ordering the publishers at the time to tell their readers that they cannot yet consider it a proven fact that the Poem is of supernatural origin. In light of historical context, we find the statement to make sense too, considering the Holy Office never initiated an investigation into the life of the visionary. Without an investigation, it could neither confirm positive criteria, nor confirm negaitve criteria (as outlined by the norms for investigating alleged apparitions). Unfortunately, certain officials within the Holy Office at the time may have been negatively disposed towards private revelations in general (with negative judgments passed on Padre Pio and Saint Faustina as well), which may have prompted a false initial judgement. I have not got the books of volume 1 and V at hand but will certainly check them. It seems that there is a biased outlook on the messages because if the Church thought they were not of supernatural origin they would of made an official proclaimation saying so. You say you've quoted pius XII as your evidence and yet all these arguments ( should I have respond again ) have already been responded to within this thread and I can only invite the reader to read through the thread again. the same goes for your argument of quoting ''theologians'' ideas and concepts which are not to be taken on faith against official magisterial/infallible documents. Pax Stephen
|
|