Creation or Evolution theories

When one reads about Maria Valtora. Not that I can claim to know of her. But although, I don't agree with her writings, I don't however think she was a bad person.

This is the Church's standing on this. Taken from EWTN.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/valtorta.txt

IS "THE POEM OF THE MAN-GOD" SIMPLY A BAD NOVEL?

Maria Valtorta's multi-volume life of Jesus flirts with heresy and
exhibits bad taste. Its claim to authenticity have been rejected by Rome.

by Father Mitch Pacwa, S.J.

"The Poem of the Man-God" is a five-volume "narrative" of the life of
Jesus written in the 1940s by a sickly Italian woman named Maria Valtorta.
"Poem" purports to fill in the details of Jesus' life left blank by the
four Gospels. Such narratives have been produced since the second century
A.D. Some were written by gnostic heretics. Some by New Agers and
occultists. And some were produced by pious Christians who made up stories
about Jesus to edify their readers and listeners.

The four Gospels do not give a biography of Jesus--or of anyone else in
His life. Their purpose is evangelical and theological--to proclaim the
Good News that human beings need for their salvation. Thus, for centuries,
the "hidden life" of Jesus has been the subject for speculation.

"The Poem of the Man-God" is in this tradition of apocryphal literature on
New Testament themes. Valtorta claimed that she was the "secretary" of
Jesus and Mary, and was setting down the divinely inspired truth about
Jesus' life. The Church has rejected this claim. Nevertheless, "Poem" has
become quite popular, particularly among Catholics as well.

Remarkably, the book has grown in popularity in part because its champions
claim that high Church officials--including one Pope--endorsed it. They
haven't. In fact, "Poem" was included on the Index of Forbidden books
until the abolition of the Index in the 1960s. No less an authority than
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, reiterates the Church's rejection of the claims made for "The
Poem of the Man-God."

How did "The Poem of the Man-God" come to be, and how has the notion
become widely accepted that it contains important religious truth?

Maria Valtorta, author of "Poem," was born in 1897 into a sadly
dysfunctional family, where she suffered emotional abuse at the hands of a
despotic mother. When she was 23, she was attacked and beaten by a mugger.
She was never completely well after that. From 1933 on, she was unable to
leave her bed.

 

I didn't see any numbers in there...

 

Maria began to receive "dictations" on Good Friday, 1943. In 1947, she
handed over 10,000 handwritten pages to her spiritual director, Father
Romuald Migliorini, O.S.M. Father Migliorini typed them and Father
Corrado Berti, O.S.M. bound them. Fr. Berti, brought them to Father later
Cardinal Augustin Bea, S.J., spiritual director to Pope Pius XII.

Did Pope Pius read the whole manuscript or parts? If only part, which
part? Advertisements by the Canadian Central distributors for Valtorta
(CEDIVAL) quote Father Bea: "I have read in typed manuscripts many of the
books written by Maria Valtorta . . . As far as exegesis is concerned, I
did not find any errors in the parts which I examined." Notice, he read
only parts of the books. Which were they?

On Feb. 26, 1948, Fathers Migliorini, Berti and A. Cecchin enjoyed a
private audience with Pope Pius XII, as listed in L'Osservatore Romano's
daily announcement of audiences. Standing in St. Peter's Square after the
audience, Father Berti wrote down Pope Pius' words as he remembered them.
These words were "not" printed in L'Osservatore Romano, but Father Berti
remembered the Pope saying:

"Publish this work as it is. There is no need to give an opinion about its
origin, whether it be extraordinary or not. Who reads it, will understand.
One hears of many visions and revelations. I will not say they are all
authentic; but there are some of which it could be said that they are."

CEDIVAL calls this a "Supreme Pontifical Imprimatur," where "he took upon
himself to pass the first official judgment on these writings." CEDIVAL
glues this inside the cover, though the publisher does not print an
imprimatur. The reason: it has none!

Confident of papal approval, Father Berti brought the books to the Vatican
press. However, in 1949, two commissioners of the Holy Office, Msgr.
Giovanni Pepe and Father Berruti, O.P., condemned the "Poem," ordering
Berti to hand over every copy and sign an agreement not to publish it.
Father Berti returned the manuscripts to Valtorta and handed over only his
typed versions.

Despite his signed promise, in 1952 Father Berti went to publisher
Emiliano Pisani. Though aware of the Holy Office's opposition, Pisani
printed the first volume in 1956, and a new volume each year through 1959.

When volume four appeared, the Holy Office examined the "Poem" and
condemned it, recommending that it be placed on the Index of Forbidden
Books Dec. 16, 1959. Pope John XXIII signed the decree and ordered it
published. L'Osservatore Romano, on Jan. 6, 1960, printed the
condemnation with an accompanying front-page article, "A Badly
Fictionalized Life of Jesus," to explain it.

The article complained that the "Poem" broke Canon Law. "Though they treat
exclusively of religious issues, these volumes do not have an
"imprimatur," which is required by Canon 1385, sect. 1, n. 2."

Second, the long speeches of Jesus and Mary starkly contrast with the
evangelists, who portray Jesus as "humble, reserved; His discourses are
lean, incisive." Valtorta's fictionalized history makes Jesus sound "like
a chatterbox, always ready to proclaim Himself the Messiah and the Son of
God," or teach theology in modern terms. The Blessed Mother speaks like a
"propagandist" for modern Marian theology.

Third, "some passages are rather risque," like the "immodest" dance before
Pilate (vol. 5, p. 73). There are "many historical, geographical and
other blunders." For instance, Jesus uses screwdrivers (Vol. 1, pp. 195,
223), centuries before screws existed.

There are theological errors, as when "Jesus says" (vol. 1, p. 30) that
Eve's temptation consisted in arousing her flesh, as the serpent
sensuously "caressed" her. While she "began the sin by herself," she
"accomplished it with her companion." Sun Myung Moon and Maria Valtorta
may claim the first sin was sexual, but Scripture does not.

Vol. 1, p. 7, oddly claims, "Mary can be called the 'second-born' of the
Father . . ." Her explanation limits the meaning, avoiding evidence of an
authentic heresy; but it does not take away the basic impression that she
wants to construct a new mariology, which simply goes beyond the limits of
propriety." "Another strange and imprecise statement" made of Mary (vol.
4, p. 240) is that she will "be second to Peter with regard to
ecclesiastical hierarchy. . . " Our Lady surpasses St. Peter's holiness,
but she is not in the hierarchy, let alone second to St. Peter.

Further, Valtorta did not claim to write a novel, but called herself a
"secretary" of Jesus and Mary, so, "in all parts on reads the words 'Jesus
says. . .' or 'Mary says . . .'" The Church takes this claim to revelation
very seriously, since it has the God-given duty to discern what is or is
not truly from the Holy Spirit. In Valtorta's case, the Church decided
against Divine inspiration.

Finally, "Poem" is condemned for reasons of disobedience. Competent Church
authority had prohibited the printing of Valtorta's work.

Pope John's approval of the condemnation of the "Poem of the Man-God"
should have ended the issue, but it did not. The publishers printed a
second edition of 10 volumes, which the Church condemned in another
front-page article in L'Osservatore Romano, Dec. 1, 1961. This second
Italian edition was later translated into German, French, Spanish and
English.

CEDIVAL asserts that a "modernist clan in the Church" . . .
"surreptitiously attempted to seize the manuscripts and destroy them,"
claiming "firsthand documentation on this." These "enemies" included Msgr.
Pepe and Father Berruti, the Holy Office censors.

I asked the head of CEDIVAL, Prof. Leo Brodeur, for evidence that Msgr.
Pepe and Father Berruti held any modernist heresies, but he had none. He
assumed they were modernists because the "Poem" claims "to help the Church
fight against the terrible heresy of modernism." If the "Poem's enemies
are modernists, Msgr. Pepe and Father Berruti must be modernists, too.

Such assertions are unacceptable. Accusations of modernism or any other
heresy without proof is slander.

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 best that can be said for "The Poem of the Man-God" is that it is a
bad novel. This was summed up in the L'Osservatore Romano headline, which
called the book "A Badly Fictionalized Life of Jesus."

At worst, "Poem's" impact is more serious. Though many people claim that
"Poem" helps their faith or their return to reading Scripture, they are
still being disobedient to the Church's decisions regarding the reading of
"Poem." How can such disregard for Church authority and wisdom be a help
in renewing the Church in these difficult times?

When Catholics insist on reading "Poem," despite Church condemnation, I
make these requests: First, read three hours of Scripture for every one
hour spent in the "Poem." The Church guarantees that the Bible is God's
Word, inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Church has judged the "Poem" to be
a poorly done human work. Second, read solid Catholic theology books in
addition to Scripture. G.K. Chesterton, Frank Sheed, Archbishop Sheen's
"Life of Christ" and many other works are excellent starts. Third,
maintain a strong prayer life, drawing closer to Christ Jesus, Our Lord,
at Mass and at eucharistic adoration, and to our Blessed Mother Mary,
especially in the Rosary.

If sheep insist on bad pasturage, at least let them take antidotes.

This article appeared in February 1994 edition of "New Covenant"

 

'Hermeneutics' basically means interpretation of texts, but at a deeper level than the obvious question of 'how do you interpret this passage?' Discussions of hermeneutics are more about the principles underpinning the way in which we interpret things. Topics such as 'what is the nature of language?', 'is there such a thing as meaning?' or 'what is the relationship between the writer and the reader?', 'how much of our interpretation comes from the text itself as opposed to our own projections?' Philosophers' stuff like that. Can be a very complicated and confusing subject, not least because it often gets hyperintellectual (and IMHO extremely boring!!) Big names in all of this are Gadamer, Ricoeur, Derrida ...

Example: a very trendy approach to texts in the humanities is to analyze them in terms of what they reveal 'between the lines' about the writer's unspoken ideological commitments ('what's the author's hidden agenda?' ... this approach of not taking anything at face value can be called a 'hermeneutic of suspicion', and it has been very influential on certain schools of New Testament scholarship such as 'redaction criticism'. There's some value in it, of course, but overall I'm not positive about it as a strategy).

A major problem with a concentration on questions of Biblical hermeneutics is that often the very last thing that gets asked is 'did this [e.g. the Virgin Birth, Jesus's miracles, the Resurrection] really happen?' That's a taboo question, as for many scholars in the field of linguistics the motto is 'there are no facts, only interpretation'. Which drives folks with a scientific training NUTS, as their domain is phenomenology (study of phenomena). This conflict of perspectives is one of the big reasons why the sciences and humanities have a hard time talking to one another.

Any help?

 

Actually what J-F Lavère says is that the recent excavation confirmed what MV had writen:

But this is not true as this information was already known. Of course we cannot conclude that MV did know about the information but it dismisses the fact as a real proof.

I know about Webster article but it is written in a way that it is almost impossible to track a single claim. He just presents numbers. I would like to analyze one more of those claims as I did today. Any concrete example? Because we have seen that we cannot believe something just because is written in a book as in the case of J-F Lavère.

 

Just asking, but how was Stonehenge made? What about Easter Island? and the other magnificent huge structures that archaeologists are saying could not have been made by normal size men?

 

Jon, I can guarentee you that this is as hard for me as it is for you. You have no idea how this particular paragraph in the Bible has been hashed and re-hashed in my home and in my life. I, however have been studying Genesis from just until after that paragraph (of course, I was late getting into the course) and the entire picture of Genesis HAS TO BE taken together with what God himself calls 'his sons', his heirs. The distinction between 'those who were with God' and 'those who went against God' was the WHOLE PURPOSE of the LINAGE OF Adam, Noe, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,etc. down to the linage of Jesus. Showing us that there IS A PLAN, THERE IS A PEOPLE, THERE IS A COVENANT, THERE IS A LINAGE--Because if there weren't , there would have NOT BEEN a Catholic Church! It had to come through the Hebrews, through the 7 tribes and ONLY ONE of those tribes stayed loyal and pure---NOT UNLIKE THE REMNANT THAT GOD HAS IN THE MAKING TODAY!!

This actually messes with all that I thought I believed. I can see it now, and its BEAUTIFUL. Before, it was just mysterious. Like I said in another post, If someone is willing to start a thread on seriously discussing aliens, God's mightiness, Niburu and unexplained phenomena in the world, I actually like discussing that stuff too. If its ok with Padraig. We CANNOT change Angels. I know lots of people who see angels and believe me I'm calling them up today! I am not falling for anything, like you suggest. It is however clear to me that the 1 + 1 does not = 3. By the definition, Angels cannot sleep with men. Demons can attack and molest, but they cannot have intercourse.

 

Mary's Child, I have written extensively on MV's Poem of the Man God. I even started a thread on it if you do a search for Poem of the Man God....you'll find much evidence that EWTN has not done its homework.

 

Jon, you can not deny that there are TWO equal approaches to this issue of who where the fatthers of Nephilim, so even if you prefer the angel one more, nevertheless you are not more right than those who prefer the human origin

 

St Augustine.. A doctor of the Church spoke of Seth's line. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one I think..

 

In the interest of fairness, it's worth reading the rebuttals of Fr Pacwa's views:
http://www.mariavaltortawebring.com/Pages/001_Correspondence.htm
http://www.maria-valtorta.net/mitch_response1.html
Additionally, it's perhaps also worth noting that, according to exorcist José Antonio Fortea Cucurull, the cause for the beatification of Maria Valtorta was accepted in the Congregation of Saints in 2012:
http://www.spiritdaily.net/fortea.htm

 

I agree with that disposition. So, my position is that the angelic interpretation is most likely the true interpretation. But in stating that, I at the same time then, will have great resistance to those that categorically state, and shout to others on this forum, that the "sons of God in genesis 6 ARE NOT ANGELS"...

Anyone who says this does not know, and can not know for certain, and neither can I. One or two bible studies does not amount to certainty here, and neither do one or two doctorates in this case...

 

I did a search MS7 and it is a bit of a minefield. Who does one trust?

However, I do trust the words of the priest who wrote that article. Can we call agree to disagree on this one. I think you and I will go around in circles. I mean that in the nicest possible way.

 

I agree with that . Personal opinion of Fr. Mitch are only his personal opinions . Maria Valtorta has been endorsed by Popes and since mid-60 her Poem is not considered censored by Vatican.

 

I see nobody can offer an answer to my question above so far. This is an important, significant area of scripture, because many, many unbelievers use this text to attack our faith and a merciless God that can't thus be God............

I challenge all of you to adequately expound on this one account yourselves, (.....or at least dig through your bible study teacher's thoughts to attempt to understand this if you haven't thought about it yourself....)

 

Oh are you waiting for an answer sorry Jon. I was under the impression that much of Enoch was allegory. But I shall read it as promised, and ask my parish priest about it ..

You should know that I am like a mutt on a bone.

 

Jon, we do not have that much knowledge of all the Old Testament books, including apocryphes, as you do. Plus, I am posting from the phone

However, I will say this - if one takes the angel origin point of view, it is obvious, that in pre-flood period God allowed some evolutionary experiments which the creatures He has created, engaged in. God obviously did not like the results of some of them and wiped them off by the flood to enable the clean start for the chosen ones

 

Dare I say this.. ha ha ha ... another discussion.. I always assumed that angels were men.

There wasn't any need for woman (not a put down on women) until He created humans/animals etc..

No wise cracks about God needing women up there to do the ironing thank you.

 

It's true that the 'continuum' view of evolutionary progress is a widely-held position. But it is certainly not the only one ... An interesting development in recent years are what have been called 'non-Darwinian' theories of evolution which are neither creationist in a crude sense, nor assimilable to Intelligent Design, but which break with a strict neo-Darwinian line for scientific reasons.

For those who can read French and aren't afraid of some technical discussion, see Jean Staune's 'Introduction à la Biologie non-darwinienne':
http://www.staune.fr/INTRODUCTION-A-LA-BIOLOGIE-NON.html
This was presented as a paper at a 2007 Blaise Pascal network conference and subsequently expanded in the highly stimulating books 'Au-delà de Darwin' and 'Notre existence a-t-elle un sens'.

Jean Staune is a leading figure in French science-faith dialogue, and I had the privilege of participating in two panel discussions with him in 2011 (with Templeton Prize winner Holmes Rolston III, founder of the discipline of 'environmental ethics') and 2012 (with former Oxford Divinity professor Keith Ward). I'll just translate Staune's conclusion, which includes some comments on the position of the Magisterium, and his remarks on macroevolution - a subject on which, clearly, the latest research has not reached unanimity. It is on the basis of the views he sets out that I don't personally find the comments on evolution in Maria Valtorta a red flag from an intellectual standpoint. A question mark and a challenge, yes, but not necessarily false:
ON MACROEVOLUTION - Staune discusses

In other words, the picture is more complex - and more interesting - than it might at first appear.

 

No wise cracks here. I have always thought that women are the jewel of God's creation. His greatest masterpiece. I will take the beaming smile of a woman over the most beautiful sunset any day.