Errors against the Faith
in the Work of Maria Valtorta
Anselmo de la Cruz
The revelations of Maria Valtorta, above, go along with the teachings of Vatican II
The Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta presents so many irregularities that it is difficult to understand how it can be accepted in Catholic milieus, even traditionalist ones. Because of the heresies it sustains – and other adjoining negative aspects – I do not understand how it could be accepted by pre-Vatican II priests, such as Valtorta's spiritual advisor Romualdo Miglirini, or scholars like Fray Juan de Escobar, translator of the Spanish edition of the work since at least 1976. (1)
Either they did not carefully read the writings of Maria
Valtorta, which is hard to imagine given the seriousness of the matter,
or they were accomplices in spreading a work that has serious errors in
matters of the Faith.
First, I remind the reader that the Poem of the Man God was placed in the Index of Forbidden Books by the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office in 1959 (click here). Although Paul VI shut down the Index
in 1966, the accusations against the book were never rescinded or
updated. Therefore, the censure against the errors in Valtorta's work
effectually remains.
What is presented here is a commentary on her work that points out those
errors, some of them heresies. It is not a personal attack or judgment
on her intentions; rather it demonstrates what was unacceptable in her
work that caused it to incur an ecclesiastical censure prior to Vatican
II.
Some of the principal errors against the Faith found in the Poem of the Man-God follow.
1. ‘Divine Revelation did not end with the last Apostle’
The author assures us that divine Revelation continues and that she is
the one who continues it. She affirms that Christ himself calls her “my
Mary John,” that is, He names her a kind of “sister” of St. John the
Evangelist who would continue his mission. She asserts that she has been
charged with setting out and explaining Revelation and admits an
evolution of the already defined dogma. This dogmatic evolution is
condemned by the Holy Church.
According to Church teaching, the divine Revelation that began in the Old Testament closes and ends with the Apocalypse
of St. John, who writes: “For I testify to everyone who hears my words
of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God
will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any man shall
take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take
away his part from the tree of life." (Apoc 22: 18-19)
Valtorta imagines herself called to complete the official Revelation in a way that contradicts St. John
It is against Church teaching to assert that Revelation may continue
through other “prophets” or be explained differently from what has
already been defined dogmatically.
Therefore, no Catholic can accept such an “extension of revelation” by a
“seer,” even if she herself is ignorant of the doctrine of the Church
on this matter. She claims to have received everything she describes and
narrates as a revelation, not only on secondary points, but to clarify
the Gospels themselves. Thus, until her writings the Church would not
have had a clear understanding of them.
According to Valtorta, Christ himself would have told her: “This work
[of yours] is to illuminate certain points that various circumstances
have covered with darkness and, thus, formed obscure areas in the
luminosity of the evangelical books and points that seem fractured. And
for these obscure points between one episode and another, indecipherable
points, this is the key to understand certain situations exactly.”
Thus, not only are we given the impression that something is missing
from Revelation and is rectified by Valtorta’s revelation, but also that
this announcement comes from the mouth of Christ himself.
It is Christ, according to Maria Valtorta, Who assures us
that her writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit and Who exhorts
readers to listen to the one He often calls His “little John” or “Mary
John” as a way of linking them together. This open disregard of Church
teaching that divine Revelation ended with the last Apostle is blatant
and contradictory, especially when the “seer” affirms it is Christ
himself Who is contradicting Church doctrine.
For example, she says that Our Lord admonishes those who read her work with objections:
“If they object that Revelation ended with the last Apostle and there
would be nothing more to add: And what if I wanted to reconstruct the
picture of My divine charity like one who restores mosaics by renovating
damaged and missing parts, and that I am replacing the missing parts,
and that I wanted to do this in this century when the human race is
plunged in darkness? ... In truth, you should give thanks to me, because
I have added new lights to the light that you have which is no longer
sufficient to see your Savior.” (p. 887 et al)
It is true that someone can claim to be enlightened by God and assure us
that she is speaking to Christ himself and that these are revealed
things. What is inadmissible is for heresies and extravagant things to
be accepted by persons learned in religious matters and, I repeat, by
priests who should know Church teaching.
According to this, the Holy Church has waited for centuries for Maria
Valtorta to appear so that the Church would continue and reform the
Gospel! And since this is the case, then everyone who would not accept
her “divinely revealed” explanations would be sinning. (2)
The editors of this Spanish edition, it should be noted, have included
copious footnotes throughout the work observing that Valtorta's teaching
complies with that of Vatican II… The post-conciliar Church, thus,
promotes the Poem of the Man-God by Valtorta as a living example of the evolution of dogma and as an aid to spread the post-Vatican II heresies.
2. Mary is ‘the second-born of the Father’
In Volume 1 of the Man-God, Maria Valtorta affirms that the Virgin Mary is, after Christ, “the second-begotten of the Father.” (p. 3)
This is a heresy, since Our Lord Jesus Christ is the one and only
begotten Son of the Father, consubstantial with Him, as taught in the Credo:
“I believe in Jesus Christ His only Son.” The “first begotten of all
creatures” is also Christ, the Word Who assumed human nature.
The Church, who recognizes the many glories of Mary and her greatness
above all human creatures, never gave this title or prerogative to the
Mother of God. There can be no “second-begotten” of the Father, which
would make Mary equal to the one and only Son. If Christ is the only
Son, it is understood that a second cannot exist.
3. Valtorta holds unconditional universal redemption (3)
Maria Valtorta says that Jesus himself revealed to her that:
For the fruits of the Redemption to be effective man’s adhesion is required
“The Jesus-Mary couple is the antithesis of the Adam-Eve
couple. The first is destined to annul everything that Adam and Eve did,
and to return the human race to the point when it was created, rich in
grace and in all the gifts bestowed by the Creator. The human race has
found a total regeneration through the work of the Jesus-Mary couple who
are its new founders. The past time has been erased. Time and human
history really begin from the moment when the new Eve, by a change in
Creation, drew from her womb the new Adam.” (p. 544)
The doctrine of the Holy Church is, as we know, “Christ our Redeemer
substitutes himself for us in expiation. … But man, in order to have the
effect of the salvation wrought by Christ, must adhere to Him freely by
Faith and Charity.” (Diccionario de Teología Dogmática, Pietro Parente, p. 312)
Thus, although we know that Christ died for all, not all men are saved,
as the Council of Trent explains in defining the doctrine of the
Eucharist, but rather only those whom Trent calls the “many.”
4. ‘The Redemption is consummated by Mary’
Maria Valtorta affirms that Christ revealed to her that the Redemption
was not consummated by Him, but by His Mother. (p. 600) Here is another
heresy because, although the Church views Mary as the “co-redemptrix”,
it has never taught that she “accomplished” the Redemption. This was
done by Our Lord on the Cross. But Valtorta says that Jesus told her:
“Everyone thinks that the Redemption ended with My last breath. No, it
did not. The Mother ended it, by adding her triple torture in order to
redeem the triple concupiscence.”
It is unnecessary to point out that this heretical statement is supposed to have come from the lips of Christ himself.
As for the “triple concupiscence” that, according to Valtorta, Christ
says Mary suffered and conquered in order to consummate the Redemption,
we note that throughout her work Valtorta affirms that both Our Lord and
His Mother suffered “terrible carnal temptations” during their lives,
which they had to fight hard to overcome.
The false visions of Maria Valtorta
Condemned
by the (pre-Vatican II) Catholic Church; Beloved by many conciliars
Although
these visions themselves are objectively evil, we do not (and should
not) judge the subjective, interior culpability of anyone connected
with them, just as we must not judge the subjective culpability of
anyone else committing evil. Summa,
IIa IIae, Q.60, a.4, ad 1-2; see also our treatment of rash judgment.
The book’s countless evils begin with its title.
The disturbing features of Valtorta’s (false) visions, begin with the title itself: The Poem of the Man-God. This title is not traditional, fitting or reasonable! Catholics refer to our Lord’s natures in order of their dignity—and the Divine nature is infinitely greater in dignity, than the human nature. Catholics refer to our Lord as the “God-man”, not as the “man-God”. However, this title accurately reflects the books “earthy”, humanistic focus, which fits well with conciliar humanism.Note about the title: the book originally was published anonymously over a several year period (one volume per year). The first volume was originally published under title “The Poem of Jesus”. The subsequent volumes were published under the title “The Poem of the Man-God”. (See the Wikipedia article.) For the rest of this article, we will refer to the entire book as “The Poem of the Man-God”.
Pre-Vatican II condemnation by the Church
The Holy Office (which was in charge of safeguarding the Catholic Faith) condemned The Poem of the Man-God before Vatican II and placed the book on the Index of Forbidden Books.Shortly after the book was first compiled, it was condemned (in 1949) by Holy Office commissioners, Msgr. Giovanni Pepe and Father Berruti, O.P.. (Source: catholicculture.org.)
The Holy Office examined a new edition of the Poem and again condemned it, on December 16, 1959. The book was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, with the decree published in the January 6, 1960 edition of the L’Osservatore Romano (reproduced below)
Supreme Congregation of the Holy OfficeThis Holy Office condemnation was accompanied and explained by a front-page article in the L’Osservatore Romano, entitled “A Badly Fictionalized Life of Jesus”. (Source: catholicculture.org.)
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
[Permanent volume: Acta Apostolicae Sedis LII (1960), p. 60].
Enthusiasm of conciliars
After Vatican II, the Index of Forbidden Books was abolished. The Poem of the Man-God began to acquire conciliar advocates, who liked the book for its “earthy”, chatty, approachable, humanistic style.For example, one conciliar advocate was Fr. Gabriele Allegra, who has been (supposedly) “beatified” by the conciliar church, and who was a collaborator and co-author with the Arch-heretic Teilhard de Chardin. See their book: My conversations with Teilhard de Chardin on the primacy of Christ, by Gabriele Maria Allegra and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Franciscan Herald Press, 1971, p.8. Fr. Allegra loved The Poem of the Man-God and wrote about it often. (Source: valtorta-maria.com.)
Another conciliar advocate is (false) “visionary” of Medjugorje, Vicka Ivankovich, who declared:
Our Lady says The Poem of the Man-God is the truth. Our Lady said if a person wants to know Jesus he should read Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta.1988 Vicka Ivankovich interview.
Evil and scandalous contents
Perhaps no more need be said beyond that the book was condemned by the pre-Vatican II Church, was on the Index of Forbidden Books, and is beloved by many prominent conciliars.Further, The Poem of the Man-God is riddled with banalities, vulgarities, blasphemies and doctrinal errors. There is continual idle talk between Our Lord, Our Lady and the Apostles.
However, we include (below) a very few examples from this shocking book, demonstrating beyond any doubt that it is evil and not from God. All citations are from the online book (to allow the reader to confirm the quotes).
Valtorta portrays Our Lord joking with St. Peter about committing impurity with His Most Pure, Ever-Virgin Mother.
Valtorta writes:Jesus stands up and calls out loud: “Simon of Jonas, come here.”Vol. 2, p. 185.
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?”
Jesus smiles and Peter recovers his confidence. “You really frightened me! Now You are laughing.”
Valtorta slanders Our Lady’s knowledge of her own sinlessness.
Valtorta (falsely) quotes Immaculate Mary as saying “I did not know I was without stain!” Volume 1, p.50.Valtorta asserts that Our Lady thought (like the Arch-Heretic Luther) that it is good to sin out of love of God.
Luther declared:Sin boldly, but believe more boldly. Letter #99, Saemmtliche Schriften.
Valtorta (falsely) has Our Lady uttering the similar blasphemous thought that God loves us more for sinning:
[supposed BVM]: “Tell Me, mummy, can one be a sinner out of love of God?”Vol. 1, n. 7, p. 23.
[supposed St. Anne]: “What are you saying, my dear? I don't understand you.”
[supposed BVM]: “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.”
Valtorta falsifies the sin of our first parents.
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had original justice and innocence, and their passions could not be aroused to act against reason. Summa, Ia, Q.95, a.2.Contradicting this Catholic dogma, Valtorta writes that Our Lord gave this erotic description of Eve’s first sin when she sees the snake:
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.
Valtorta’s heretical opinion about the essential joy of heaven
The Church teaches that the essential joy of heaven is the intellectual vision of God in His Essence. Summa Supp., Q.90, a.3. Any other joy of heaven is an “extra” which is merely accidental. Id.Contradicting this, Valtorta declares that half the joy of heaven is being with Our Lady:
the joy of Paradise would be halved … if Paradise in future should not have the living Lily [Our Lady] in whose bosom are the three pistils of fire of the Divine Trinity— the light, perfume, and harmony …Vol. 2, p.49
Valtorta falsely says Our Lady is second, below St. Peter, in the Church hierarchy.
Valtorta (falsely) has “Our Lord” tell His mother that she will “be second to Peter with regard to ecclesiastical hierarchy”. Vol. 4, p.146.This is utterly false! Although Our Lady surpasses St. Peter (and all other creatures) in holiness, she has never had any part in the hierarchy of the Church.
Valtorta’s scandalously portrays Our Lord as taking revolting, unnatural liberties with the Apostles.
Valtorta becomes especially disgusting in her false portrayal of Our Lord’s relationship with His Apostles.Let one disgusting incident suffice:
Valtorta describes Our Lord as kissing St. John while he is “half-naked”, lying on his bed. She says St. John is “panting”, “inflamed by his love” and “exhausted by his ardor”. She says Our Lord “caresses him, burning with love Himself.”Vol. 2, pp. 57-58.
Of course, the book’s blind defenders will say that all of this was meant in a (supposed) “spiritual” sense. We trust you (the reader) will not be blind and not be led by the blind, because we don’t want you to fall with them, into the pit.
