Maria Valtorta Readers' Group

How the Orthodoxy of Maria Valtorta’s Work Shines Even More Brightly
and Exposing the Methodological and Theological Errors of Anselmo de la Cruz:
A Complete Refutation of Anselmo's Flawed Anti-Valtorta Article
Entitled “Errors against the Faith in the Work of Maria Valtorta”

Theological Errors and Incompetency, Methodological Flaws, Distortions and Misrepresentations, Lack of Objectivity, and Ignorance on the Subject
He is Writing About: How Anselmo de la Cruz’s Anti-Valtorta Article Lacks Substance and Credibility and Stands Completely Refuted

By Stephen Austin, January 2016

The article by Anselmo entitled “Errors against the Faith in the Work of Maria Valtorta” presents so many irregularities that it is difficult to understand how it can be accepted in Catholic milieus, including traditionalist ones. Because of the theological errors and methodological flaws it contains – and other adjoining negative aspects – I do not understand how it could be accepted by traditional Catholic media outlets, such as Tradition in Action.

Either they did not carefully read the writings of Maria Valtorta and fact check Anselmo’s article themselves, or they naively trusted Anselmo as a trustworthy, unbiased, objective analyzer of her work, while at the same time, neglecting to consult the commentaries and theological studies of her writings done by undeniably trustworthy and highly scholarly theologians, such as Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., who was a Consultor of the Holy Office and who is considered by many to be the greatest Mariologist of the 20th century, who published a 395-page Mariological study of her writings, or Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M., professor of dogmatic and sacramental theology of the Pontifical Marianum Theological Faculty in Rome from 1939 onward, and Secretary of that Faculty from 1950 to 1959, who studied her work for decades and provided extensive theological and biblical annotations of her work totaling over 5,675 footnotes.

Anselmo posits the speculation about Maria’s spiritual director and the Spanish translator of her work that they might have been “accomplices in spreading a work that has serious errors in matters of the Faith.” Considering that hundreds of thousands around the world have derived tremendous spiritual benefit from her work and that dozens of highly learned, trustworthy traditional theologians and many bishops have affirmed her work is free from error in faith and morals, truly from God, and that she is a true victim soul, it seems just that his own supposition be applied back to himself: perhaps Anselmo is an accomplice in trying to discredit a true work of God (cf. Acts of the Apostles 5:39). This possibility appears all the more credible or substantiated when we consider that his anti-Valtorta articles contain a number of theological errors, basic methodological flaws, and often contain subjective accusations that are a misrepresentation of the text and qualify as academic dishonesty. Like a modernist, many of the errors in his article are logical fallacies, confusion of principles, and failure to make distinctions. These problems I just mentioned are in addition to his subjective claims that are a clear distortion and misrepresentation of the text. However, in charity, I presume that he is of good will and that his “witch hunt” against Valtorta is merely because of wrong information, lack of research, or perhaps innocent or unintended intellectual blindness or incompetency. We will see.

Below is a Table of Contents of the various parts of the refutation of Anselmo's article. If you don't want to read the whole article from top to bottom, you can click on whatever section is of interest to you and it will jump you directly to that section. Regarding his paragraph about the Index, that is analyzed and refuted here. Click here to download this article as a PDF for sharing and easy printing. A summary of this article is also viewable here. This article is also available in Spanish.


Refutation of His Section “Divine Revelation Did Not End with the Last Apostle”

Refuting His First Paragraph

Refuting His Second Paragraph

Refuting His Third Paragraph

Refuting His Fourth and Fifth Paragraphs

Refuting His Sixth Paragraph

Refuting His Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Paragraphs

Refuting His Tenth Paragraph

Refuting His Eleventh Paragraph

Refuting His Twelfth Paragraph


Refutation of His Section “Mary is ‘the second-born of the Father’”


Refutation of His Section “Valtorta holds unconditional universal redemption”


Refutation of His Section “The Redemption is consummated by Mary”

Refuting His First Three Paragraphs

Refuting His Fourth Paragraph


Conclusion


References



Refutation of His Section “Divine Revelation Did Not End with the Last Apostle”

Refuting His First Paragraph

Anselmo writes:

The author assures us that divine Revelation continues and that she is the one who continues it.

Where is the relevant quote where she said this? I read her entire work and I affirm that she never says that she “continues divine Revelation”. It is a dogma that Public Revelation (a.k.a. Divine Revelation) ended with the death of the last Apostle. She knew that and of course would never affirm such a thing. What God did is to reveal additional details about historical events in His life which the Gospels did not relate, just as Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich did and just as Venerable Mary of Agreda did in her Mystical City of God, the latter of which has the blessings of numerous Popes. As Church history and many theologians affirm, there is a place for additional details about Our Lord’s life to be revealed in private revelation, and in fact, St. John the Evangelist himself affirms in his own canonized Gospel: “This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” (John 21: 24-25)

Valtorta’s private revelations provide a wonderful service to the Church, which, as Archbishop Nuncio Apostolic Monsignor Pier Giacomo De Nicolò said in his homily on October 15, 2011, in the basilica where Maria Valtorta is buried, “The work of Maria Valtorta – which is free from error of doctrine and morals as noted by multiple parties – recognizes for more than half a century, a wide and silent circulation among the faithful (translated in about 30 different languages) of every social class throughout the world and without any publicity in particular. The grandeur, magnificence, and wisdom of the content has attracted numerous good fruits and conversions: even people immersed in the whirlwind of life and far from the Christian Faith, but nevertheless yearning to get in touch with solid truths, have opened their hearts to a meeting with the Absolute, with God-Love, and they have found full confirmation of the 2,000-year-old teaching of the Church.”1

Anselmo writes:

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.

Nowhere in Valtorta’s text does it say that she would “continue his mission”. Her mission is an entirely separate one, a mission that is not unlike the mission of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich in receiving visions of Our Lord’s life or other mystics such as Ven. Mary of Agreda, St. Bridget of Sweden, Therese Neumann, etc.

In actual fact, the nickname Our Lord sometimes referred to her was “Little John”, not “my Mary John”. God often gives special names to His servants based on the mission and work that He entrusts to them. Thus, in Scripture we see: “Jesus looking upon [Simon], said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.” (John 1:42) Cephas means rock. For more details about her nickname and why it is proper and fitting for Our Lord to ascribe to her this nickname, click here. I think Anselmo has a wrong interpretation of that nickname when he affirms that the character of a sister of St. John the Evangelist would be ascribed to her by this nickname. The significance of that nickname is that she is a humble servant who is close to Jesus like John was. This is not unheard of. Saul, the former persecutor of the Church of Christ, became Paul after he converted and became one of the Church’s greatest defenders. What is very interesting, especially in relation to Maria Valtorta’s given name, is what this article says about the meaning of the new name Paul: “The name Saul means ‘demanded’ or ‘death.’ The name Paul means ‘small’ or ‘little.’ (Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary).”2 See this link for more details about her nickname.

Anselmo writes:

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.

Anselmo claims she affirms an evolution of the already defined dogma. If so, where does she do so? Where is the quote? What is the volume and page number reference? I have read her entire work (as well as dozens of other theologians who are demonstrably very highly learned in Catholic dogma) and no one has ever been able to find anything in her writings which affirm heresy or is an error against faith or morals. I do not find anywhere in her writings where she affirms that dogma evolves (which is an essential tenet of the heresy of modernism). In fact, many theologians, bishops, priests, and devout lay faithful have found her work to be an effective remedy against modernism, such as Antonio Socci, a leading Italian journalist, TV show host, author, and public intellectual in Italy, and author of The Fourth Secret of Fatima, who wrote about the Poem of the Man-God in 2012:3

For twenty years, after having laboriously stumbled through trying to read hundreds of biblical scholars’ volumes, I can say that – with the reading of the Work of Valtorta – two hundred years of Enlightenment-based, idealistic, and modernist chatter about the Gospels and about the Life of Jesus can be run through the shredder.

And this perhaps is one of the reasons why this exceptional work – a work which moved even Pius XII – is still ignored and “repressed” by the official intelligentsia and by clerical modernism.

In spite of that, outside the normal channels of distribution, thanks to Emilio Pisani and Centro Editoriale Valtortiano, the Work has been read by a sea of people – every year, by tens of thousands of new readers – and has been translated into 21 languages.

Refuting His Second Paragraph

Anselmo writes:

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)

Yes, Church teaching is that Public Revelation ends with the death of the last Apostle. However, private revelation will not end until the end of time, as St. Thomas Aquinas affirms that “God sends prophets to every generation” (Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 174, Art. 6). Maria’s revelations do not add a new doctrine but perform the useful ends which Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., world-renowned Mariologist, wrote in his book The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta:4

Private revelations are useful

Though they do not add and cannot add anything substantially new to public revelation (already complete in Christ), we should not regard private revelations as useless. In fact, they are very useful to the souls of those they are communicated to. In several ways: they nourish and develop the Church’s faith and piety; they promote a greater intelligence of the truth and documents of public revelation. By means of private revelations, God helps us draw a greater profit from public revelation.

One must understand the teaching of the Catholic Church that authentic private revelation never adds anything new to the Deposit of Faith (a.k.a. Public Revelation), which was given to the Catholic Church for all time and was sealed with the death of the last Apostle. Although private revelation never adds anything new, it may clarify things already in the Deposit of Faith, or it may reveal things heretofore unknown that are, objectively, already contained in the Deposit of Faith. Private revelation often gives fresh perspective to Mysteries already contained in the Deposit of Faith, such as occurred with the revelations of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque. All teaching of authentic private revelation was already in the Deposit of Faith from the beginning, and was – at least implicitly – taught and believed by the Catholic Church for all time. For example, the faithful always believed throughout the centuries in the Assumption of Mary, long before it was dogmatically and infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII in November 1950. This was always believed, even if, at times in the history of the Church, this Mystery was not emphasized as much as in modern times. In the same way, Catholics today believe that Mary is Co-Redemptrix and is the Mediatrix of All Graces, and these will likely be infallibly defined by a Pope some day in the future.

Refuting His Third Paragraph

Anselmo writes:

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.

The above statement is true. Luckily for Valtorta supporters, they need not worry that Valtorta’s writings assert a continuation of Public Revelation or explain things differently than defined dogmas because none of her writings do. Therefore, the above concern doesn’t apply to Valtorta’s writings anymore than to the imprimatured Mystical City of God and Anselmo has yet to validly and objectively demonstrate how Valtorta’s writings affirm they are a continuation of Public Revelation or teach anything differently than defined dogmas. Because Anselmo (and no other Valtorta critic) has been able to (and can’t), that may be the reason why he often fails to provide any direct quotations or volume and page number references for his claims and why he distorts, misinterprets, and misrepresents the few quotations that he actually does use in his articles, as we will see.

Refuting His Fourth and Fifth Paragraphs

Anselmo writes:

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.

Anselmo makes an argument in this paragraph with premises and a conclusion. What he implies by his concluding sentence does not follow from the premises.

First, as discussed earlier, her private revelation is not and does not claim to be an extension of Public Revelation, which was concluded with the death of the last Apostle. Rather, just as with many other authentic mystics of historical scenes, her visions and dictations are a private revelation which contributes authentic details in addition to what the Evangelists themselves narrated in the canonized Gospels (details which some of them could have just as well written, but chose not to). The Apostles themselves admitted they did not narrate the entirety: “This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” (John 21: 24-25) Also: “Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book.” (John 20:30)

Can Anselmo define for his readers what is the difference between “secondary points” and “clarifying the Gospels themselves”? It seems his sentence is worded in such a way as to give readers the impression that it is acceptable to describe secondary points of historical events in Jesus’ life, but that somehow it is not okay to “clarify the Gospels themselves”. If this is true, then can he explain why it was wrong for hundreds of Catholic theologians throughout centuries and dozens of Church Fathers to provide extensive biblical commentaries and interpretations of Gospel scenes, thus “clarifying the Gospels themselves”? Can he explain to his readers how and why it was wrong for a Pope to grant an apostolic blessing to readers of Ven. Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God, a private revelation of historical visions which described “secondary details” of historical scenes in Jesus’ life (or, for that matter, St. Bridget of Sweden’s private revelation of visions or those of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich or Therese Neumann)?

Now, here is Anselmo’s reasoning:

1. She claims to have received everything she describes and narrates as a revelation, not only on secondary points, but to clarify the Gospels themselves.
2. Thus, until her writings the Church would not have had a clear understanding of them.

I respond:

1. Point #2 (the conclusion) does not follow from the premises.
2. He needs to define what he means. Can he explain to his readers what constitutes “a clear understanding of the Gospels” and who and which pronouncements, interpretations, or writings would be included in the term “Church”? Also, whose and which pronouncements, interpretations, or writings on the canonized Gospels are considered infallible?

Archbishop Alfonso Carinci was the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites from 1930 to 1960 and was the one in charge of investigating causes of pre-Vatican II beatifications and canonizations. He wrote many letters back and forth with Maria Valtorta (many of which are published), visited her three times, and studied Maria Valtorta’s writings in depth. Archbishop Carinci stated in 1952:5

"There is nothing therein which is contrary to the Gospel. Rather, this work, a good complement to the Gospel, contributes towards a better understanding of its meaning... Our Lord's discourses do not contain anything which in any way might be contrary to His Spirit."

Archbishop Carinci says the opposite of Anselmo and the archbishop is far more learned than Anselmo and far more qualified to make this judgment. So why should we trust Anselmo’s judgement? What does Anselmo mean? Where is he coming from? Does his argument have any credibility?

It is not accurate or proper to give a translation of a translation, and since Anselmo’s article was written in Spanish, I will directly quote the official English translation of the sentence he quoted:6

And the purpose of this Work is also to clarify certain points that a number of circumstances has covered with darkness and they thus form dark zones in the brightness of the evangelic picture and points that seem a rupture and are only obscure points, between one episode and another, indecipherable points, and the ability to decipher them is the key to correctly understand certain situations that had arisen and certain strong manners that I had to have, so contrasting with My continuous exhortations to forgive, to be meek and humble, a certain rigidity towards obstinate, inconvertible opponents. You all ought to remember that God, after using all His mercy, for the sake of His own honor, can say also "Enough" to those who, as He is good, think it is right to take advantage of His forbearance and tempt Him. It is an old wise saying.

Anselmo criticized the above statement, but this statement is perfectly acceptable and in accord with Catholic dogma. There has never been a dogmatic statement or infallible papal pronouncement that says that the Apostles recorded every single tiny historical action and word of Jesus or that, in light of the well-established fact that much of what Jesus did and said is not contained in the canonized Gospels (cf. John 21: 24-25, John 20:30), that there aren’t points of confusion for some people or that there is nothing else to be learned, not even by means of an authentic private revelation given by God for the benefit of His creatures. Can Anselmo refer me to a dogmatic pronouncement, correctly interpreted and applied, that refutes the above passage and can validly and objectively demonstrate that it is erroneous, heretical, false, or wrong? I don’t think so.

The Apostles only recorded a certain percentage of the actions, words, miracles, and events of Jesus as attested by John himself in John 21: 24-25 and John 20:30 and as attested in other Scripture passages. Logically, then, readers of the canonized Gospels who lived after Jesus’ time on Earth do not have the same degree of awareness of all of the events of His life as contemporaries who personally knew Him and who were with Him, such as His Mother, His Apostles, and His closest disciples. Even they did not witness all of the events themselves. For example, Luke wasn’t even an Apostle and wasn’t a firsthand eyewitness of the events he narrates. St. John was the only Apostle at the foot of the Cross on Calvary and the others did not witness all of the events he did because they had fled and remained away hiding in fear. They could only know of details from this monumental event from the testimony of John or other eyewitnesses or from a special vision or revelation from God after the fact. In addition to not being a personal eyewitness to every event, many of the Evangelists and Apostles and disciples were not privileged to receive an eyewitness testimony or to become aware through some other means of every single tiny event in Jesus’ life. For example, prior to entering Heaven, I do not think they were necessarily privy to every detail of every personal conversation Jesus had between Him and His Mother or between Him and Judas Iscariot when He had private conversations with the latter to try encourage him to repentance to try to save him. Or, for that matter, when the hundreds of different penitents privately confessed their sins to Jesus, none of the Apostles overheard the conversation nor would it be thinkable – considering they were contemporaries of them and may have personally known some of them at the time – that Our Lord revealed all their private sins to His Apostles and what He said to them, thus betraying the confidentiality of the penitents and breaking the seal of Confession. Therefore, it is only reasonable and is common sense that even if the Evangelists wanted to write every single tiny event and every single tiny syllable Jesus said, they wouldn’t have been able to. As St. John wrote in John 21: 24-25, “there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” Also: “Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book. (John 20:30)

Blessed Gabriel Allegra, O.F.M., a very learned and world-renowned exegete, theologian, and missionary priest in the Order of the Friars Minor, wrote:7

The Gospels report the Discourses of the Lord not in their entirety, but in their substance; at times they only give the subject matter. All the Words of the Lord reported in the four Gospels can be conveniently recited in less than six hours. Now it is unthinkable that the Divine Master, following in the wake of the prophets and even of His contemporary rabbis, had not spoken at greater length as regards the manner of structuring His Discourses. What St. John says at the end of his Gospel ("the whole world could not contain the books to be written!" –John 21:25), is valid not only for the actions of the Lord, but also for His Words.

Now, it is only common sense that if the generations after Jesus’ time could only read these limited accounts of Jesus’ words and actions that are recorded in the canonized Gospels, there will be many unresolved questions and missing information. Why else do you think that countless biblical scholars have been bending themselves into pretzels over the centuries trying to reconcile apparent contradictions between the different books of Scripture caused by the fact that not everything is recorded or known? How very many different and contradicting interpretations of events there are among Scripture exegetes! And even among traditional/orthodox Catholic exegetes! It is true that there are certain interpretations of certain scenes and passages that the Church has dogmatically defined as the correct interpretation, but there is so much that has never been infallibly defined or that the Church has not made a pronouncement on which is open for discussion and interpretation, and how many interpretations there are and existing apparent contradictions!

One of the most notable apparent contradictions is the Resurrection accounts which apparently contradict each other when you compare the various books of the canonized Gospels. David Webster, M.Div., discusses this Resurrection account discrepancy that has baffled scholars for centuries:8

Also supporting The Poem’s claim of divine origin are the solutions it presents to problems in the Gospel accounts which scholars have struggled with for years. […] Certain elements of the Resurrection story have frustrated scholars for centuries. Obviously, for the Gospel writers, the actual account was unnecessarily complicated for their purposes, so they simplified their accounts by telling only part of the story, or, as Matthew did, by blending the accounts. What is most obvious from the Gospels in this story is also what has up to now been so unexplainable, and, frankly, almost impossible to believe. How could at least three groups of women separately visit and expect entrance to a sealed and guarded tomb in the darkness of an early dawn? No one has been able to explain how this could have happened. That is a real predicament, especially because it involves testimony to the most important event of Christian Faith. The account in The Poem not only untangles the five visits to the tomb (the first three groups of women, with the Magdalene visiting twice, and then the one later group), but explains very simply why the first three groups of women quite unintentionally ended up visiting the tomb separately, and why from the outset they, all together (with Mary Magdalene), were confident they could gain access to a sealed and guarded tomb.

Blessed Gabriel Allegra, O.F.M., a very learned and world-renowned biblical scholar, theologian, and missionary priest, states how well the Poem solves one of the most baffling apparent contradictions in the Gospels:9

"...I invite readers of the Poem to read the pages consecrated to the Resurrection, to the reconstruction of the events of the day of the Pasch, and they will ascertain how all is bound together harmoniously there, just as so many exegetes tried to do, but without fully succeeding..."

Many scholars are starting to notice that Maria Valtorta’s work is solving synoptic problems. I’ll give one such example. An article relates:10

The late William F. Buckley Jr. is usually recognized for his political work. Considered the godfather of the American conservative movement he founded the nation’s most eminent conservative political magazine National Review and, for decades, hosted the television show Firing Line, discussing sociopolitical matters with guests as diverse as Jack Kerouac and Noam Chomsky. Charlie Rose always considered Buckley a personal role model to emulate as a talk show host. What less people may know about William Buckley is that, in addition to his political and media endeavors, he also led a fascinating spiritual life as a devout Roman Catholic.

In his spiritual memoir, Nearer, My God, William Buckley wrote of how he first encountered the revelations of Valtorta. “My nephew Fr. Michael Bozell thought to send me a few years ago some pages from Maria Valtorta, Italian writer and mystic (1897-1961). She wrote a huge five-volume book called The Poem of the Man God, and one part of the fifth volume was her fancied vision of the Crucifixion.”

“My friend and theological consultant Fr. Kevin Fitzpatrick, who is also a doctor of theology, was a little alarmed with the prospect of my using Valtorta,” Buckley wrote. “Not so much because her work was, for a while, on the Index of prohibited reading—that kind of thing happens, and there is often life after death.” No, Fr. Kevin’s concern stemmed from a different matter.

Father Kevin wrote to Buckley: “My main problem is the use of private revelations not approved by the Church. This is not a legalistic concern, but a concern based on some experience of people who, to be blunt, are not satisfied with Revelation which ended with the death of the last Apostle.”

Interestingly, despite his cautious approach, once Fr. Kevin, the doctor of theology, began to read Valtorta’s works to further advise Buckley, what he found – in Valtorta’s revelations – surprised the knowledgeable priest greatly.

“In fact, Valtorta seems to have solved the Synoptic problem that’s been plaguing scholars for centuries, viz., the contradictions between Matthew, Mark, and Luke,” Fr. Kevin wrote Buckley. Her revelations, instead of replacing the Gospels – what Fr. Kevin feared – filled in the gaps that the Gospels possessed which, as Fr. Kevin noted, had confused scholars for centuries. Thus, Valtorta’s revelations helped reconcile for the priest seeming contradictions that exist in the Synoptic Gospels of the New Testament.

Thus, as you can see, more and more scholars are recognizing the merit and great benefit of how Valtorta’s writings clarify gaps in the Gospels that have confused scholars for centuries. See my e-book for more examples of how her work does this.

Thus, scholars are finding out that what Our Lord told Valtorta in the passage Anselmo groundlessly criticized is true, namely, when Our Lord said:11

And the purpose of this Work is also to clarify certain points that a number of circumstances has covered with darkness and they thus form dark zones in the brightness of the evangelic picture and points that seem a rupture and are only obscure points, between one episode and another, indecipherable points, and the ability to decipher them is the key to correctly understand certain situations that had arisen and certain strong manners that I had to have, so contrasting with My continuous exhortations to forgive, to be meek and humble, a certain rigidity towards obstinate, inconvertible opponents. You all ought to remember that God, after using all His mercy, for the sake of His own honor, can say also "Enough" to those who, as He is good, think it is right to take advantage of His forbearance and tempt Him. It is an old wise saying.

Our Lord explains in another dictation the benefit of revealing so many details of His life:12

And also the third year of My public life has come to its end. Now comes the preparatory period for My Passion. That is, the period in which everything seems confined to few actions and few people. It almost decries My figure and My mission. In actual fact He, Who seemed defeated and rejected, was the hero getting ready for His apotheosis, and around Him were concentrated and elevated to this highest peak not people, but the passions of people.

Everything that preceded and that in certain episodes perhaps seemed aimless to ill-disposed or superficial readers, is now illuminated by its gloomy or bright light. Particularly the most important figures. Those that many will not admit are useful to know, just because they contain the lesson for the present masters, who more than ever are to be instructed to become true masters of the spirit. As I said to John and Manaen, nothing of what God does is useless, not even a thin blade of grass. Thus nothing is superfluous in this work. Neither the magnificent figures nor the weak and gloomy ones. On the contrary, the weak and gloomy figures are more useful to the masters of the spirit than the perfected and heroic ones.

As from the height of a mountain, near its summit, it is possible to take in the whole structure of the mountain and the reasons for the existence of woods, torrents, meadow and slopes, to reach the peak from the plain, and one can see all the beauty of the sight, and is more deeply convinced that the works of God are all useful and wonderful, and that one serves and completes another, and they are all present to form the beauty of Creation; thus, always with regard to those whose spirits are righteous, all the different figures, episodes, lessons of these three years of My life spent in evangelizing, contemplated from the height of the summit of My work as a Master, serve to give the right view of that complex, which is political, religious, social, collective, spiritual, selfish to the extent of being criminal, or unselfish to the point of sacrifice, in which complex I was a Master and in which I became the Redeemer. The grandiosity of a drama is not seen in one scene, but in all its parts. The figure of the protagonist emerges from the different lights by which secondary parts illuminate it.

We are now close to the summit, and the summit was the Sacrifice for which I became incarnate, and as all the most secret feelings of hearts and all the intrigues of sects have been disclosed, we can only do what the wayfarer does when he reaches the summit, that is, to look at everything and everybody; to become acquainted with the Jewish world; to know what I was: the Man above senses, selfishness, hatred, the Man Who had to be tempted by all sorts of people to take vengeance, to seek power, to wish for the honest delights of marriage and family life, the Man Who had to put up with everything living in the world and suffer by it, because infinite was the distance between the imperfection and sin of the world and My Perfection, the Man Who replied "No" to all the voices, to all the allurements, to all the reactions of the world, of Satan and of My human ego. And I remained pure, loyal, merciful, humble, obedient even to death on a Cross.

Will all this be understood by modern society, to which I grant this knowledge of Myself to strengthen it against the more and more powerful attacks of Satan and the world? Also nowadays, as twenty centuries ago, those to whom I reveal Myself will contradict one another. Once again I am the sign of contradiction. But not with regard to Myself, but with regard to what I stir up in them. Good people, those of good will, will have the good reactions of the shepherds and of humble people. The others will react in a wicked manner, like the scribes, the Pharisees, the Sadducees and priests of those days. One gives what one has. A good person who comes in touch with wicked people provokes a surge of greater wickedness in them. And judgement will be passed on men as it was done on Good Friday, according to how they have judged, accepted and followed the Master, Who with a fresh attempt of infinite mercy has made Himself known once again.

How many people's eyes will open and how many will acknowledge Me saying: "It is He. That is why our hearts burnt within us as He talked and explained the Scriptures to us"? My peace to them and to you, My little, faithful, loving [Maria].

Indeed, a tremendous number of scholars have affirmed that Jesus’ revelations to Valtorta fill in the gap and help reconcile indecipherable points that biblical scholars have been struggling with for years. This is a great blessing and gift! There is absolutely no theological problem with this.

Anselmo wrote, “until her writings the Church would not have had a clear understanding of them.” Anselmo’s argument lacks substance and credibility. What does he mean? Every knowledgeable biblical scholar knows that there are certain questions that theologians haven’t been able to resolve. There is a term for some of them: it’s called “synoptic problems.” Not even the Church Fathers definitively resolved all of them. So what does Anselmo mean by “until her writings the Church would not have had a clear understanding of them”? Nowhere in her writings does she claim or write that an infallible organ of the Church in an infallible statement has ever interpreted Scripture incorrectly. Quite the contrary! Her writings support and confirm the infallible pronouncements of the Church concerning Scripture. As, Archbishop Alfonso Carinci, the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites from 1930 to 1960, wrote about the Poem in 1952:13

"There is nothing therein which is contrary to the Gospel. Rather, this work, a good complement to the Gospel, contributes towards a better understanding of its meaning... Our Lord's discourses do not contain anything which in any way might be contrary to His Spirit." [emphasis added]

So who are you going to believe? Anselmo (in whose articles I identified many theological errors, methodological flaws, presumptions, misrepresentation of the text, unsubstantiated accusations, and evidence of a lack of objectivity) or Archbishop Alfonso Carinci’s testimony, who was (1) the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites from 1930 to 1960 (which was later renamed the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in 1969), (2) in charge of investigating causes for pre-Vatican II beatification and canonization and actually personally met Maria Valtorta and investigated her case, (3) was conversant in recognizing true and false sanctity and was of distinguished repute, (4) was master of ceremonies for Pope Leo XIII and a confidant of Pope St. Pius X, and (5) whom many prelates considered to have passed away in the odor of sanctity? I don’t know about you, but I know whose scholarly review of her work and whose opinion I’m going to trust more in…

It is of significance in this discussion that Maria Valtorta related that Our Lord gave her a dictation in which He directly addresses the specific relationship of her private revelation with Public Revelation. Here is what He said:14

In the souls regenerated in the Grace of Baptism and maintained and fortified therein by the other Sacraments, the soul’s being attracted to its end takes place in divine fashion because Grace—that is, God Himself—draws His beloved children to Himself—ever closer, more and more in the light, the more they rise by degrees in spirituality, so that separation diminishes and seeing is more intense; knowledge, vaster; comprehension, broader; and love, more perfect, to the point of arriving at contemplation which is already fusion and union of the creature with the Creator, a temporary, but indelible, transforming act, for the embrace of the Fire of the Divinity closing over its enraptured creature impresses a new character on these living beings, who are already separated from Humanity and spiritualized into seraphim, expert in the Wisdom God gives them, for He gives Himself to them as they give themselves to Him.

For this reason, it is proper to specify that the inspired writer “has God as the author.” God, who reveals or illuminates mysteries or truths, as He pleases, for these instruments of His, “spurring and moving them with supernatural virtues, assisting them in writing in such fashion that they rightly conceive with their intelligence and faithfully seek to write and, with suitable means and infallible truth, express all of the things, and only those things, which are commended by Him, God.” It is God Who, with a threefold action, illuminates the intellect so that it will know the truth without error, by either revelation—in the case of still unknown truths—or exact recollection, if they are truths already established, but still rather incomprehensible for human reason; it moves so that what the inspired one comes to know supernaturally will be written faithfully; it assists and directs so that the truths will be stated in the form and number which God wills, with veracity and clarity, so that they will be known to others for the good of many, with the very words of God in the direct teachings or with the words of those inspired when they describe visions or repeat supernatural lessons.

The work being given to mankind through Little John [Maria Valtorta] is not a canonical book. But it is still an inspired book, which I am giving to help you to understand certain passages of the canonical books and especially to understand what My time [on earth] as the Master was and to know Me: Me, the Word, in My words. Neither I, nor especially the megaphone, who due to her absolute ignorance in this field cannot even distinguish dogmatic theology from mystical or ascetical theology and does not know the subtleties of definitions or the conclusions of Councils, but knows how to love and obey and that is enough for Me and I do not want anything else from the megaphone – neither I nor the megaphone say that the work would be a canonical book. In truth, however, I tell you that it is an inspired book, since the instrument is not capable of writing pages that she does not even understand unless I Myself explain them to her to take away her fear.

So it is: Valtorta never affirms her work is a canonical book or part of Public Revelation. Rather, it is a private revelation in the same line of other authentic mystics of historical scenes such as Venerable Mary of Agreda, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, St. Bridget of Sweden, Therese Neumann, etc.

Anselmo writes:

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.

Actually, what Anselmo wrote above is a falsehood. Valtorta never affirmed that Public Revelation isn’t what God intended or is imperfect. For something to be “missing from Revelation” would imply that Public Revelation is incomplete or imperfect. Her writings do not affirm or “give the impression” of that. Rather, her writings affirm and give the impression that Public Revelation is as God intended it to be (including the canonized Gospels), and that due to natural causes and supernatural Will, God intended the canonized Gospels to be as short and “bare-bones” (if you will) as they were/are, but that, in His unparalleled generosity, God is revealing in a non-canonical private revelation additional details. I encourage humble, honest, open-minded Catholics to thank God rather than fall into a pharisaical, close-minded, ill-disposed mindset, which disposes one to not want to be “confused with the facts” or properly research things and reject one of God’s greatest gifts to our generation.

So, in short, if, in reading Valtorta’s writings, Anselmo was “given the impression that something is missing from Revelation and is rectified by Valtorta’s revelation,” then it is his misinterpretation of her writings and he is reading things into her writings that are not there. Such incorrect reading into things is typical for those who are trying to look for faults and who either (1) lack critical reading skills or (2) lack honesty. I know all too well, from life experience, that some people can often be blinded by pride and their emotions and often see what is not there when judging other people or even when judging texts such as Sacred Scripture or mystical writings such as Valtorta’s. Oftentimes, the degree to which their perception is altered by pride and emotions is tied to their level of maturity, virtue, and intelligence. After reading Anselmo’s articles, I don’t consider him in the same league in these areas as the likes of Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., and other renowned theologians who have studied and written about Valtorta in depth. In fact, I want to point out something: I have found that the majority of the objections to Valtorta’s work from critics are based on ignorance, deficient theology, poor research, wrenching of statements out of context with false unsubstantiated insinuations, ignorance of too many historical facts about this work, distortions and sweeping generalizations tantamount to lying, or easily refuted subjective impressions that cannot be a basis for rejecting her work or advising against it and which are contradicted by those of greater learning and authority than these critics and are most of the time borne out of an obvious unjustified bias against the Poem.

Refuting His Sixth Paragraph

Before I begin addressing Anselmo’s paragraph, I want to address the possibility that some people might think that the name Jesus ascribed to Maria Valtorta in His dictations to her (Little John) is unbecoming. It is not, but is in actuality quite fitting. God often gives special names to His servants based on the mission and work that He entrusts to them. Thus, in Scripture we see: “Jesus looking upon [Simon], said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.” (John 1:42)

The Haydock commentary of the Bible says:15

Ver. 42. Thou art Simon, the son of Jona, or of John. Jesus, who knew all things, knew his name, and at the first meeting told him he should hereafter be called Cephas, or Petrus, a rock, designing to make him the chief or head of his whole Church. See Matthew xvi. 18. (Witham) – Cephas is a Syriac word, its import is the same as rock or stone. And St. Paul commonly calleth him by this name: whereas others, both Greeks and Latins, call him by the Greek appellation, Peter; which signifies exactly the same thing. Hence St. Cyril saith, that our Saviour, by foretelling that his name should be now no more Simon, but Peter, did by the word itself aptly signify, that on him, as on a rock most firm, he would build His Church. (Lib. ii. chap. 12. in Joan.)

An article relates:16

God changed Abram's name to Abraham (meaning father of many nations – Genesis 17: 1-5) then changed his wife's name from Sarai to Sarah (mother of many nations – verses 15-16). Jacob, the grandson of Abram (Abraham), had his name changed directly by God to Israel (meaning someone who prevails with God – Genesis 32: 24-28).

So also did Saul, the former persecutor of the Church of Christ, become Paul after he converted and became the one of the Church’s greatest defenders. What is very interesting, especially in relation to Maria Valtorta’s given name, is what the article says about the meaning of the new name Paul:17

The name Saul means "demanded" or "death." The name Paul means "small" or "little." (Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary).

Similarly, God bestowed upon Maria Valtorta a new symbolic name “Little John” for the reason Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M., professor of dogmatic and sacramental theology of the Pontifical Marianum Theological Faculty in Rome from 1939 onward, and Secretary of that Faculty from 1950 to 1959, explains:18

This name of "Little John" approximated Valtorta to John, the great apostle and evangelist, and at the same time distinguished her from him, indicating simultaneously her humility and inferiority [to him].

Prof. Leo Brodeur, M.A., Lèsl., Ph.D., H.Sc.D., explains:18

Jesus nicknamed Maria Valtorta Little John, to show that her personal character and mission had several points in common with those of St. John the Evangelist and Visionary of the Apocalypse.

The preface to the Poem of the Man-God also comments on why Maria Valtorta was given this name:19

John, to place her close to the Evangelist who was the favorite disciple. Little, because of the dependence of her Work, although quite extensive, on those of the Evangelists who, in short manuscripts, enclosed what is essential.

In addition, the designation “little” is apt because she continually called herself a “nonentity”, a mere nothing that becomes Jesus’ instrument only by His Will and not because of any worthiness on her part. She considers herself “little” in humility. “…unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 18:3)

“John” is apt because she is, in a certain way, like a St. John the Evangelist of our time, writing not only the greatest private revelation on the Gospels since apostolic times, but also one of the greatest commentaries on the Apocalypse, which was also written by John the Evangelist. Hence, it is fitting to refer to her as a “John”.

Anselmo writes:

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.

Anselmo makes an argument in this paragraph with a premise and a conclusion. His concluding sentence does not follow from the premise. Now, here is Anselmo’s reasoning:

1. Our Lord ascribed to Maria Valtorta a mystical name or nickname of “Little John”.
2. This is a way of linking her and St. John the Evangelist together.
3. Thus, this is an open disregard for Church teaching that divine Revelation ended with the last Apostle.

I respond:

1. To get the facts straight, as mentioned earlier in this refutation, I’m not aware of Our Lord ever referring to her as “Mary John”, only as the title “Little John”. This is a secondary point, but I want to be thorough and make sure the facts are kept straight.

2. The nickname “Little John” does link John the Evangelist and her together, but Anselmo fails to qualify how. Did you not know that millions of monks, priests, and nuns (and even many Popes) have taken the religious name of a saint, thus linking themselves in a special way to this saint and thus tying themselves to the special intercession of this saint for their life? This is common practice in the Catholic Church. These are examples of millions of links between a particular soul and a saint. How is the link between Valtorta and St. John the Evangelist different? Anselmo needs to clarify. It is clear from her writings that this link consists in the fact that her personal character and mission had several points in common with those of St. John the Evangelist. How so? (1) In Catholic Tradition, St. John the Evangelist is often nicknamed “St. John the Beloved” because the canonized Scriptures revealed he was particularly close to Jesus among His Apostles, even to the point of resting his head on Jesus’s chest at the Last Supper: “Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.” (John 13:23) Maria Valtorta, a victim soul of supreme generosity, also was particularly close to Jesus and beloved of Him. (2) St. John the Evangelist wrote one of the four canonized Gospels, which many biblical scholars affirm is one of the most detailed of the canonized Gospels for many episodes. Maria Valtorta is given a mission from God to be – much like Anne Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda were meant to be – a mystic who is given an authentic private revelation that does not modify or add to Public Revelation or modify any tenets of Faith, but clarifies and enriches (as all private revelation is meant to do).

3. Thus, it can be easily seen that the nickname Jesus ascribed to Valtorta and its significance does not disregard or deny or diminish the Church teaching that Divine Revelation / Public Revelation ended with the last Apostle.

As such, Anselmo’s argument is thus refuted. In one of the dictations Maria received, she reports that Our Lord affirmed the above facts very clearly:20

In the souls regenerated in the Grace of Baptism and maintained and fortified therein by the other Sacraments, the soul’s being attracted to its end takes place in divine fashion because Grace—that is, God Himself—draws His beloved children to Himself—ever closer, more and more in the light, the more they rise by degrees in spirituality, so that separation diminishes and seeing is more intense; knowledge, vaster; comprehension, broader; and love, more perfect, to the point of arriving at contemplation which is already fusion and union of the creature with the Creator, a temporary, but indelible, transforming act, for the embrace of the Fire of the Divinity closing over its enraptured creature impresses a new character on these living beings, who are already separated from Humanity and spiritualized into seraphim, expert in the Wisdom God gives them, for He gives Himself to them as they give themselves to Him.

For this reason, it is proper to specify that the inspired writer “has God as the author.” God, who reveals or illuminates mysteries or truths, as He pleases, for these instruments of His, “spurring and moving them with supernatural virtues, assisting them in writing in such fashion that they rightly conceive with their intelligence and faithfully seek to write and, with suitable means and infallible truth, express all of the things, and only those things, which are commended by Him, God.” It is God Who, with a threefold action, illuminates the intellect so that it will know the truth without error, by either revelation—in the case of still unknown truths—or exact recollection, if they are truths already established, but still rather incomprehensible for human reason; it moves so that what the inspired one comes to know supernaturally will be written faithfully; it assists and directs so that the truths will be stated in the form and number which God wills, with veracity and clarity, so that they will be known to others for the good of many, with the very words of God in the direct teachings or with the words of those inspired when they describe visions or repeat supernatural lessons.

The work being given to mankind through Little John [Maria Valtorta] is not a canonical book. But it is still an inspired book, which I am giving to help you to understand certain passages of the canonical books and especially to understand what My time [on earth] as the Master was and to know Me: Me, the Word, in My words. Neither I, nor especially the megaphone, who due to her absolute ignorance in this field cannot even distinguish dogmatic theology from mystical or ascetical theology and does not know the subtleties of definitions or the conclusions of Councils, but knows how to love and obey and that is enough for Me and I do not want anything else from the megaphone – neither I nor the megaphone say that the work would be a canonical book. In truth, however, I tell you that it is an inspired book, since the instrument is not capable of writing pages that she does not even understand unless I Myself explain them to her to take away her fear.

Refuting His Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Paragraphs

Anselmo quotes a paragraph from her work. It is not accurate or proper to give a translation of a translation, and since Anselmo’s article was written in Spanish, I will directly quote the official English translation of the sentence he quoted. Note that Anselmo omits several parts of the original paragraph that he is quoting. I will put in bold the parts that he omitted:

Further: if you object that the revelation was closed with the last Apostle, and there was nothing further to add, because the same Apostle says in Revelation: "If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him every plague mentioned in the book" (22:18) and that can be understood for all the Revelation, the last completion of which is the Revelation by John, I reply to you that with this work no addition was made to Revelation, but only the gaps, brought about by natural causes and by supernatural will, were filled in. And if I wanted to take pleasure in restoring the picture of My Divine Charity, as a restorer of mosaics does replacing the tesserae damaged or missing, reinstating the mosaic in its complete beauty, and I have decided to do it in this century in which mankind is hurling itself towards the Abyss of darkness and horror, can you forbid Me from doing so?

Can you perhaps say that you do not need it, you whose spirits are dull, weak, deaf to the lights, voices, and invitations from Above?

You ought really to bless Me for increasing with new lights the light that you have and that is no longer sufficient for you to "see" your Savior. To see the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and feel that spiritual emotion of the just of My time rise in you, attaining through this knowledge a renewal of your spirits in love, that would be your salvation, because it is an ascent towards perfection.

I want to bring to my reader’s attention the fact that several of the parts Anselmo omitted in his quote (the bolded parts) are among the most essential parts of this original excerpt for understanding the topic Anselmo was discussing. In fact, these omitted parts are a direct affront to Anselmo’s erroneous thesis and show why Anselmo’s thesis/argument lacks credibility and substance. In other words, if I was Anselmo, and I wanted to mislead my readers by omitting relevant parts of a quotation to try to twist the quotation to say something I want it to say to try to make it agree with my own subjective erroneous interpretation, I couldn’t have done a better job than Anselmo did. However, I prefer to be thorough and honest in my argumentation and in my quoting of texts under review and I would assume that my readers would expect the same level of honesty, thoroughness, and integrity.

Notice how, among the parts he omitted was Christ affirming:

1. In Valtorta’s work no addition was made to Revelation [that is, Divine Revelation / Public Revelation]
2. Only the gaps, brought about by natural causes and by supernatural will, were filled in.
3. Can you forbid Me from doing so? [revealing additional details of His life]

Very many learned and trustworthy theologians who have studied Valtorta’s work in depth affirm the above statements and refute Anselmo’s whole argumentation and thesis. Maria’s revelations do not give a new doctrine but perform the useful ends which Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., world-renowned Mariologist, wrote in his book The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta:21

Private revelations are useful

Though they do not add and cannot add anything substantially new to public revelation (already complete in Christ), we should not regard private revelations as useless. In fact, they are very useful to the souls of those they are communicated to. In several ways: they nourish and develop the Church’s faith and piety; they promote a greater intelligence of the truth and documents of public revelation. By means of private revelations, God helps us draw a greater profit from public revelation.

Valtorta’s writings do this.

Refuting His Tenth Paragraph

Anselmo writes:

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.

It would be inadmissible for heresies to be accepted by theologians and priests. Thankfully, this is not an issue with Valtorta’s writings since Anselmo and other Valtorta critics have yet to validly and objectively demonstrate a single valid objective heresy or error against faith or morals in them.

I know all too well, from life experience, that some people can often be blinded by pride and their emotions and often see what is not there when judging other people or even when judging texts such as Sacred Scripture or mystical writings such as Valtorta’s. Oftentimes, the degree to which their perception is altered by pride and emotions is tied to their level of maturity, virtue, and intelligence. After reading Anselmo’s article, I don’t consider him in the same league in these areas as the likes of Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., and other renowned theologians who have studied and written about Valtorta in depth. In fact, I want to point out something: I have found that the majority of the objections to Valtorta’s work from critics are based on ignorance, deficient theology, poor research, wrenching of statements out of context with false unsubstantiated insinuations, ignorance of too many historical facts about this work, distortions and sweeping generalizations tantamount to lying, or easily refuted subjective impressions that cannot be a basis for rejecting her work or advising against it and which are contradicted by those of greater learning and authority than these critics and are most of the time borne out of an obvious unjustified bias against the Poem.

The vast majority of critics haven’t even read her work and there are very few theological objections that are “worth one’s salt” so to speak and that are even close to being a serious concern for Valtorta supporters who have a decent grasp of theology. Furthermore, none of these objections and critics have come close to challenging the demonstrated investigation, theological judgement, and commentary of pious theologians of greater learning, authority, and, in many cases, balanced open-mindedness, including Fr. Gabriel Roschini, Archbishop Carinci, Fr. Corrado Berti (with his 5,675 scholarly Valtortian footnotes and appendices), Blessed Gabriel Allegra, and about a couple dozen bishops, not to mention Saint Padre Pio and Pope Pius XII. There is already enough demonstration of the orthodoxy of Maria Valtorta’s writings and solid refutations of all arguments against her works for us to trust her writings completely. However, if someone wants to criticize her writings, and they are honest, they need to consult with the scholarly footnotes of the Italian edition and contend with those (as well as the detailed critiques of the Poem published by extremely learned and trustworthy authorities and scholars such as Archbishop Carinci’s analysis, Fr. Gabriel Roschini’s published work on her writings, Blessed Gabriel Allegra’s critiques and writings on the Poem, etc.) A would-be critic must be a serious scholar (I have yet to find very many Valtorta critics who are) who reads Fr. Berti’s footnotes for the passages under investigation. There should be no quoting out of context and no distorting. There should be a clear reference to the passage and a clear explanation as to why there might be an error, based on clear-cut theological and moral criteria with references to authoritative Catholic sources like Denzinger, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. Many of the seeming doctrinal errors in the Poem are not difficult to explain, one by one, with Fr. Berti’s notes and appendices, and in this e-book there is a thorough refutation of just about every major claim of error brought up during the past forty years.

Also check out: An Analysis and Refutation of All the Top Anti-Valtorta Articles.

Refuting His Eleventh Paragraph

Anselmo wrote:

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.

Nothing in Valtorta’s writings would affirm that the Holy Church has waited for centuries for her to appear so that the Church would continue and “reform” the Gospel. This sentence of Anselmo has the qualities and feel of an ill-disposed subjective interpretation and distortion of what she actually wrote (not an untypical tactic of Anselmo). Also, nowhere does her work presume to affirm that every single person who would not accept her revelations would automatically be objectively guilty of sinning. It is theoretically possible that if someone were to know with certainty that a certain work is from God (let’s give Fatima or the Sacred Heart private revelations or the Brown Scapular as an example) and if they are given graces to accept it and to benefit from it and they willfully reject it (perhaps due to pride, etc.), then they can be subjectively guilty of sin insofar as they knew better and are personally responsible for rejecting real graces. If one were to war against an authentic work of God or to try to prevent others from benefitting from it, and they knew it was from God, then they would subjectively and objectively be guilty of sin because they knew better. To sin, one has to have full knowledge and consent. If one were to reject an authentic work of God because they believed it was bad, they do not sin. They sin if they know it is from God and God grants them graces to recognize that is His Will for them to utilize it and they still reject it. All of this is consistent with everything Valtorta wrote. I have read her entire work and none of her writings would contradict what I just laid out above.

Now, with regards to the specific endnote reference Anselmo gave for this paragraph, he refers to the last chapter of her work entitled “Farewell to the work” and affirms, “Pages 879 onward in the work contain in particular the heresies regarding Revelation exposed by Valtorta in the chapter entitled ‘Despedida de la Obra.’” Since all of the arguments that he had already brought up in his article that were based on misrepresenting mutilated quotes from that chapter turned out to be false and thoroughly refuted, I am sure my readers will cast an eye of suspicion on Anselmo’s sweeping claim that there are many (unspecified) “additional” heresies in that chapter. I think that the very large number of highly learned, trustworthy theologians (who were far more learned than Anselmo and some of whom studied her work for decades), who have read that chapter and affirmed it is free of error in faith and morals, speaks volumes more than Anselmo’s claim of “additional (unspecified) heresies” that he assures his readers exist.

Refuting His Twelfth Paragraph

Anselmo wrote:

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.

I’d like to first point out that there are many solid pre-Vatican II theological books and writings of saints that are reprinted by contemporary “mainstream Catholic” publishing houses who add forewords, translator notes, footnotes, or other notes where they discuss how this pre-Vatican II book so aptly fits in with Vatican II, the spirit of Vatican II, etc. even though it is an older book. You can’t imagine how many times this happens. Therefore, are we to consider all these solid pre-Vatican II theological books and writings of saints to be heretical, bad, evil, modernist, and affirming modernism and evolution of dogma because some person wrote a note saying the saint’s writing is consistent with Vatican II (most likely, a well-meaning orthodox Catholic who interprets Vatican II in the most conservative way possible and doesn’t know any better)? Absolutely not! To think so would be absurd.

With that premise, I now want to return to addressing Anselmo’s paragraph. Anselmo makes an argument in the above-quoted paragraph with a premise and a conclusion. His concluding sentence does not follow from the premise. Now, here is Anselmo’s reasoning:

1. The editors of the Spanish translation have included footnotes showing how Valtorta’s teaching complies with that of Vatican II.
2. Therefore, the post-conciliar Church promotes the Poem of the Man-God as evolution of dogma and to spread post-Vatican II heresies.

Anselmo is making generalizations, presumptions, failure of distinctions, and betrays ignorance of the many pre-Vatican II theologians who have studied and produced positive commentaries on her writings, especially Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., who was a pre-Vatican II Consultor of the Holy Office and who is considered by many to be the greatest Mariologist of the 20th century, who published a 395-page Mariological study of her writings, and Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M., professor of dogmatic and sacramental theology of the Pontifical Marianum Theological Faculty in Rome from 1939 onward and Secretary of that Faculty from 1950 to 1959, who studied her work for decades and provided extensive theological and biblical annotations of her work totaling over 5,675 footnotes.

First, it is important to realize that Anselmo is writing this article for a traditional Catholic audience who maintain that Vatican II has a certain percentage of non-infallible, non-binding statements in it that are erroneous and/or heretical. This audience also recognizes that modernism (which Valtorta’s work is actually, in truth, given and designed to fight) is rampant within the Church following Vatican II, including the aspect of modernism which is the heresy that believes dogma evolves.

Anselmo attempts to portray to this audience that Maria Valtorta’s work must necessarily somehow be connected to the percentage of statements in Vatican II that are erroneous and/or heretical and he also attempts to make his audience believe that her work must be connected with the modernism rampant in the Church after Vatican II. How does he attempt to portray this? What is his proof?

His “proof” is that the individual(s) responsible for the translation of her original Italian work into Spanish (which is one language among the 30-some languages that her work or parts of her work have been translated into) provided notes attempting to show how her writings are consistent with Vatican II. From this one fact, Anselmo makes the tremendous leap to the wild generalizing claim that therefore her work must by necessity be in league with the 5-10% (or whatever percentage it is) of errors and heresies in Vatican II and must of course be part of some sort of modernist conspiracy to promote the heresy of evolution of dogma.

Let’s intelligently analyze this and these claims. It is important to point out that, even from a traditional Catholic viewpoint, not all of Vatican II is bad. Fr. Gregory Hesse, S.T.D., J.C.D., S.T.L., J.C.L, who was a fierce opponent of Vatican II, explained in his talks on Vatican II that not every line is condemnable, and that, in fact (to use his own words) “90% of Vatican II is just warmed-up doctrine.” He was referring to the fact that (according to his estimate) 90% of the statements in Vatican II are just a reiteration of previously defined doctrine and dogmas from previous infallible councils, the Ordinary Magisterium, etc., but that what is the problem is that 10% (or whatever percentage it is) contains some non-infallible, non-binding, novel statements that are ambiguous, erroneous, close to heresy, or heretical.

Now, considering that Maria Valtorta’s work has been proven to be free from error in faith and morals and completely in line with Church teaching, it is very possible for a good-willed, well-meaning “mainstream Catholic” to be able to show notes on how Maria Valtorta’s writings comply with Vatican II in the 90% of statements in Vatican II that are orthodox and which Fr. Hesse called “warmed-up doctrine.” I very much doubt that the person in question purposefully hunted out the 10% worst statements in Vatican II and tried to show how Valtorta’s work agrees with those 10% worst statements. Anselmo would love to have his readers believe that that’s the case because he has an obvious bias against her work and is on a sort of “witch hunt” against her.

Since our critic is a traditional Catholic and his article is hosted on a traditional Catholic website, in demonstrating the orthodoxy of Maria Valtorta’s work, it is particularly effective for me to discuss traditional Catholic authorities who have reviewed Valtorta’s work in depth and approved it. I will list these authorities shortly, but before I do, I want to note that I happen to be very conversant in the traditional Catholic critical study of Vatican II and I have read Maria Valtorta’s entire work and studied it in depth, and I can assure you that none of her writings are in agreement with those non-infallible, non-binding statements in Vatican II that many traditional Catholics hold are erroneous, close to heresy, or heretical. None. Period. Neither did Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle, FSSPX, who was the first spiritual director and a professor of the SSPX Econe seminary, and a confessor of Archbishop Lefebvre. Fr. Barrielle (1897-1983) is also well known as a great retreat master with over 40 years of experience, and he is the author of the book Rules for the Discernment of Spirits in the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola used extensively in all SSPX Ignatian retreats. He wholeheartedly approved Maria Valtorta’s writings, believed them to be an authentic private revelation, and led many others to read it. Fr. Barrielle said to the SSPX Econe seminarians: “If you wish to know and love the Sacred Heart of Jesus, read Valtorta!”22 Fr. Kevin Robinson, FSSPX, testifies that Fr. Barrielle “used Maria’s writings and urged their use at all times in his latter years in the SSPX Seminary.”23

In a homily Archbishop Lefebvre gave to the traditional Carmelites of Quievrain on July 21, 1986, he said:24

I read part of [The Poem of the Man-God] because Father Barrielle was very much in favor of this book of Maria Valtorta. He was convinced that it was absolutely true, that it could not be not true, that it does a lot of good. I don't say that it does not do good, to enter like that into the company of the apostles and the Blessed Virgin, and to see the Blessed Virgin live, to see the Child Jesus live, to see Him growing. It is true, that puts us in an atmosphere that makes us live more perhaps with Our Lord.

On a holy card for the Requiem Mass of Fr. Barrielle, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote, “To dear Fr. Louis Marie Barrielle, our model spiritual guide, with our affectionate assurance of our faithful prayers (signed Archbishop Lefebvre, 1983).”25 [emphasis added]

Fr. Barrielle
“To dear Fr. Louis Marie Barrielle, our model spiritual guide, with our
affectionate assurance of our faithful prayers (signed Archbishop Lefebvre, 1983).”

Furthermore, there are very many pre-Vatican II, well-learned, trustworthy theologians who have studied her work in depth and affirmed that her writings are consistent with Church teaching, and they did their study and affirmed this prior to Vatican II. I will give a few brief examples below from people whose qualifications match (and undoubtedly exceed) the credentials of Anselmo:

Camillo Corsánego (1891-1963) was National President of Catholic Action in Italy, Dean of the Consistorial Lawyers (where he functioned as advocate of causes of beatification and canonization), and a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome. He wrote in a signed testimony in 1952:26

Throughout my life, by now fairly long, I have read a very large number of works in apologetics, hagiography [saints' lives], theology, and biblical criticism; however, I have never found such a body of knowledge, art, devotion, and adherence to the traditional teachings of the Church, as in Miss Maria Valtorta's work on the Gospels.

Having read those numerous pages attentively and repeatedly, I must in all conscience declare that with respect to the woman who wrote them only two hypotheses can be made: a) either she was talented like Manzoni or Shakespeare, and her scriptural and theological learning and her knowledge of the Holy Places were perfect, at any rate superior to those of anyone alive in Italy today; b) or else "digitus Dei est hic" ["God's finger is here"].

Obedient as I am (and as, with God's grace, I intend being all my life) to the supreme and infallible Magisterium of the Church, I will never dare take its place. Yet, as a humble Christian, I profess that I think the publication of this work will help to take many souls back to God, and will arouse in the modern world an apologetic interest and a leavening of Christian life comparable only to the effects of the private revelation [of the Sacred Heart] to St. Marie Alacoque.

Archbishop Alfonso Carinci, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites from 1930 to 1960 (which was later renamed the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in 1969). Archbishop Carinci was in charge of investigating causes for pre-Vatican II beatification and canonization. He was conversant in recognizing true and false sanctity and was of distinguished repute. He was master of ceremonies for Pope Leo XIII and a confidant of Pope St. Pius X. He was also rector of the Almo Collegio Capranica from 1911 to 1930, where Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII) was formed. Many prelates considered him to have passed away in the odor of sanctity. He praised Maria Valtorta and the Poem, writing in 1952: "There is nothing therein which is contrary to the Gospel. Rather, this work, a good complement to the Gospel, contributes towards a better understanding of its meaning... Our Lord's discourses do not contain anything which in any way might be contrary to His Spirit."27 Archbishop Carinci also stated: “...it seems impossible to me that a woman of a very ordinary theological culture, and unprovided with any book useful to that end, had been able on her own to write with such exactness pages so sublime. […] Judging from the good one experiences in reading it [i.e., The Poem], I am of the humble opinion that this Work, once published, could bring so many souls to the Lord: sinners to conversion and the good to a more fervent and diligent life. […] While the immoral press invades the world and exhibitions corrupt youth, one comes spontaneously to thank the Lord for having given us, by means of this suffering woman, nailed to a bed, a Work of such literary beauty, so doctrinally and spiritually lofty, accessible and profound, drawing one to read it and capable of being reproduced in cinematic productions and sacred theater.”28 Archbishop Carinci's Signed Valtorta Letter

Archbishop Carinci visited Maria Valtorta three times, said Mass for her, read her writings in depth, wrote many letters back and forth with her, and analyzed her case. He was so convinced that her writings were inspired by God, that eyewitnesses report he would say to Maria Valtorta: “He is the Master. He is the Author,” and in his letters to Maria Valtorta, he wrote “Author” with a capital “A”.29 Archbishop Carinci was one of two prominent authorities who advised Fr. Corrado Berti to deliver typewritten copies of the Poem of the Man-God to Pope Pius XII, which led to his command to publish it in 1948.30 In January 1952, Archbishop Carinci also wrote a thorough certification and positive review of Valtorta’s work (four pages long when typed), which has been published.31 That same year, he also wrote a letter on behalf of himself and eight other prominent authorities (among them, two Consultants to the Holy Office, three professors at pontifical universities in Rome, a Consultant to the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and the Prefect of the Vatican Secret Archive) to be delivered to Pope Pius XII in an audience, although the audience wasn’t able to be arranged.32 Archbishop Carinci is also one of the authorities whose favorable certifications about Maria Valtorta was given to the Holy Office in 1961 by Fr. Corrado Berti, which led the Holy Office to grant their approval of the publication of the second edition of her work.33

The book Lettere a Mons. Carinci (Letters to Archbishop Carinci) is a collection of letters that Maria Valtorta and Archbishop Alfonso Carinci exchanged between January 9, 1949 and December 23, 1955. The book contains 39 letters in full written by Maria Valtorta to Archbishop Carinci and 21 letters in full written by Archbishop Carinci to Maria Valtorta, including photoscans of some of the original handwritten letters. In the book Pro e contro Maria Valtorta, on page 92 is a photocopy of the original signed handwritten letter of Archbishop Carinci, written on behalf of himself and eight other prominent authorities, to be delivered to Pope Pius XII in an audience and which is dated January 29, 1952. It also has a very positive certification and review of her work (four pages long when typed) written by Archbishop Carinci on January 17, 1952.

Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M. (ordained in 1924), was a world-renowned Mariologist, decorated professor and founder of the Marianum Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome in 1950 under Pope Pius XII, professor at the Lateran Pontifical University, and a Consultant to the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints. During the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, he worked closely with the Vatican on Marian publications. He is considered by many to be the greatest Mariologist of the 20th century, was highly esteemed by all the Popes during his priestly life (especially Pope Pius XII), and was often referred to by Pope John Paul II as one of the greatest Mariologists who ever lived. Fr. Roschini had also personally met Valtorta, but admitted that, like many others, he was a respectful and condescending skeptic. But after carefully studying her writings for himself, he underwent a radical and enthusiastic change of heart, later declaring Valtorta to be “one of the eighteen greatest mystics of all time.”34

In his last book of 395 pages, which he said was his most important book, The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta, he declared that the Mariology found in Maria Valtorta’s writings exceeds the sum total of everything he has read, studied, and published himself (and he has published over 790 articles and miscellaneous writings, and 130 books, 66 of which were over 200 pages long – almost all of which are on Mariology). Lest someone automatically think he’s a modernist whose writings can’t be trusted, it is good to note that he was born in 1900, became a priest in 1924, and spent most of his priestly life prior to Vatican II. All of his writings on Mariology are completely traditional/orthodox. An article relates, “During the pontificate of Pius XII, ‘the most Marian Pope in Church history,’ Roschini worked closely with the Pontiff, arranging his own publications parallel to Papal Mariological promulgations… Together he published over 900 titles, mostly on Mariology, in addition to his encyclopedic works, reviewing the Mariological contributions of saints like Bernard of Clairvaux and Anthony of Padua. In 1950, he explained the Mariology of Thomas Aquinas. He detailed his Mariology in a major work in the year 1952.”35 He was also at some time Prior General of the Order of the Servants of Mary, Vicar General, and General Director of its studies. He was also a member of several scholarly academies, and vice-president of the Pontifical Academy of Our Lady Immaculate (founded in 1847).36

As material for a course which he taught at the Marianum Pontifical Theological Faculty in Rome on the Marian intuitions of the great mystics, Fr. Gabriel Roschini used both Maria Valtorta’s The Poem of the Man-God as well as her other mystical writings as a basis for his course.37 Fr. Roschini is also one of the authorities whose favorable certifications about Maria Valtorta was given to the Holy Office in 1961 by Fr. Corrado Berti, which led the Holy Office to grant their approval of the publication of the second edition of her work.38

Lastly, Anselmo will be the first to jump out at this and try to deny it, but it’s a fact (see my e-book for complete details) and he would oppose this fiercely because it discredits his whole Valtorta Pre- vs. Post-Vatican II thesis.

A high-ranking prelate personally handed Pope Pius XII a 12-volume typewritten copy of the Poem of the Man-God in 1947. In the following months, the priest who was in charge of postal delivery directly to Pope Pius XII’s desk saw the bookmark in Valtorta’s writings on his desk moving forward day by day.39 After these volumes were evaluated by the Pope, he granted a special audience with the three Servites of Mary in charge of this work: Fr. Corrado M. Berti, O.S.M. (professor of dogmatic and sacramental theology at the Pontifical Marianum Theological Faculty in Rome from 1939 onward, and Secretary of that Faculty from 1950 to 1959), Fr. Romualdo M. Migliorini (Prefect Apostolic in Africa), and Fr. Andrew M. Cecchin (Prior of the International College of the Servites of Mary in Rome). At this audience, as Bishop of Rome and the Vicar of Christ, Pope Pius XII commanded them to publish it, saying: “Publish it just as it is. There is no need to give an opinion as to whether it is of supernatural origin. Those who read it will understand.”40 Father Berti testifies: “I asked the Pope if we should remove the inscriptions: ‘Visions’ and ‘Dictations’ from The Poem before publishing it. And he answered that nothing should be removed.”41 Frs. Berti, Migliorini, and Cecchin documented the Pope’s words immediately afterwards. Fr. Berti’s signed testimony is located in Isola del Liri, Italy (and is also viewable online). Pope Pius XII’s audience with these three priests was also historically documented the next day, February 27, 1948, in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano. These three ecclesiastical eyewitnesses were of distinguished repute, and it may be worth mentioning that in a court of law in the United States, only two eyewitnesses are necessary to convict someone with the death penalty. This command of Pope Pius XII in front of three witnesses made it just as binding as a command in writing, according to the 1918 Code of Canon Law, which was in force in 1948.42 Cardinal Edouard Gagnon (who had a Doctorate in Theology and taught canon law for ten years at the Grand Seminary) writing to the Maria Valtorta Research Center from the Vatican on October 31, 1987, referred to Pope Pius XII's action as: "The type of official Imprimatur granted before witnesses by the Holy Father in 1948."43 It is also of significance that Cardinal Gagnon was known as a specialist of censorship, a theme for which he had written a reference book in 1945: The Censorship of Books (Éditions Fides, Montreal, 222 pages).44

The word imprimatur merely means "it may be printed" (in Latin: “let it be printed”). Here the Pope went further: he commanded them, "Publish this work just as it is." Furthermore, the contents were deemed acceptable and very good to his judgment, for he said: "Publish this work just as it is." Pope Leo X stated at the Fifth Lateran Council: “When it is a question of prophetic revelations, the Pope is the sole judge!”45

Prof. Leo A. Brodeur, M.A., Lèsl., Ph.D., H.Sc.D., wrote:46

It is important to know that Pope Pius XII was not content giving no more no less than an order by saying: “Pubblicate” (“Publish”). He also went so far as to hint at the work’s extraordinary origin. Referring to the great number of alleged visions and revelations which people were claiming to receive in those years, he declared that they were not all true, but that some were. Now if Pope Pius XII, a man of profound intelligence, had not believed in the authenticity of Valtorta’s writings, he would not have spoken in such words that could have been misinterpreted. So then when he said, during the special audience revolving around Valtorta’s writings, that among all the alleged revelations of that time some were true, he was implying that Valtorta’s were true. And two of the three Servite Fathers whom he had summoned, Fr. Berti and Fr. Migliorini, knew Valtorta’s work very well and were undoubtedly among the most competent men in the world to understand the implications of such words by the Pope. And Fr. Berti referred to them several times.

I have thus concluded giving a few examples of pre-Vatican II theologians who have evaluated Valtorta’s work prior to Vatican II (or in the case of Fr. Barrielle, he studied it after Vatican II but he obviously rejected the erroneous non-infallible parts of Vatican II) and declared it to be free of error in faith and morals and completely in line with Church teaching, Catholic doctrine and dogma, and as not affirming heresy or modernism or the heresy of evolution of dogma. So, who are you to believe? Anselmo (in whose articles I identified many theological errors, methodological flaws, presumptions, misrepresentation of the text, unsubstantiated accusations, and evidence of a lack of objectivity), or these highly learned, trustworthy, pre-Vatican II theologians who studied her work in depth (in some cases, for more than a decade) and some of whom have written hundreds of pages of solid theological commentary on her writings?

Refutation of His Section “Mary is ‘the second-born of the Father’”

Anselmo writes:

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.

Anselmo must be confused on this theological point. What Maria Valtorta wrote is not, in fact, heresy, but fully consistent with Tradition, true Catholic doctrine, and orthodox Mariology. I will quote:

1. A short excerpt from Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.D. (Doctor of Sacred Theology) on this objection
2. A short excerpt from an article which discusses this objection
3. Most importantly, an excerpt from Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., who wrote in detail about this concept in his 395-page Mariological study of Valtorta’s writings

Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.D., responds (notice how, among other things, he refutes Anselmo’s claim that the Church never gave her this title or prerogative):47

Yet a further objection of alleged doctrinal error is the reference found in The Poem that Mary is a "second-born of the Father" after Jesus, the Father's first born. Far from constituting doctrinal error, this mariological position was first posited by the Eastern Church author, John the Geometer, in the tenth century. This remains an acceptable mariological concept proximate to the Franciscan school of Mariology, is complementary to the eternal predestination of Mary with Jesus in the Incarnation, and is referred to by Blessed Pius IX in the papal statement defining the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus.

An article relates:48

[…] It is important to note that the Church recognizes the Blessed Virgin as the most perfect creature in all creation, above all the angels and saints combined. Following this, it is correct to say that the greatest of created beings is second only to the Creator, even though the difference between the Creator and the created is infinite. The statement in question should not be problematic, and in fact has been articulated in similar forms by many Marian saints (St. Louis De Montfort, St. Alphonsus De Ligouri, St. Maximilian Kolbe, to name a few, calling Mary the "quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit", the possessor of all the power of God, closer to divinity than humanity, etc.).

I will quote what Fr. Roschini says about this statement shortly. Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., was a world-renowned Mariologist, decorated professor and founder of the Marianum Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome in 1950 under Pope Pius XII, professor at the Lateran Pontifical University, and a Consultant to the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

An article on Gabriel Roschini relates:49

During the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, he worked closely with the Vatican on Marian publications. In light of the encyclopedic accuracy of his work, Roschini is considered as one of the top two Mariologists in the 20th century. His first major work, a four-volume Mariology, Il Capolavoro di Dio, is judged to be the most comprehensive Mariological presentation in the 20th century. Several theologians called him "one of the most profound Mariologists" and "irreplaceable".

He was highly esteemed by all the Popes during his priestly life (especially Pope Pius XII), and he was often referred to by Pope John Paul II as one of the greatest Mariologists who ever lived. Fr. Roschini has written over 790 articles and miscellaneous writings, and 130 books, 66 of which were over 200 pages long. Most of his writings were devoted to Mariology. He was also at some time Prior General of the Order of the Servants of Mary, Vicar General, and General Director of its studies. He was also a member of several scholarly academies, and vice-president of the Pontifical Academy of Our Lady Immaculate (founded in 1847).50

Fr. Roschini’s last book, which he considered was his greatest, was entitled The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. In it, he comments on this statement about Our Lady referred to in the Poem:51

Mary “Second-Born of the Father”

In God’s mind and heart, Mary was the first of all pure creatures of the universe. Of all the persons and things God would create, Mary was the first one He thought of. Mary is the One Whom He first loved from all eternity. In this sense we may call Mary, as Maria Valtorta does, “Second-born of the Father”, and also the “Firstborn” of all creatures. The Blessed Virgin is the “Second-born of the Father”, if She is considered in relation to Christ Her Son; She is the “Firstborn” of all creatures, if we consider Her in relation to all other pure creatures. [Footnote: The expression pure creature refers to any creature except the humanity of Jesus. Christ, superior to His Mother Mary, is not a pure creature, since He is at once Creator and creature. As God, He is the Creator; as man, He is a creature.]

While the Blessed Virgin is second to Christ, She is the first of all other beings, that is, the first of all pure creatures.

1. Mary, Second to Christ in being contemplated by the Eternal One and in pleasing Him;
2. Mary, Second to Christ perfection-wise;
3. Mary, Second to Christ in redeeming the world;
4. Mary, Second to Christ in experiencing the Resurrection;
5. Mary, Second to Christ because of God’s eternal love for Her.

Mary, Second to Christ in Being Contemplated by the Eternal One and in Pleasing Him

The only Son of the eternal Father, the Word, is called “Firstborn”. This does not imply that the Father would have had other sons with a divine nature. The Word is caIIed “Firstborn” because “all things were made by Him” and in Him (John 1:3; Douay). The Father has reestablished all things in Christ His Son (Eph. 1:10), since He saw everything in Him, the eternal Word and future Christ. . . That is why Christ is also the first of all created persons and things: all have been subordinated to His glory.

Immediately after Christ, before any other created person or thing, comes Mary, His Mother. It is therefore legitimate to call Her the “second-born of the Father”, as Maria Valtorta did.

[…]

Please see Fr. Gabriel Roschini’s book for the rest of the development of all of the above points. His book can be purchased online and a sample of the first 72 pages of his book is viewable online here: The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta by Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M.

I don’t know about you, but I put much more stock in the objective analysis of a world-renowned Mariologist and pre-Vatican II Consultor of the Holy Office who worked closely with Pope Pius XII, is highly regarded by multiple popes and many theologians, who has written over 790 articles and miscellaneous writings, and 130 books, 66 of which were over 200 pages long (most of which are about Mariology), and who backs up what he says with facts and a full theological development… I put much more stock in such a theologian than Anselmo, who shows throughout his articles, time and time again, deficient theology, logical fallacies, distortions, misrepresentation of her work, sweeping generalizations tantamount to academic falsehood, easily refuted subjective impressions that cannot be a basis for rejecting her work or advising against it and which are contradicted by those of greater learning and authority, and an obvious unjustified bias against the Poem.

Refutation of His Section “Valtorta holds unconditional universal redemption”

It is not accurate or proper to give a translation of a translation, and since Anselmo’s article was written in Spanish, I will directly quote the official English translation of the sentence he quoted:52

The couple Jesus-Mary is the antithesis of the couple Adam-Eve. It is the one destined to cancel all the behavior of Adam and Eve and take Humanity back to the point in which it was when it was created: rich in grace and in all the gifts granted to it by the Creator. Humanity has undergone a complete regeneration through the deeds of the couple Jesus-Mary, Who have thus become the new Founders of the Human Family. All the previous time has been cancelled. The time and story of man are reckoned as from this moment in which the new Eve, through a complete change and inversion of creation, and through the deed of the Lord, from Her immaculate womb generates the new Adam.

It is true that the Holy Catholic Church has condemned the heresy of universal salvation. Therefore, Valtorta supporters will be glad to know that Valtorta’s writings do not promote the heresy of universal salvation anywhere in them and hence the many very learned theologians who have analyzed her writings in depth and declared them to be free from error in faith and morals have yet to be proven wrong. So does the excerpt above quoted by Anselmo prove her writings contain heresy? Absolutely not.

Fr. Kevin Robinson, FSSPX, wrote:53

With Valtorta, as with the canonical Scriptures, there are difficulties that are easily resolved by distinction from Thomistic philosophy such as: general vs. specific, strictly vs. broadly, properly vs. allegorically, in fieri vs. in facto esse, ad esse vs. ad melior esse, simpliciter vs. quodammodo.

It is a very weak and unsubstantiated argument for Anselmo to take the above excerpt out of context and claim from that excerpt that Valtorta’s writings hold unconditional universal redemption.

“For therefore we labor and are reviled, because we hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful.”

If one were Anselmo and were to read the above statement and reason like Anselmo does, the person would scream:

HERESY! The above sentence promotes universal salvation because it says “who is the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful”! It can’t be interpreted according to Catholic dogma because you have to be “of the faithful” to be saved (cf. Mark 16:16) and yet the above statement implies that others who are not even “of the faithful” can be saved because it says “God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful”. This promotes universal salvationism!

If that above statement was in Valtorta’s writings, it would not surprise me one bit if Anselmo would take that sentence and throw it in an anti-Valtorta article to use as “proof” that Valtorta promotes the heresy of universal salvation. But guess where that sentence comes from? It is from the infallible Holy Scriptures: Timothy 4:10 (Douay-Rheims)

What about this statement:

The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world. (John 1:29)

You better not quote this Scripture around Anselmo or else, because of his method of interpretation of things, he might accuse you that you are promoting universal salvationism because he might say that you saying that Jesus has taken away the sins of the world is heresy since that could be interpreted as the sins of everyone (even the greatest unrepentant sinners).

Would Anselmo conclude this is universal salvationism:

“For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all.” (Romans 11:32)

If this was in Valtorta’s writings, I could see Anselmo saying, “God can only have mercy on repentant sinners because, while He offers everyone mercy, they cannot receive it unless they are repentant. Obviously, not everyone is repentant. Therefore, the above statement that God ‘has mercy on all’ is heretical!”

Let’s intelligently analyze the sentence Anselmo was referring to:54

Humanity has undergone a complete regeneration through the deeds of the couple Jesus-Mary, Who have thus become the new Founders of the Human Family.

That is not heretical or promoting universal salvationism because by “humanity” it is referring to the concept or essence or topic of humanity and not every single living individual person. That is, you have to make the distinction from Thomistic philosophy: general vs. specific, strictly vs. broadly, properly vs. allegorically, in fieri vs. in facto esse, ad esse vs. ad melior esse, simpliciter vs. quodammodo. Humanity was poisoned with original sin through Adam and Eve and humanity undergoes a complete regeneration to sanctifying grace through baptism by the new Founders of the Human Family: the new Adam and the new Eve (that is, those who accept this regeneration by accepting the sacrament of baptism undergo this complete regeneration). There is nothing heretical in this.

Valtorta also wrote in the paragraph Anselmo quoted:55

The time and story of man are reckoned as from this moment in which the new Eve, through a complete change and inversion of creation, and through the deed of the Lord, from Her immaculate womb generates the new Adam.

Is this not true? Don’t we reckon time in our current worldwide calendar as B.C. and A.D. and count the years in A.D. starting from around the time of the birth of Christ? Is not all of history and the story of mankind reckoned and viewed in a new light since the time of Jesus and because of Him? When the Divine Blood was shed upon the ground, did it not affect all of creation in some way? What Valtorta wrote is completely orthodox and non-heretical.

In order to directly compare the most important statement of Valtorta under question with Scripture, I repeat Valtorta’s sentence here followed by Scripture afterwards:56

Humanity has undergone a complete regeneration through the deeds of the couple Jesus-Mary, Who have thus become the new Founders of the Human Family.

Now let’s compare this statement to what Scripture says here:

Because in Him [Jesus], it hath well pleased the Father, that all fullness should dwell; And through Him to reconcile all things unto Himself, making peace through the blood of His cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in Heaven. (Colossians 1:19)

Look how amazingly similar the infallible canonized Scripture passage above is to the passage in Valtorta that Anselmo was so quick to denounce! Valtorta wrote that humanity has undergone a regeneration through Jesus and Mary. By “humanity” was she referring to every single living person who ever lived on the face of the planet or was she referring to the concept or the idea or the essence of humanity? Likewise, in Colossians 1:19 when St. Paul said, “all things on the Earth and in Heaven are reconciled with Jesus”, was he referring to every single soul being reconciled with Him (including His enemies who hate Him) or is St. Paul referring to a different concept? It is clear that Valtorta’s passage and St. Paul’s scripture passage are both referring to something broadly and in general vs. something strictly and specific. Hence, neither are heretical when interpreted correctly.

Just to show you the ridiculousness of Anselmo’s very weak attempt to say Valtorta’s writings promote universal salvation because of the excerpt he quoted, I will quote what a heretical website says about the above Scripture passage to show how weak his argument is because the heretical website is using the same logic and reasoning and failure of distinction as Anselmo and it really reveals his method for what it is. Here is what the heretical website said (note that I and all true Catholics fully reject and disagree with what this website is saying below):57

God will reconcile ALL things on earth and ALL things in heaven through Jesus Christ having made peace through the blood of His cross.

Please note that these verses, Colossians 1:15-20, are constructed in such a way that they leave absolutely no room for any doubt whatsoever that the word all can only mean all, without any exceptions. Apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, repeats the word all seven times before coming to the key verse, verse 20, which says that God will reconcile all things to Himself through Jesus Christ.

If you believe verse 16, that Jesus Christ created all things in heaven and on earth, then you have no option but to also believe verse 20, which says that Jesus Christ will reconcile to God the Father, the same all things that He created, thus making peace with all of His creation through the work of His cross.

If you believe in the doctrine of endless torment in hell or annihilation, then you do not believe in Colossians 1:15-20, and in your mind you have added to or taken away from the truth contained in this scripture. Jesus Christ warns us not to add to or take away from His Word (Revelation 22:18-19).

The Bible is the Word of God and it never contradicts itself. All contradictions in the Bible are totally due to either man’s mistranslation or misinterpretation of original Hebrew and Greek scriptures. We explain these mistranslations and misinterpretations in Chapters 15-20. The doctrine of hell and the truth of universal reconciliation through Jesus Christ cannot both be true at the same time.

We challenge anyone, including theologians and Bible scholars, who believe in the doctrine of eternal torture in hell, to show us how their belief can be reconciled with Colossians 1:15-20, without adding to or taking away from its clear inspired meaning.

So what would a faithful Catholic say to the above erroneous interpretation and wild extrapolation of infallible Scripture? They would say that the person is reading things into the text that it doesn’t truly say and that they have a faulty and incomplete interpretation of what St. Paul actually meant by saying Jesus “reconciled all things unto Himself.” (Colossians 1:19) Likewise, Anselmo is doing the same exact faulty erroneous interpretation and wild extrapolation of the excerpt in Valtorta he is reading.

In case there are any doubters, in addition to the points laid out above, it is be noted that there are very many passages in The Poem of the Man-God and in specific dictations Valtorta received that are published in her other writings where Our Lord explicitly denounces the heresy of universal salvation.

Anselmo’s claims stand refuted.

Refutation of His Section “The Redemption is consummated by Mary”

Refuting His First Three Paragraphs

Anselmo wrote:

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.

Here is the official English translation of the passage in question with surrounding context:58

Jesus says:

« And the torture continued with periodic attacks until dawn on Sunday. In My Passion I had only one temptation. But the Mother, the Woman, expiated on behalf of woman, guilty, several times, of every evil. And Satan behaved mercilessly with infinite cruelty towards the conqueress.

Mary had defeated him. The most atrocious temptation for Mary. Temptation against the flesh of the Mother. Temptation against the heart of the Mother. Temptation against the spirit of the Mother. The world thinks that Redemption ended with My last breath. No, it did not. The Mother completed it by adding her treble torture to redeem the treble concupiscence, struggling for three days against Satan, who wanted to induce her to deny My word and not to believe in My Resurrection.

Mary was the only one who continued to believe. She is great and blessed also because of that faith.

You have become acquainted also with that. A torture corresponding to My torture at Gethsemane. The world will not understand this page. But "those who are in the world without being of the world" will understand it and they will have an increased love for the Sorrowful Mother. That is why I gave it. Go in peace with our blessing. »

For the particular passage in question, distinctions are needed. Anselmo writes that Maria Valtorta affirms that Christ revealed to her that the Redemption was not consummated by Him, but by His Mother. That is untrue. The reality is that Redemption was consummated by both Jesus and Mary together, the new Adam and the new Eve, not by one or the other exclusively (as Anselmo wrongly claimed that Valtorta had written).

In order to analyze the passage in question, we need to consult the original Italian to identify what word Valtorta actually wrote for what has been translated as “complete” in English. Then we need to do a proper theological analysis of the issues at hand after establishing precisely what she wrote.

The original Italian of the Valtorta passage that Anselmo quotes is:

Il mondo crede che la Redenzione ebbe fine col mio ultimo anelito. No. La compì la Madre, aggiungendo la sua triplice tortura per redimere la triplice concupiscenza, lottando per tre giorni contro Satana che la voleva portare a negare la mia Parola e non credere nella mia Risurrezione.

The bolded word in the quote above is the remote past tense, third person feminine of the verb “compiere”, which is translated into English as “she completed”.

The sense is that you complete something (in the particular case under examination, Our Lady chronologically completes her portion of Redemption as Co-Redemptrix and the New Eve by her sufferings up to the time of the Resurrection, but does not substantially and exclusively consummate all of Redemption, which we will get into shortly). However, Anselmo twists what Valtorta wrote and explicitly claimed that Valtorta wrote that Our Lady “consummated” Redemption (as if she did it alone). There is a very important theological distinction between saying she “completed the Redemption” with her sufferings on Holy Saturday versus saying that she “consummated the Redemption” which I will get into shortly. These distinctions are needed because Anselmo is the one who is twisting and applying his own subjective interpretation to what Valtorta actually wrote and, as any theologian worth his salt would tell you, these distinctions are essential when you start delving into philosophy and/or theological inquiry.

So, to summarize: Valtorta said that Our Lady completed Redemption with her sufferings on Holy Saturday, NOT that she “consummated Redemption” as Anselmo claimed in his article.

Now it is time to discuss the theological considerations at hand. In his article, Anselmo recognizes that Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix which is good because this comes into play.

Essence of Redemption by Necessity: Only God Becoming Man Can Repair an Infinite Offense to the Father

The Incarnation of the Divine Person and the Consummation on the Cross point to the Substance of Redemption: the Divine Person of Christ and His Sacrifice – and, of course, they had to occur in time too, because Christ is also True Man. Incarnation/Consummation points to the Work of the Divine Person as Necessity: The Son of God taking our Human Nature to pay the measure of Infinite Justice required by our offense to an Infinite God.

Mode of the Redemption by Divine Pleasure – How God is Going to do it

The Immaculate Conception of Mary and Her obedience in faith, hope, and charity point to the accidental dimension of the Redemption which includes the decision to call Mary to be Co-Redemptrix and having Mary precede the New Adam in time, as His first fruit of Redemption in her Immaculate Conception, freely accepting this mission as Co-Redemptrix in her Fiat, and completing the Work of Redemption in time as the New Eve, not for necessity but simply by Divine Pleasure, by Divine Decision. Everything related to Mary, her cooperation, and to the Church and our cooperation belongs to the category of Divine Pleasure because, in principle, God does not need any creature. But once God makes a call it is what He wills.

In the order of time, the Immaculate Conception precedes the Act of Redemption of Christ on the Cross: Thus do we conclude that Mary was conceived without original sin without being redeemed by Christ? Is she an exception to the human race, the descendants of Adam and Eve? This was the struggle of St. Thomas Aquinas who had considered the Immaculate Conception impossible in his Summa Theologica (which obviously was erroneous and would be considered material heresy if it were already defined) until Blessed John Duns Scotus explained that Mary was pre-redeemed, in that God had sanctified Mary at the moment of her conception in His foreknowledge that the Blessed Virgin would consent to bear Christ. In other words, the Redemptive Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is so powerful that, in time, we have first, the fruit (the Immaculate Conception), and later the "cause." God is God. God wills it by Divine Pleasure, not by necessity. The Incarnation could have occurred without Mary, as the creation of the first man was without woman.

In the same manner that the "Consummation" on the Cross is the cause of the Immaculate Conception without preceding it in time, the Consummation of Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross, equips Mary, by Divine Pleasure of association of the New Eve to the New Adam, to complete the Redemption alone (but in time, not in quality – accidentally, not substantially) in order to undo alone, in time, the sin that Eve started alone, in time, by finishing the work of Redemption: IN TIME (Chronologically), NOT IN QUALITY (the infinite merits acquired by the humanity of the Divine Person). The work of Redemption is accidentally finished by Mary, not substantially. As in the Eucharist, the accident of bread conceals the substantial presence of Christ. Eve started original sin alone, without Adam. It is fitting that Mary (accidentally, by Divine Pleasure) finishes the Redemption alone, without Christ.

Valtorta (along with many other Catholic theologians and saints) actually wrote that Redemption consisted of almost the entire life span of Jesus and Mary (for Our Lady, it began with her Fiat to the Archangel Gabriel where, knowing of the ultimate fate of her Son through the prophecies she heard growing up concerning the Messiah and now informed that she would be His Mother, she already began suffering as a result of her intense love for her Son and her foreknowledge of His fate). The Church has approved the Seven Sorrows devotion which was revealed to authentic mystics and this devotion consists of seven primary swords in Our Lady’s heart, the first one being the prophecy of Simeon in the Temple shortly after Jesus was born. Thus, it is easily understood that the totality of Redemption consisted not only of the events of Good Friday, but the suffering they endured for most of their lives. Hence, it is perfectly consistent with Catholic teaching to affirm that the sufferings that Our Lady experienced on Holy Saturday were sufferings that contributed to the work of Redemption and were the last sufferings in time that constituted this Redemption so long as you acknowledge that the culmination of Redemption occurred with Jesus’ last breath on the Cross. All of the sufferings of Jesus and Mary were offered to the Father in a culminating act at Jesus’ last breath where He physically died and Our Lady also underwent a type non-physical death. However, did this offering of suffering at the culminating moment of Jesus’ last breath consist only of the suffering they were enduring in that very last second or did it consist of the suffering of their entire lives? Well, of course, the offering to God consisted of the sufferings of their entire lives and not just that one moment of the Passion (that is, the suffering they endured during that split-second when Jesus died). Therefore, that culminating lifelong-of-suffering offering at that moment of the Crucifixion included the suffering that God foresaw Mary would endure on Holy Saturday. That is, the merits from the Redemptive suffering she endured on Holy Saturday were included in the chalice of bitterness offered to the Father on Good Friday consisting of the suffering of their entire lives and which culminated at the death of Jesus.

God is not bound by time. Every day thousands of Catholic priests say the Mass and it is defined Catholic dogma that it is a representation (representatio), commemoration (memoria), and an application (applicatio) of the one same Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary 2000 years ago (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, i). They are not creating a new Calvary with each Mass but it makes the one Calvary present where the merits of Jesus’ Passion 2000 years ago are applied to souls today. God is not bound by time, including in the receiving and applying of merits. Likewise, God could take the Redemptive merits Our Lady suffered on Holy Saturday after Good Friday as well as her innumerable sufferings she endured during her life before Good Friday (the prophecy of Simeon, the Flight into Egypt, the loss of the Child Jesus in the Temple, etc.) and apply the redemptive merits from past, present, and future to the culmination of the supreme offering to the Father at Jesus’ death. Therefore, as Valtorta’s writings repeatedly affirm, Redemption by Jesus and Mary culminated at the death of Jesus on the Cross on Calvary, but also the redemptive merits which made up that culminating offering did not end for Our Lady the moment Jesus died, but continued temporally on through Holy Saturday until the Resurrection when her agony subsided. Therefore, it is not heretical when Valtorta wrote that Our Lord said to her:59

The world thinks that Redemption ended with My last breath. No, it did not. The Mother completed it by adding Her treble torture to redeem the treble concupiscence, struggling for three days against Satan, who wanted to induce Her to deny My word and not to believe in My Resurrection.

Temporally Our Lady “completed” or finished gathering the merits of redemption for her portion of the required suffering as Co-Redemptrix (the New Eve) all the way up to the time of the Resurrection. Temporally, Our Lord completed gathering the merits of Redemption for His portion of the required suffering as the New Adam at His last breath on the Cross.

Spiritually and as far as Heaven/Eternity is concerned (which is not bound by time), the merits of the entirety of Redemption which lasted decades was consummated at the death of Jesus on the Cross and was offered at that time to the Father, thus consummating Redemption. That is, it was consummated there in foresight of and including the remaining sufferings Our Lady would still experience the following several days just as Our Lady was immaculately conceived years even before God the Son took on human flesh and was born in foresight of His offering and just as Masses today apply the merits of the Redemption 2000 years after it historically happened.

Do you honestly think that God the Father said, “Well, it’s after 3:00 p.m. on Good Friday. Therefore, any sufferings the Holy Mother experiences after this hour cannot be part of Redemption”? Absolutely not! The work of redemption culminated with the death of Jesus on the Cross, but there still was merit to be derived from the suffering Our Lady experienced prior to the Resurrection, which also contributed to Redemption and completed it in time/temporally. The reality is that Redemption was consummated by both Jesus and Mary together, the new Adam and the new Eve, not by one or the other exclusively as Anselmo wrongly claimed Valtorta had written. Therefore, what Valtorta wrote is not heretical if you interpret it correctly and correctly translate and describe what she actually wrote (which Anselmo failed to do). Our Lord didn’t say in the passage in question that Redemption was consummated by Our Lady on Holy Saturday, but that it was completed; namely, that temporally, Our Lady completed the final acts of Redemptive suffering which were applied and offered up on Good Friday.

Think about this too: Our Lord instituted Mass and said the first Mass at the Last Supper. He offered the bread and wine which became His Body and Blood. How could He do that first Mass and make that offering if He hadn’t yet undergone His Passion and completed all of His sufferings yet as of that time? He could do it because the work of receiving and applying merits is not bound by time. If Jesus could offer the first Mass before His Crucifixion temporally took place, likewise, God could still take suffering of Our Lady on Holy Saturday and apply it to the Mass of the historical Crucifixion and death of Jesus, the consummation of Redemption, even before she temporally underwent those Holy Saturday sufferings.

WORK OF REDEMPTION:

Work of Redemption in Substance and Quality: The Infinite Substantial Value of the Consummation on the Cross of the Sacrifice executed by the Divine Person of Christ through His Human Nature.

Work of Redemption In time (Chronologically – Accidentally): Starts with the Fiat of the New Eve and ends with the New Eve Alone on Holy Saturday to undo the original sin started by Eve alone.

Mary's Fiat points to THE NECESSITY of the Incarnation of the Divine Word (Essential Element of Redemption) – The Immaculate Conception as the first Chronological fruit of Redemption is by Divine Pleasure – Not by NECESSITY.

The FIAT ITSELF is by DIVINE PLEASURE. Mary's Cooperation to Salvation was not a NECESSITY for God.

In one of Valtorta’s dictations it says: The Notebooks: 1943. August 29, 1943. p. 279:60

The salvation of the human race had its beginning in time with Mary's Fiat before My archangel and had its end in Jesus' Consummatum! on the cross.

Here is this sentence with qualifiers:

The salvation of the human race had its beginning in time with Mary's Fiat [Both by DIVINE PLEASURE because God willed the cooperation of Mary, and by NECESSITY because at the FIAT OF MARY THE INCARNATION OCCURRED] before My archangel and had its [SUBSTANTIAL] end [BY NECESSITY] in Jesus' Consummatum! on the cross.

So now let’s add qualifiers to the quote Anselmo referred to. First the quote:

The world thinks that Redemption ended with My last breath. No, it did not. The Mother completed it by adding her treble torture to redeem the treble concupiscence, struggling for three days against Satan, who wanted to induce her to deny My word and not to believe in My Resurrection.

Now with qualifiers:

The world thinks that Redemption ended [temporally/in time/chronologically] with My last breath. No, it did not. The Mother completed it [chronologically/accidentally and by Divine Pleasure, not by Divine Necessity] by adding her treble torture to redeem the treble concupiscence, struggling for three days against Satan, who wanted to induce her to deny My word and not to believe in My Resurrection.

The passage in question proves to be consistent with the teaching of the Church and is not against faith or morals. Anselmo’s assertion that it is against the teaching of the Church is caused by:

(1) Anselmo took the actual word Valtorta wrote (“La compì”) which should be correctly translated as “completed” and then rebranded this as “consummated” and then ascribed attributes to this word that Valtorta never attributed it with. Thus, he misled his readers into thinking Valtorta wrote that Our Lady “consummated” Redemption whereas Valtorta actually merely wrote that Our Lady “completed” Redemption. This lack of precision of Anselmo makes the reader lose the distinction of temporality and accidentiality (vs. substance) afforded by the term Valtorta actually wrote and meant.

(2) Anselmo tries to make his readers believe that Valtorta said that Our Lady “accomplished” Redemption instead of Our Lord, but Valtorta’s writings clearly indicate that they both accomplished Redemption together: Our Lord accomplished Redemption by Divine Necessity and Our Lady helped accomplished Redemption as the New Eve by the Divine Pleasure (for He wanted to make her Co-Redemptrix).

Hence, Anselmo’s argument stands refuted and the Valtorta passage in question proves to be consistent with the teaching of the Church and is not against faith or morals.

Blessed Gabriel M. Allegra, O.F.M., was a very learned and world-renowned exegete, theologian, and missionary priest in the Order of the Friars Minor, which he entered into at the age of 16. After being ordained in 1930, he departed to China, and distinguished himself as an exemplary missionary and man of culture. As a St. Jerome of our time, he was the first to translate the entire Bible into Chinese, and his work had the support and acknowledgement of successive popes from Pius XI to Paul VI. Gabriel Allegra is the only biblical scholar of the 20th century who has been beatified. He wrote:

And not only from the human point of view, but especially a theological one, who can remain indifferent reading the two chapters on the desolation of His most holy Mother after the tragedy of Calvary, which reveal to us how the Co-Redemptrix had been tempted by Satan, and how Her Redeemer-Son had been tempted? The sublime theology of these two chapters may be compared to that of so many of the laments of the Sorrowful Mother.

Blessed Allegra also wrote:

[…] After Jesus died, Mary co-redeemed with her desolation up to the moment of His Resurrection. The Desolation of the Dolorous Mother comprised a direct personal attack by Lucifer, and then so many indirect assaults against her faith in the Resurrection, and—even for her—the abandonment by the Father.

In two long chapters, Valtorta describes what she saw and heard during the night of Good Friday, the day of the Sabbath, and the night of the Sabbath [Holy Saturday]. The little that I have read on the Sorrowful Mother on this subject remains in generalities; it cannot be compared to these powerful and very tender pages of Maria Valtorta. I cannot for anything convince myself that they are a simple meditation of a pious woman. No. This soul has seen and heard! The Finger of God is here!

Refuting His Fourth Paragraph

Anselmo writes:

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.

We will look at this blasphemy more closely on in the next article.

I have taken the time to write up a thorough refutation of Anselmo’s second article which he just referred to above. See my refutation here. As my refutation of his second article shows, Anselmo’s above accusation, like a modernist, rests on deception, confusion of principles, and failure to define terms or make distinctions. These problems I just mentioned are in addition to his subjective claims that are a clear distortion and misrepresentation of the text.

Valtorta never said that Our Lady suffered a triple concupiscence (something Anselmo claimed). Rather, Valtorta’s writings affirm that she had immunity to the impulse of concupiscence and had immunity to the shadow of actual sin, and she describes that Our Lady cancelled the triple concupiscence of the first Eve in this fashion:

By deeply humiliating herself, she defeated pride. She overcame the avarice of the First Parents by giving up her Son for the Redemption. She defeated gluttony, both of knowledge and of enjoyment, by agreeing to know only what God wanted her to know, without asking herself or Him more than what she was told, by believing unquestionably, and by denying herself every sensual pleasure. She defeated lust by depriving herself of all satisfactions, even of holy ones, and by helping to redeem the world as Co-Redemptrix by suffering to cancel the ruin Eve brought to the world for the sake of pleasure.

In order to read from a reputable and honest theologian who employed correct methodology in analyzing her work, we will see what Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., wrote about this very thing. Like I mentioned earlier, Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M. was a world-renowned Mariologist, decorated professor and founder of the Marianum Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome in 1950 under Pope Pius XII, professor at the Lateran Pontifical University, and a Consultant to the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints. He did a thorough Mariological study of Valtorta’s writings which he published in his 395-page book The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. Two of the sections in Fr. Roschini’s book are entitled, “Immunity to the Impulse of Concupiscence” and “Immunity to the Shadow of Actual Sin”, which I will quote shortly. However, first, I want to quote what he said about how Our Lady, the New Eve, cut off the branch of pride, the branch of greed, the branch of gluttony, and the branch of lust which the first Eve had committed with the original sin: “the many deformities in the sin of our first parent, viz. pride, disobedience, gluttony, and so forth” (Summa Theologica I-II, Q. 82, Art. 2, ad. 1). Unlike Anselmo, who is so quick to judge, make presumptions, and calumniate with poor theology, undefined terms, and faulty subjective interpretations, Fr. Roschini accurately expounds what Valtorta actually wrote about the nature and details of these topics. I will quote from Fr. Roschini’s book below:61

“…Eve’s sin,” [Mary said to Valtorta] “was a four-branched tree: pride, avarice, gluttony and lust.” [These four branches produced the fruit of disobedience.] “And all four [branches of Eve’s sin] were to be cut off, before making the roots of the tree sterile” (Poema, I, 191).

Mary reversed what Eve did by cutting these four branches.

She cut the branch of pride

“By deeply humiliating Myself,” [Mary says] “I defeated pride. I abased Myself before everybody. [...] What humiliation I had to suffer from men, without defending Myself in any way!” (Poema, I, 191).

She then alludes to Her humiliations before Joseph the Just.

“They were the first of the infinite humiliations I was to suffer in My life as Mother of Jesus and of mankind. Humiliations of poverty, of a refugee, humiliations for reproaches of relatives and friends who, being unaware of the truth, judged Me a weak woman with regard to My behavior as a Mother towards Jesus, when He was a young man, humiliations during the three years of His public life, cruel humiliations in the hour of Calvary, humiliation in having to admit that I could not afford to buy a place and the perfumes for the burial of My Son” (ibid., p.192).

She cut the branch of greed

I overcame the avarice of the First Parents renouncing My Creature before the time. A mother never renounces her creature unless she is forced to. Whether her heart is asked to renounce her creature by her country or by the love of a spouse or even by God Himself, she will resent and struggle against the separation. It is natural. A son grows in our womb and the tie that links him to us can never be completely broken. […] And a mother feels [that tie] stretching even to exceedingly severe pangs if the love of God or of a creature or the need of the country take her son away from her. And it breaks, tearing her heart, if death snatches her son from her. And I renounced My Son from the very moment I had Him. I gave Him to God. I gave Him to you. I deprived Myself of the Fruit of My womb to make amends for Eve’s theft of God’s fruit” (ibid., p.192).

She cut the branch of gluttony

I defeated gluttony, both of knowledge and of enjoyment, by agreeing to know only what God wanted Me to know, without asking Myself or Him more than what I was told. I believed unquestioningly. I overcame the innate personal delight of enjoyment because I denied Myself every sensual pleasure. I confined flesh, the instrument of Satan, together with Satan, under My heel and made of them a step to rise towards Heaven. Heaven! My aim. Where God was. My only hunger. A hunger which is not gluttony, but a necessity blessed by God, Who wants us to crave for Him” (ibid., p.192).

She cut the branch of lust

I defeated lust, which is gluttony carried to the extreme of greed. Because every unrestrained vice leads to a bigger vice. And Eve’s gluttony, which was already blameworthy, led her to lust. It was no longer enough for her to enjoy pleasure by herself. She wanted to take her crime to a refined intensity and thus she became acquainted with lust and was a mistress of lust for her companion. I reversed the terms and instead of descending I have always ascended. Instead of causing other people to descend, I have always attracted them towards Heaven: of My honest companion, I made an angel.

“[Since after conceiving Jesus] I possessed God and His infinite wealth with Him, I hastened to divest Myself of it saying: ‘Here I am: may Your will be done for Him and by Him.’ He is chaste who chastises not only his flesh but also his affections and his thoughts. I had to be the Chaste One in order to annul the One who had been unchaste in her flesh, her heart and her mind. And I never abandoned My reservedness, not even by saying of My Son: ‘He is Mine, I want Him,’ since He belonged only to Me on earth, as He belonged only to God in Heaven.

“And yet all this was not sufficient to achieve for woman the peace lost by Eve. I obtained that for you at the foot of the Cross: when I saw Him dying, Whom you saw being born. When I felt My bowels being torn apart by the cry of My dying Creature, I became void of all femininity. I was no longer flesh, but an angel. Mary, the Virgin Spouse of the Spirit, died that moment. The Mother of Grace remained, Who gave you the Grace She generated from Her torture. The female reconsecrated ‘woman’ by me on Christmas night, achieved at the foot of the Cross the means to become a creature of Heaven.

“This I did for you, depriving Myself of all satisfactions, even of holy ones. And whereas you had been reduced by Eve to females not superior to the mates of animals, I made of you, if you only wish so, saints of God. I ascended for you. As I had done for Joseph, I lifted you higher up. The rock of Calvary is My Mount of Olives. From there I took My leap to carry to Heaven the resanctified soul of woman together with My flesh, now glorified because it had borne the Word of God and had destroyed in Me the very last trace of Eve. It had destroyed the last root of that tree with four poisonous branches, a root stuck in the sensuality that had dragged mankind to fall and that will go on biting at your intestines until the end of time and to the last woman” (Poema, I, 192-193).

Eve, together with Adam, ruined the world for the sake of pleasure. Mary (the new Eve), together with Christ (the new Adam), redeemed the world by suffering, the greatest, most unspeakable of all sufferings.

“… to be Mother of the Son of God is blissful,” [the Blessed Virgin says,] to be Mother of the Redeemer must be a destiny of deepest sorrow. […] I feel My weight of sorrow increasing from hour to hour. And I shall have to bear it all My life. And even if I do not see the details, I feel that it will be heavier than if the whole world were placed on My shoulders of a woman, and I were to offer it to Heaven. I, I alone, poor woman!” (Poema, I, 157).

To say “the Redeemer’s Mother” is to say “the Woman of Sorrows” (Quad. ‘43, p.642 [Dec. 8]).

“I, Who was the Innocent One,” [the Blessed Virgin says,] “had to know also sorrow and sadness, because I was the Co-Redeemer (Poema, I, 153).

Actually, suffering is a consequence of the original fault. Since the Blessed Virgin was exempted from original sin, we might expect that She should have been exempted from suffering also. However, as Co-Redemptrix, She was given over to suffering, so much so that She could say:

“I feel as if My heart were wrapped in burning thorns. And every tune I breathe I am pierced by them” (Poema, IV, 718). Just as Eve and Adam ruined the human race by their disobedience, so the new Eve and the new Adam redeemed it by their obedience.

[…]

As you can see, these are the ways that our Lady triumphed over the triple concupiscence that the first Eve had fallen into. There is nothing heretical in this. In fact, Fr. Gabriel Roschini found the Mariological theology in Valtorta’s writings greater than any work he read, when he relates in the preface of his book (and keep in mind he has published over 790 articles and miscellaneous writings, and 130 books, 66 of which were over 200 pages long – almost all of which are on Mariology):62

I have been studying, teaching, preaching, and writing Mariology for half a century already. To do this, I had to read innumerable works and articles of all kinds on Mary: a real Marian library.

However, I must candidly admit that the Mariology found in all of Maria Valtorta's writings – both published or unpublished – has been for me a real discovery. No other Marian writings, not even the sum total of everything I have read and studied, were able to give me as clear, as lively, as complete, as luminous, or as fascinating an image, both simple and sublime, of Mary, God's Masterpiece.

It seems to me that the conventional image of the Blessed Virgin, portrayed by myself and my fellow Mariologists, is merely a paper mache Madonna compared to the living and vibrant Virgin Mary envisioned by Maria Valtorta, a Virgin Mary perfect in every way.

...whoever wants to know the Blessed Virgin (a Virgin in perfect harmony with the Holy Scriptures, the Tradition of the Church, and the Church Magisterium) should draw from Valtorta's Mariology.

If anyone believes my declaration is only one of those ordinary hyperbolic slogans abused by publicity, I will say this only: let them read before they judge!

Two of the sections in Fr. Roschini’s book are entitled, “Immunity to the Impulse of Concupiscence” and “Immunity to the Shadow of Actual Sin”. Unlike Anselmo, who is so quick to judge, make presumptions, and calumniate with poor theology, undefined terms, and faulty subjective interpretations, Fr. Roschini accurately expounds what Valtorta actually wrote about Our Lady concerning her immunity to the impulse of concupiscence and her immunity to the shadow of sin:63

ii) Immunity to the Impulse of Concupiscence

The very fact that Mary was preserved from original sin immunized Her from the impulse of concupiscence, which is a consequence and mark of original sin. Original sin robbed us of both the supernatural gift of grace and the preternatural gifts, especially the gift of integrity. Integrity means that our capacity to be aroused by what we perceive through the senses would be totally under the control of reason. Since this is not the case for us as a result of original sin, the Christian life is a ceaseless battle between the flesh and the spirit (Gal. 5:16-25, etc.). The flesh and the spirit are like the two sides of a scale: when one goes up, the other comes down.

[The Holy Spirit is speaking to the seer:] “Today’s mankind is not the result of an evolution for the better, but the sorry result of an evolution for the worse. This is because Adam’s fault has injured forever the physical, moral, and spiritual perfection of the first man. This perfection has been injured to such an extent that even Jesus Christ’s Passion cannot cancel all the results of [original] Sin. Although it does restore the life of grace to all the baptized, it does not take away all the scars of the great wound of original sin. In other words, bad instincts remain. These cause the ruin of those who do not love God or love Him too little. They also cause torments for the just who wish that they did not have the least thought induced by the voices of the passions and who struggle all their lives in a heroic battle to remain faithful to the Lord” (Lezioni sull’Epistola di Paolo ai Romani [Lessons on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans by Maria Valtorta], p.128).

During Her whole life, the Blessed Virgin, as opposed to Adam’s other descendants, was never in the least tormented by carnal instincts (the impulse of concupiscence) which tortured Paul the Apostle so much (see 2 Cor. 12:7-9).

[Jesus speaking.] “In the Virgin there is no sign of this dissolved association with the Fault. Her soul appears beautiful and intact as when the Father conceived Her, gathering all graces in Her.

“She is the Virgin. She is the Only One. She is the Perfect One, The Complete One. Conceived as such. Generated as such. Remained such. Crowned such. Eternally such. […] That is the revenge of the God Trine and One. Against creatures desecrated He raises this Star of perfection. […] In Her there is the absence of [bad instincts], the inheritance of Sin. (Poema, I, 37).

Elsewhere we can read: “I had consecrated Myself to God since My childhood, because the light of the Most High had shown Me the cause of evil in the world. […]“ (Poema, I, 11). [Note: the author added this comment: “That is why Her ego, free of the goad of concupiscence, was not attracted to carnal pleasures. It was attracted only to heavenly love.”]

What was the flesh for Mary? What was it for Jesus? Jesus said that it was

“a veil of water over the triumphant spirit; a light breeze caressing the royal spirit; crystal that isolates the sovereign spirit and does not corrupt it; a force that uplifts and not a burden that oppresses. Such was the ‘flesh’ for Us. It was lighter and less tangible than a linen tunic; it was a light substance placed between the world and the superhuman splendor of Our inner selves. It was a means for Us to perform God’s Will. It was nothing else” (Poema, IX, p.305-306).

In a graceful way, the Blessed Virgin revealed Her privilege to a repentant libertine (Aglae, a pagan). (Mary was encouraging the young woman to persevere in her repentance.)

“Do you think that only he is pure who has never known sensuality? Do you think that a soul can never again become virgin and beautiful? Oh! My daughter! Between the purity which is entirely a grace of the Lord and your heroic ascent to climb back to the summit of your lost purity, you must believe that yours is the greater. You are building it against sensuality, against need and habit. For me it is a natural endowment, like breathing. You have to break off your thoughts, your feelings, your flesh, in order not to remember, not to desire, not to yield Oh! Can a little child, a few hours old, have carnal desires? And does he have any merit thereby? The same applies to Me. I do not know what that tragic hunger is that made mankind a victim. I know but the most holy hunger for God. But you did not know it and you learned it by yourself (Poema, III, p.158).

iii) Immunity to the Shadow of Actual Sin

Excessive inclinations and semi-deliberate venial sins (moral imperfections) are intimately linked to the impulse of concupiscence. Because of the corruption of concupiscence, while we can avoid any single excessive inclination, we cannot avoid them all at once (See Summa Theologica, I-II, q.74, a.3, ad 2).

The Blessed Virgin, however, was immune to the impulse of concupiscence. “Always full of grace,” She was able to avoid moral imperfections all at once, not only each one in particular.

Before She was born, Her father prophesied:

“She will never sin against the Lord and to Him only She will give Her songs . . . (Poema, I, 18).

Different from all others, She spent Her life “on earth, with Her soul always hovering in Heaven” (Diary, Nov. 6, 1944). She was “the only child of mankind that always remained perfect” (Quad. ‘43, p.305 [Sept. 5]). She remained united to God, and God to Her “in an embrace of love which was crowned in Heaven” (Quad. ‘43, p.306 [Sept. 5]). On account of this She was “the holiest of all the creatures ever to live on earth” (Quad. ‘43, p.591 [Nov. 2]). She was “the Saint of saints” (Quad. ‘43, p.184 [June 19]).

“God, to reveal Himself to men in the new and complete form, which starts the Redemption era, did not select for His throne a star in the sky, nor the palace of a powerful man. {He did not want} the wings of Angels as the base of His feet; {rather,} He wanted a spotless womb.

“Also Eve had been created spotless. But she wanted to become corrupt of her own free will. Mary, Who lived in a corrupt world – Eve was in a pure world – did not wish to violate Her purity, not even with one thought remotely connected with sin. She knew that sin exists. She saw its various and horrible forms and implications. She saw them all, including the most hideous one: deicide. But She knew them solely to expiate them and to be, forever, the Woman who has mercy on sinners and prays for their redemption” (Poema, I, 4).

Jesus speaking. Mary is

“[…] the perfect Maiden with the pure and simple heart of a dove. [She] is the One Whom years and worldly contacts do not make defiant in the cruelty of a corrupted, twisted, false spirit. Because She does not want it. […] Is Her glance as an infant very different from the one you saw She had at the foot of the Cross or in the delight of Pentecost or when Her eyelids closed upon Her innocent eyes for Her last sleep? No. Here is the uncertain and astonished glance of an infant, then it will be the amazed and modest look of the Annunciation, and then the happy one of the Mother in Bethlehem, then the worshipping glance of my first and sublime Disciple, then the tormented one of the Tortured Mother on Golgotha, then the radiant glance of Resurrection and Pentecost, then the veiled look of the ecstatic sleep of the last vision. But whether it opens at the first sight, or closes tired on the last light, after seeing so much of joy and horror, Her eye is the clear, pure, placid piece of the sky that always shines below Mary’s forehead. Wrath, falsehood, pride, lewdness, hatred, curiosity never soil it with their smoky clouds.

“It is the eye that looks at God lovingly, whether it cries or laughs, and that for God’s sake fondles and forgives and bears everything, and by the love of God is rendered unassailable to the assaults of Evil, that so often makes use of the eye to penetrate the heart” (Poema, I, 42-43).

I believe that Fr. Roschini, O.S.M., more than adequately refutes the groundless suppositions and accusations of Anselmo.

Blessed Gabriel M. Allegra, O.F.M., was a very learned and world-renowned exegete, theologian, and missionary priest in the Order of the Friars Minor, which he entered into at the age of 16. After being ordained in 1930, he departed to China, and distinguished himself as an exemplary missionary and man of culture. As a St. Jerome of our time, he was the first to translate the entire Bible into Chinese, and his work had the support and acknowledgement of successive popes from Pius XI to Paul VI. Gabriel Allegra is the only biblical scholar of the 20th century who has been beatified. He wrote the following about this chapter in Valtorta’s work:

And not only from the human point of view, but especially a theological one, who can remain indifferent reading the two chapters on the desolation of His most holy Mother after the tragedy of Calvary, which reveal to us how the Co-Redemptrix had been tempted by Satan, and how Her Redeemer-Son had been tempted? The sublime theology of these two chapters may be compared to that of so many of the laments of the Sorrowful Mother.

Blessed Allegra also wrote:

[…] After Jesus died, Mary co-redeemed with her desolation up to the moment of His Resurrection. The Desolation of the Dolorous Mother comprised a direct personal attack by Lucifer, and then so many indirect assaults against her faith in the Resurrection, and—even for her—the abandonment by the Father.

In two long chapters, Valtorta describes what she saw and heard during the night of Good Friday, the day of the Sabbath, and the night of the Sabbath [Holy Saturday]. The little that I have read on the Sorrowful Mother on this subject remains in generalities; it cannot be compared to these powerful and very tender pages of Maria Valtorta. I cannot for anything convince myself that they are a simple meditation of a pious woman. No. This soul has seen and heard! The Finger of God is here!

I have taken the time to write up a thorough refutation of Anselmo’s second article which he just referred to at the end of this first article of his. See my refutation here. As my refutation will show, Anselmo’s accusations, like a modernist, rest on deception, confusion of principles, and failure to define terms or make distinctions. These problems I just mentioned are in addition to his subjective claims that are a clear distortion and misrepresentation of the text.

Conclusion

After reading the analysis and facts laid out in this refutation, it becomes glaringly clear that the article by Anselmo entitled “Errors against the Faith in the Work of Maria Valtorta” presents so many errors and irregularities that it is difficult to understand how it can be accepted in Catholic milieus, including traditionalist ones. Because of the theological errors and methodological flaws it contains – and other adjoining negative aspects – I do not understand how it could be accepted by traditional Catholic media outlets, such as Tradition in Action.

Either they did not carefully read the writings of Maria Valtorta and fact check Anselmo’s article themselves, or they naively trusted Anselmo as a trustworthy, unbiased, objective analyzer of her work, while at the same time, neglecting to consult the commentaries and theological studies of her writings done by undeniably trustworthy and highly scholarly theologians, such as Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., who was a Consultor of the Holy Office and who is considered by many to be the greatest Mariologist of the 20th century, who published a 395-page Mariological study of her writings, or Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M., professor of dogmatic and sacramental theology of the Pontifical Marianum Theological Faculty in Rome from 1939 onward, and Secretary of that Faculty from 1950 to 1959, who studied her work for decades and provided extensive theological and biblical annotations of her work totaling over 5,675 footnotes.

Anselmo posits the speculation about Maria’s spiritual director and the Spanish translator of her work that they might have been “accomplices in spreading a work that has serious errors in matters of the Faith.” Considering that hundreds of thousands around the world have derived tremendous spiritual benefit from her work and that dozens of highly learned, trustworthy traditional theologians and many bishops have affirmed her work is free from error in faith and morals, truly from God, and that she is a true victim soul, it seems just that his own supposition be applied back to himself: perhaps Anselmo is an accomplice in trying to discredit a true work of God (cf. Acts of the Apostles 5:39). This possibility appears all the more credible or substantiated when we consider that his anti-Valtorta articles contain a number of theological errors, basic methodological flaws, and often contain subjective accusations that are a misrepresentation of the text and qualify as academic dishonesty. Like a modernist, many of the errors in his article are logical fallacies, confusion of principles, and failure to make distinctions. These problems I just mentioned are in addition to his subjective claims that are a clear distortion and misrepresentation of the text. However, in charity, I presume that he is of good will and that his “witch hunt” against Valtorta is merely because of wrong information, lack of research, or perhaps innocent or unintended intellectual blindness or incompetency. I hope this refutation opened your eyes even if organizations like Tradition in Action don’t want to be “confused with the facts”. I encourage humble, honest, open-minded Catholics to recognize and thank God for this gift of this mystic’s writings rather than fall into a pharisaical, close-minded, ill-disposed mindset, which disposes one to not want to be “confused with the facts” or properly research things and reject one of God’s greatest gifts to our generation.

References

1. The full homily is printed in: Per Maria Valtorta Nel Cinquantenario Della Morte (1961-2011). By Fondazione Maria Valtorta CEV Onlus. March 2012. Viale Piscicelli 91 03036, Isola del Liri (Fr) Italia. English translation of excerpt provided in: Maria Valtorta’s Readers’ Group Newsletter Bulletin No. 66, June 2012. p. 1. Translated by Catherine Loft, who was also in attendance at his Mass.
http://www.valtorta.org.au/Newsletters/MVRG_Bulletin_066.doc
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 1 in the Text


2. Who was given a NEW name by God? BibleStudy.org. Accessed online February 2014.
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/who-was-given-new-name-by-god.html
href Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 2 in the Text


3. A wonderful gift to our generation: "The Gospel as was revealed to me" by Maria Valtorta. By Antonio Socci. Blog of Antonio Socci. April 7, 2012. Accessed online April 2013. Translated from the original Italian.
http://www.antoniosocci.com/2012/04/un-regalo-meraviglioso-alla-nostra-generazione-levangelo-come-mi-e-stato-rivelato-di-maria-valtorta/
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 3 in the Text


4. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. By Fr. Gabriel M. Roschini, O.S.M. Kolbe's Publications Inc. 1989. p. 16. ISBN-13: 9788879870863.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 4 in the Text


5. Pro e contro Maria Valtorta (5th Edition). By Dr. Emilio Pisani. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. 2008. pp. 68-74. ISBN-13: 9788879871528.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 5 in the Text


6. The Poem of the Man-God , Volume 5, Last Chapter, pp. 948; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 60, Chapter 652, pp. 546.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 6 in the Text


7. Bollettino Valtortiano. No. 29, January-June 1984. pp. 114-116. Edizioni Pisani / Centro Editoriale Valtortiano srl. Viale Piscicelli, 89/91, 03036 Isola del Liri (FR), Italia. Also quoted online here:
http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/Gablegra/Allegra2.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 7 in the Text


8. An Excerpt from Voiding the Voices of Heaven. By David Webster.
http://www.mariavaltortawebring.com/Pages/Webster/Voiding%20Excerpt.htm
Note that the original free downloadable e-book where this excerpt is taken from is available at David Webster’s website at the following link: http://www.saveourchurch.org/voidheaven.pdf
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 8 in the Text


9. Bollettino Valtortiano. No. 63, January-June 2002. Edizioni Pisani / Centro Editoriale Valtortiano srl. Viale Piscicelli, 89/91, 03036 Isola del Liri (FR), Italia. Also quoted online here:
http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/Gablegra/GabAlleg.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 9 in the Text


10. William F. Buckley Jr’s Fascination with Italian Mystic Maria Valtorta. By Daniel Klimek, T.O.R. ChurchPop.
https://churchpop.com/2016/04/05/william-f-buckley-devotion-mystic-maria-valtorta/
Also available here:
http://www.valtorta.org.au/William-Buckley-Valtorta.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 10 in the Text


11. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 5, Last Chapter, pp. 948; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 10, Chapter 652, pp. 546.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 11 in the Text


12. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 5, Last Chapter, pp. 948; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 10, Chapter 652, pp. 546.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 12 in the Text


13. Pro e contro Maria Valtorta (5th Edition). By Dr. Emilio Pisani. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. 2008. pp. 68-74. ISBN-13: 9788879871528.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 13 in the Text


14. The Notebooks: 1945-1950. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. January 28, 1947. pp. 335-337. ISBN-13: 9788879870887.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 14 in the Text


15. Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition. By Rev. Fr. George Leo Haydock. Commentary on John 1:42. Accessed online February 2014.
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id92.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 15 in the Text


16. Who was given a NEW name by God? Op. cit..
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 16 in the Text


17. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 17 in the Text


18. Fireworks: Sunrise of Truth Encyclopedia, Vol. 1. The Maria Valtorta Research Center. Kolbe's Publications: Sherbrooke, Canada. 1996. p. 30. ISBN: 2920285009.
This book is also available online here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130106000533/http://valtorta.org/FIREWORKS.htm
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 18 in the Text


19. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 1. Page XII in the Preface.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 19 in the Text


20. The Notebooks: 1945-1950. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. January 28, 1947. pp. 335-337. ISBN-13: 9788879870887.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 20 in the Text


21. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. p. 16. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 17 in the Text


22. Valtorta Reveals How Gamaliel’s Notes Compared to the Book of Hebrews Resolves the Issue of the Origin on This Book. By Fr. Kevin Robinson, FSSPX. June 29, 2011. p. 30.
http://en.gloria.tv/?media=170613
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 22 in the Text


23. Valtorta Reveals How Gamaliel’s Notes Compared to the Book of Hebrews Resolves the Issue of the Origin on This Book. p. 28. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 23 in the Text


24. A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work. By Stephen Austin. Subchapter: Archbishop Lefebvre’s Words About the Poem of the Man-God.
http://www.drbo.org/dnl/Maria_Valtorta_Summa_Encyclopedia.pdf
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 24 in the Text


25. Valtorta Reveals How Gamaliel’s Notes Compared to the Book of Hebrews Resolves the Issue of the Origin on This Book. p. 30. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 25 in the Text


26. Pro e contro Maria Valtorta (5th Edition). By Dr. Emilio Pisani. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. 2008. pp. 75-77. ISBN-13: 9788879871528.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 26 in the Text


27. Pro e contro Maria Valtorta (5th Edition). By Dr. Emilio Pisani. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. 2008. pp. 68-74. ISBN-13: 9788879871528.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 27 in the Text


28. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 28 in the Text


29. The Holy Shroud and the Visions of Maria Valtorta. By Msgr. Vincenzo Cerri. Kolbe’s Publications Inc. 1994. pp. 218-219. ISBN-13: 9782920285125.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 29 in the Text


30. A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. By Rev. Corrado Berti, O.S.M. December 8, 1978.
http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/Corberti.htm
This is the English translation of a photostated copy of Fr. Berti's original signed Italian typescript testimonial, which is in possession of Dr. Emilio Pisani in Isola del Liri, Italy. A photocopy of Fr. Berti’s original signed Italian typescript is viewable and downloadable here:
http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/Testimony%20of%20Fr.%20Berti.pdf
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 30 in the Text


31. Pro e contro Maria Valtorta (5th Edition). By Dr. Emilio Pisani. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. 2008. pp. 68-74. ISBN-13: 9788879871528.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 31 in the Text


32. Pro e contro Maria Valtorta (5th Edition). By Dr. Emilio Pisani. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. 2008. pp. 91-94. ISBN-13: 9788879871528. On page 92 is a photocopy of Archbishop Carinci’s original signed handwritten letter dated January 29, 1952.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 32 in the Text


33. An Introduction to Maria Valtorta and Her Epic Narrative The Poem of the Man-God..
http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/Valepic.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 33 in the Text


34. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 34 in the Text


35. Gabriel Roschini. Wikipedia. Accessed online September 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Roschini
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 35 in the Text


36. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. Page XIV in the Foreword. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 36 in the Text


37. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. Page XIII in the Publisher’s Notice. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 37 in the Text


38. An Introduction to Maria Valtorta and Her Epic Narrative The Poem of the Man-God.
http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/Valepic.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 38 in the Text


39. Fireworks: Sunrise of Truth Encyclopedia, Vol 1. p. 18. Op cit.
I also contacted the Centro Editoriale Valtortiano and they informed me that they know that the priest who was in charge of postal delivery directly to Pope Pius XII’s desk saw the bookmark in Valtorta’s writings on his desk moving forward day by day.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 39 in the Text


40. The Sources of the Testimony of Pope Pius XII’s Words: The Official Signed Testimony of Fr. Corrado M. Berti, O.S.M., Two Other Official Testimonies of Fr. Berti, Bishop Roman Danylak’s Letter, an Official Publication of Dr. Emilio Pisani, and a Well-Documented Website. All of these sources are given below:

A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. By Rev. Corrado Berti, O.S.M. December 8, 1978.
http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/Corberti.htm
This is the English translation of a photostated copy of Fr. Berti's original signed Italian typescript testimonial, which is in possession of Dr. Emilio Pisani in Isola del Liri, Italy. A photocopy of Fr. Berti’s original signed Italian typescript is viewable and downloadable here:
http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/Testimony%20of%20Fr.%20Berti.pdf

• Original Italian of the Pope’s words: “Pubblicate quest’opera così come sta, senza pronunciarvi a riguardo deII’origine straordinaria o meno di essa; chi legge capirà.” Pope Pius XII, during a private audience granted to Fr. Berti, Fr. Migliorini, and Fr. Cecchin (all of them Servites of Mary), Feb. 26, 1948. The taking place of this audience was mentioned in the Osservatore Romano of Feb. 27, 1948, and this can be viewed online here. The Pope’s words were quoted by Fr. Berti, editor of Il Poema dell’Uomo-Dio in Il Poema dell’Uomo-Dio, vol. VII, Appendix, pp. 1870-1871. This appendix, however, was omitted in the English translation of the Poem of the Man-God.

• A noteworthy document describing the papal intervention is: Maria Valtorta (1897-1961): Ia Vita di Gesù, intitolata “II poema deiI’Uomo-Dio” e gli altri suoi scritti mistici [Maria Valtorta (1897-1961): Jesus’ life entitled The Poem of the Man-God and her other mystical writings]. By Fr. Corrado M. Berti, O.S.M. (Rome, December 8, 1978). Fr. Berti, one of the witnesses of Pope Pius XII’s judgment, was the theologian assigned by the Servites in 1946 to study the great mystic’s writings in depth, as she was a third order Servite.

Maria Valtorta, Her Life and Work. By Bishop Roman Danylak, S.T.L., J.U.D.
www.SacredHeartofJesus.ca/MariaValtorta/M A R I A.htm
Note: The original URL above has since become dead, but an archive of it can still be viewed here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150801070533/http://www.sacredheartofjesus.ca/MariaValtorta/M%20A%20R%20I%20A.htm

Bollettino D'Informazione Valtortiana. No. 23, January-June 1981. p. 91. Edizioni Pisani / Centro Editoriale Valtortiano srl. Viale Piscicelli, 89/91, 03036 Isola del Liri (FR), Italia. Also quoted online here:
http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/Valepic.html

A Brief History of Events. Maria-Valtorta.net.
http://www.maria-valtorta.net/index.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 40 in the Text


41. A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit..
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 41 in the Text


42. Fireworks: Sunrise of Truth Encyclopedia, Vol. 1. p. 94. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 42 in the Text


43. The Valtorta Newsletter. No. 6, Winter 1992. Maria Valtorta Research Center. 31, King St. West, #212, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada, J1H 1N5. p. 6. Writing to the Maria Valtorta Research Center from the Vatican on October 31, 1987, Edouard Cardinal Gagnon referred to Pope Pius XII’s action as: “le genre d’Imprimatur officiel accordé par le Saint-Père en 1948 devant témoins” (“the type of official Imprimatur granted before witnesses by the Holy Father in 1948”). Also quoted online here:
http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/Valepic.htm
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 43 in the Text


44. Biography of Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, P.S.S. Society of the Priests of Saint-Sulpice: Province of Canada. This biography lists his works, among them La censure des livres (The Censorship of Books), Québec, 1945.
http://www.sulpc.org/evsulpc_gagnon_en.php
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 44 in the Text


45. Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council (1513).
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 45 in the Text


46. The Holy Shroud and the Visions of Maria Valtorta. By Msgr. Vincenzo Cerri. Kolbe’s Publications Inc. 1994. pp. 217-218. ISBN-13: 9782920285125.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 46 in the Text


47. In Response to Various Questions Regarding "The Poem of the Man-God”. Op. cit..
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 47 in the Text


48. A Critical Analysis of the Explanatory Letter of Condemnation. Maria-Valtorta.net.
http://maria-valtorta.net/letter_condemnation.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 48 in the Text


49. Gabriel Roschini. Op. cit..
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 49 in the Text


50. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. Page XIV in the Foreword. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 50 in the Text


51. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. pp. 62-63. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 51 in the Text


52. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 5, Chapter 601, p. 582; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 10, Chapter 606, p. 89.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 52 in the Text


53. Apologia Pro Maria Valtorta. By Fr. Kevin Robinson, FSSPX. Updated 2012.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/3983225/Apologia-Pro-Maria-Valtorta
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 53 in the Text


54. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 5, Chapter 601, p. 582; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 10, Chapter 606, p. 89.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 54 in the Text


55. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 55 in the Text


56. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 5, Chapter 601, p. 582; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 10, Chapter 606, p. 89.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 56 in the Text


57. Chapter 4: Universal Reconciliation Scriptures. Accessed online December 2015.
http://www.godsplanforall.com/universalreconciliationscriptures
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 57 in the Text


58. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 5, Chapter 606, pp. 637-638; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 10, Chapter 610, pp. 159-160.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 58 in the Text


59. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 5, Chapter 606, pp. 637-638; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 10, Chapter 610, pp. 159-160.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 59 in the Text


60. The Notebooks: 1943. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. August 29, 1943. p. 279. ISBN-13: 9788879870320.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 60 in the Text


61. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. pp. 182-185. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 61 in the Text


62. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. Foreword. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 62 in the Text


63. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. pp. 297-301. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 63 in the Text


 Back to top



Maria Valtorta Readers' Group Home