and Exposing the Methodological and Theological Errors of Anselmo de la Cruz:
A Complete Refutation of Anselmo's Flawed Anti-Valtorta Article
Entitled “A Generalized Sexual Obsession”
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 2016If I was one of the most vehement anti-Valtorta Catholics, whose main goal was to discredit Valtorta’s writings – and I had at least integrity and honesty – I would have to admit, in spite of myself, that the recent anti-Valtorta article of Anselmo de la Cruz is a weak and embarrassing attempt at trying to demonstrate error in Valtorta’s work and gives a bad name to the anti-Valtorta crowd, and I would have wished for something better in its place. I would have to admit that it gives Valtorta critics a bad name because it contains a number of theological errors (one of which contradicts Scripture itself) and it has a number of basic methodological flaws. In fact, Anselmo’s article is so unscholarly and unsubstantiated that it almost wasn’t worth my time writing a refutation, but I feel obliged to do so because of what Pope St. Felix III said: “Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men – when we can do it – is no less a sin than to encourage them.” 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 and unintended intellectual blindness or incompetency. We will see. One must be mature, open-minded, and interested in the truth to find the truth, but unfortunately, many people are not, including among traditional Catholics.
If Anselmo de la Cruz was prosecuting Valtorta’s work in court, the judge would have grounds to declare mistrial. Anselmo affirms statements about Valtorta’s text that are factually incorrect and cannot be substantiated when the text is examined closely. An examination of the actual text shows that these affirmations are false and their affirmation in his article can be classified as academic dishonesty.
Anselmo claims that the Church teaches something which the Church does not actually teach. Not only does Anselmo fail to support this claim with relevant sources or quotes, but one of his claims is actually heretical and in direct contradiction to Scripture. He also confuses several theological principles and fails to make necessary distinctions, thus misleading his readers.
Anselmo leaves out significant and relevant context that is necessary to consider in doing an analysis of what Valtorta actually wrote about original sin and the nature of Jesus’ temptations and His response to them. Thus, his article twists and misrepresents Valtorta’s writings and is not a fair and valid objective analysis of what is actually written. When her writings are read in their proper context and all of the aspects are properly considered, the passages are always morally and theologically correct, and have been declared as such by many competent theologians and ecclesiastical authorities (who, by the way, are far more learned than Anselmo and who employ an honest, thorough, and correct methodology in analyzing her work, with a scholarly level leagues above Anselmo’s article).
Lastly, Anselmo’s accusations and subjective insinuations are not supported by relevant and irrefutable proofs, let alone by clear, unmistakable moral and theological criteria.
I will now begin to dissect his article.
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. Click here to download this article as a PDF for sharing and easy printing. A succinct summary/overview of this article is also viewable here. This article is also available in Spanish.
Anselmo starts out with:
The first article pointed to some major doctrinal errors in The Poem of the Man-God by Maria Valtorta. Here we will look at two more problematic claims by the visionary whose work was condemned by the Church.Anselmo’s first article has already been analyzed and thoroughly refuted in a separate article which can be read here. What does he mean by “her work has been condemned by the Church”? That is an over-simplification of the true reality and all the necessary factors and qualifiers that need to be considered, similar to the case with anti-SSPX organizations like EWTN who say, “The Holy Father has declared Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX to be in schism: case closed” (Anselmo is a traditional Catholic who highly reveres Archbishop Lefebvre and the position he took and considers that the Pope’s excommunication of him was invalid and so this is a poignant example I could present to show how, if Anselmo wants to avoid hypocrisy, he can’t claim the Hierarchy made a mistake with Archbishop Lefebvre – an assertion he defends by pointing to technicalities and qualifiers – while at the same time refusing to consider all the necessary factors and qualifiers in the case of Valtorta’s writings). How has her work been supposedly condemned? To what degree? Is it still binding? Did the Magisterium ever pronounce a “Constat de non supernaturalitate” or a “Non-constat de supernaturalitate” judgement, and if so, which one? If what Anselmo says is true, why and how has her work received multiple imprimaturs and official endorsements from bishops and favorable statements from several Popes (one of whom was pre-Vatican II)? People who are not capable or interested in doing scholarly work or who want to merely discredit something prefer to hide relevant facts in oversimplified, sweeping, generalizing statements. Many anti-Valtorta critics usually maintain: “The Holy See has officially condemned the Poem; this condemnation is still in force.” This statement betrays a notable level of ignorance. Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.D., refutes this contention well in his article here: In Response to Various Questions Regarding "The Poem of the Man-God".
In addition to the facts laid out in the above article, here are several more facts which Anselmo probably doesn’t want you to know about:
(1) Pope Pius XII ordered Maria’s main work to be published in 1948 before three eyewitnesses whose audience was documented in the Vatican newspaper the following day. His command to publish her work was corroborated by the signed testimonies of three ecclesiastical eyewitnesses of notable repute, among them 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).
(2) After Fr. Giraudo, O.P., Commissioner of the Holy Office, was handed the signed certifications of three Consultors to the Holy Office, was informed about Pope Pius XII’s previous audience concerning Valtorta’s writings, was given the second critical edition of Valtorta’s work with more than 5,675 scholarly footnotes and appendices by Fr. Berti to explain potentially difficult passages, and after reviewing everything and consulting his superiors, he gave permission for the publication of the second edition in 1961, according to the testimony of Fr. Berti who dealt directly with the Holy Office. Fr. Gabriel Roschini, Consultant of the Holy Office, stated in 1961 that the new critical second edition “was not to be considered to be on the Index, because it was totally renewed, conformed in all to the original, and provided with notes that removed any doubt and which demonstrated the solidity and orthodoxy of the work.”
(3) This work has received imprimaturs and official endorsements from multiple bishops.
(4) The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has in recent times given permission to the publisher to publish it and the faithful to read it (something the Holy Office would not do if it was still “forbidden”). The original placement of the first edition of her work on the Index is now outdated because the latest pronouncement by the Holy Office (a.k.a. CDF) is that the publication of the newer editions is allowed, thus effectively nullifying any moral binding force of the original placement of the first edition of the work on the now suppressed Index.
Complete details are provided here: http://www.drbo.org/dnl/Maria_Valtorta_Summa_Encyclopedia.pdf
Valtorta claims the original sin was the sexual act performed by our first parents (pp. 98, 254, 257, 258). (1)That is an oversimplification. She actually wrote that the first sin (original sin) was a complex one involving pride, disobedience, gluttony, and finally lust. St. Thomas Aquinas maintained that there were “many deformities in the sin of our first parents, viz., pride, disobedience, gluttony, and so forth.” (“fuerunt plures deformitates”, Summa Theologica I-II, Q. 82, Art. 2, ad. 1; English Translation: New York, Benziger Brothers, 1947. Vol. I, p. 957). Many Fathers of the Church and saints affirmed that the original sin had the aspect of concupiscence. Anselmo simply stating, “Valtorta claims the original sin was the sexual act performed by our first parents” is misleading and inaccurate (and in fact, a falsehood) because she does not merely say that the original sin consisted in that, but rather that the original sin involved pride, disobedience, diffidence, doubt, rebellion, spiritual concupiscence and lastly carnal concupiscence. Likewise, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the original sin involved to some degree the aspect of concupiscence (Summa Theologica I-II, Q. 82, Art. 3).
I repeat below the same things that I wrote in my refutation of Horvat’s anti-Valtorta article since Anselmo repeated the same thing that Horvat wrote: Horvat told a falsehood by saying, “The work is also not without doctrinal errors, such as when Valtorta asserts the sin of Eve was not disobedience, but a sexual act”. Valtorta never said that the original sin was “not disobedience” but “only a sexual act”. Valtorta’s writings clearly indicate it was first disobedience, and then the other deformities which followed it.
In fact, here is an excerpt from one of her dictations, which sheds more light on what Valtorta actually wrote:1
They committed the first act against love with pride, disobedience, diffidence, doubt, rebellion, spiritual concupiscence and lastly, with carnal concupiscence. I say, lastly. Some believe that carnal concupiscence was instead the first act. No. God is order in all things.
Even in the offences towards the divine law, man sinned first against God by wanting to be similar to God: “god” in the knowledge of Good and Evil, and in the absolute and thus illicit freedom to act as he pleased and wished against all advice and prohibition of God; then against love, by loving himself disordinately, by denying God the reverential love that He is due, by placing the I in God’s place, and by hating his future neighbor: his own offspring to whom he brought about the inheritance of sin and condemnation; and lastly, against his dignity as the regal creature who had had the gift of perfect dominion over the senses.
The sensual sin could not have occurred for as long as the State of Grace endured and the other consequent states. There could have been temptation but not the consummation of the sensual sin for as long as innocence lasted, and therefore, the dominion of reason over the senses.
I will quote what Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., says about this. Fr. Gabriel Roschini 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 was praised by all the Popes during his priestly life and is considered by many to be the greatest mariologist of the 20th century. 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).2 He was completely traditional/orthodox in all of his writings.
Fr. Roschini, O.S.M., writes in his book The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta:3
The question now arises: what kind of sin was Adam and Eve’s original sin? St. Thomas Aquinas answered this question. He maintained that there were “many deformities in the sin of our first parents, viz., pride, disobedience, gluttony, and so forth.” (“fuerunt plures deformitates”, Summa Theologica I-II, Q. 82, Art. 2, ad. 1; English Translation: New York, Benziger Brothers, 1947. Vol. I, p. 957)
In other words, it was not a simple sin, but a complex one. This is precisely what Maria Valtorta teaches in her writings.
According to her, the various disorders of Adam and Eve’s original sin were: pride (wanting to be like God through the communication of life to others); disobedience (disobeying God’s command under the impulse of pride); “gluttony” or concupiscence of the spirit (wanting to know the mystery of the transmission of life); and lust (the “gluttony” of sexual pleasure).
We must note along with Valtorta the sequence in which these disorders followed one another in the original sin of our first parents:
“[Adam and Eve] committed the first act against love [for God] with pride, disobedience, diffidence [towards God], doubt [concerning the foundation of His precept and authority], revolt [against God’s precept], the lust of their spirit, and last of all, the lust of the flesh. I have said, ‘last of all.’ Some think, on the contrary, that the lust of the flesh was the first act. No.
“… [Adam and Eve] sinned first of all against God, when they wanted to be like Him. They wanted to be ‘God’ in the knowledge of good and evil. They wanted to be absolutely free to act at will, according to their own pleasure, with no regard to God’s advice and law. That was illicit.
“Then they sinned against love when they loved themselves in a disorderly fashion. They denied God the reverential love that is due to Him. They put their own egos in the place of God. In so doing, they despised their eventual neighbor – their own offspring – bequeathing to them a hereditary fault and condemnation.
“Last of all, they sinned against their dignity as royal creatures. They had received the gift of perfect mastery of the senses. There could be no sin of the senses as long as they remained in the state of Grace and the other states resulting from it [the gift of integrity]. Though they could be tempted, the sin of sensuality could not be consummated as long as innocence lasted and, due to innocence, reason’s control over the senses.” (Lezioni sull’Epistola di Paolo ai Romani [Lessons on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans by Maria Valtorta], p. 138-139).
In short, then, this is what Adam and Eve’s original sin was:
“the first link of the chain by which the Word of the Father was dragged to death, the Divine Lamb to the slaughter-house” (Poema, I, 118-119).
Valtorta’s interpretation of Adam and Eve’s original sin is founded: 1) on the biblical text; 2) on some ancient rabbinical interpretations; and 3) on patristic literature (early Church Fathers in both the East and the West). It has been adopted by a fair number of famous exegetes and writers in our own time.
1) It is an interpretation founded on the text of Genesis, since it is implied or insinuated in Genesis. “Both the Bible and human experience show that pride and sensuality go hand in hand. As a reflection attributed to Saint Augustine has it, what begins in the spirit ends in the flesh. Furthermore, it seems that pride of the spirit hurls its victims into sexual permissiveness. “Whoever tries to be an angel, especially a rebel angel, becomes a beast” (Professor J. Coppens, in Ephem. Theol. Lov., 24 , p.396) Eve’s sin began in her spirit (the pride of becoming “like God, knowing good and evil”) and consummated itself in the flesh. Adam’s love for Eve was instrumental in his sin — as Saint Augustine pointed out (De Genesi ad litteram [Concerning Genesis] 42, PL 34, 452-454).
The matter in hand, then, is disorderly love not at all in harmony with the supreme love owed to God. Adam and Eve’s love was carnal and illicit, since it did not heed God’s commandment. What caused Adam’s original sin was precisely an excessive love for Eve. After they sinned, “the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked,” they covered themselves (Gen. 3:7; [Douay]). In other words, they were troubled and felt an imbalance in the area of sexuality: this links original sin to lust. The fact that God inflicted a greater punishment on the woman than on the man, and the very nature of this punishment (“In sorrow shalt you bring forth children, . . . and [the man] shall have dominion over you” [Gen 3:16; Douay]) seem to indicate the nature of the fault.
2) It is an interpretation founded on a few ancient rabbinical traditions (see J Coppens La connaissance du Bien et du Mal et le Péché du Paradis [The Knowledge of Good and Evil, and Sin in the Garden of Eden], Bruges, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer. 1948, p.24).
3) It is an interpretation founded on eastern and western patristic literature. Among the Eastern Fathers we find St. Justin, St. Epiphanius, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. John Damascene. Among the Western Fathers: St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Isidore. Among medieval writers: Alcuin, a Medieval Anonymous, St. Bernard, Hugo of Saint-Victor, Duns Scotus, and the blessed John Ruysbroek (see Coppens, op.cit.; Ephem. Theol. Lov., 24 , p.402-408).
On the other hand, Father Felix Asensio, S.J. (Tradición sobre un pecado sensual en el Paradiso? [Tradition about a Sensual Sin in the Garden of Eden?], in Gregorianum 30 , p.490-520; 31 , p.35-62, 162-191) expresses the opinion that none of the Fathers mentioned by Coppens, whether in the East or the West, would sufficiently prove the legitimacy of an interpretation of original sin in terms of sexuality.
In view of a fair judgment, it is necessary to be aware of original sin’s complexity (its multiple deformity), as it appears in Valtorta’s writings. Pride (the desire to be like God in determining good and evil) led our first parents to disobey the divine commandments. This disobedience immediately resulted in the loss of integrity (the revolt of the flesh against the spirit) followed by sexual sin.
4) Finally, it is an interpretation adopted by a fair number of famous exegetes and modern writers. Among exegetes, there are professor Joseph Coppens (of the Catholic University of Louvain, in the two previously mentioned works) and Father Emanuel Testa, O.F.M., in [The Holy Bible], under the direction of Most. Rev. Salvatore Garofalo, Genesi (Introduction — Primitive History), Turin-Rome, 1968, p. 307ff; p. 318ff). Among writers, there are Jean Guitton of the French Academy, in “Le développement des idées dans l’Ancien Testament [The Development of Ideas in the Old Testament],” (in La pensée moderne et le catholicisme, issue #9, Aix-en-Provence, 1947, p.89-130), and Louis Bouyer, Oratorian, in his work Le trône de Ia Sagesse, Paris, Cerf, 1957, p.21. [English Translation: Woman and Man with God. An Essay on the Place of the Virgin Mary in Christian Theology and its Significance for Humanity. London, Darton, Longman and Todd, 1960, p.58.; republished under the title The Seat of Wisdom. An Essay on the Place of the Virgin Mary in Christian Theology, N.Y., Random, 1962 (Panther Books), p.5-8.]
It is important to note that Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M., provided a detailed commentary on original sin as it is presented in Valtorta’s writings. Fr. Berti was a 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. He supervised the editing and publication of the critical second edition of the Poem, and from 1960 to 1980 provided the extensive theological and biblical annotations that accompany that edition and all subsequent editions (totaling over 5,675 footnotes). He visited Maria Valtorta often (totaling over 180 visits). He was one of the three priests who had an audience with Pope Pius XII about the Poem of the Man-God in 1948 wherein Pope Pius XII commanded him to publish the Poem of the Man-God “just as it is”. He also dealt with the Holy Office concerning Maria Valtorta’s works. He wrote a signed testimony on Maria Valtorta, The Poem of the Man-God, his audience with Pope Pius XII, and his dealings with the Holy Office regarding Valtorta's work. It is available here: Testimony of Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M.
An English translation of his commentary on original sin as it is presented in Valtorta’s writings can be read here: Commentary of Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M., on Original Sin in Valtorta's Writings.
Fr. Berti starts out his commentary with:
In order to know exactly the thought of this Work in regard to Original Sin, it is opportune to recall Genesis and to gather together in an orderly manner the various elements scattered in these and other writings of the writer [Valtorta], and above all in paragraphs 24-26 and 48 [of this Work].His commentary is a proper and scholarly framework in which to analyze Valtorta’s writings as it pertains to original sin. Comparing Fr. Berti’s commentary (as well as Fr. Gabriel Roschini’s commentary) on original sin as it is in Valtorta’s writings to Anselmo’s article will emphasize and illustrate how the commentary and studies of the former two renowned theologians were imbued with thoroughness, depth, and honest objectivity, while Anselmo’s analysis and comments about original sin in Valtorta’s writings contained theological incompetency and errors, lack of thoroughness, and lack of objectivity. I refer you to read Fr. Berti’s commentary at the link above and will not quote it in full in this refutation for the sake of brevity.
Anselmo’s page number references (pp. 98, 254, 257, 258) are for the Spanish translation of the Poem. For an English-speaking audience, for the sake of thoroughness, it would be proper for the translator or the reposter/publisher (in this case, Tradition in Action) to take the time to provide the references also in either of the two English translations so that the readers can look up the passages in question themselves. Instead, the page numbers are for a foreign language which most people will find difficult to find access to. It’s also appropriate for a scholarly article to list the volume number. What good are page numbers if you don’t know what volume those page numbers pertain to? Not everyone is familiar enough with her work to automatically assume it must be volume 1.
Church doctrine on original sin does not teach that it involved the sexual act.This statement of Anselmo’s shows his ignorance and incompetency in this theological area. As world-renowned Mariologist and Consultor to the Holy Office, Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., wrote in his 395-page Mariological study of Valtorta’s writings, he demonstrated that Church doctrine on original sin teaches that it very likely did involve a sexual act in the latter stages and he quoted Scripture, nine Church Fathers, nine canonized saints, and over a dozen other esteemed theologians to support this. Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.D., wrote:5
A number of other posed objections against The Poem appear lacking in serious theological foundation… The objection posed that The Poem makes reference to a sexual element in the Original Sin and therefore is doctrinally erroneous also cannot be theologically substantiated. The Church has always permitted a significant diversity regarding concepts of the nature of the Original Sin committed by Adam and Eve, and both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas in fact held that the material element of Original Sin (peccatum originale materialiter) included to some degree the aspect of concupiscence. Such theological opinion certainly does not indicate a doctrinal error, regardless of a legitimate difference of opinion concerning the potential element of sexuality in relation to the first sin of Adam and Eve.Now I will move on to another issue at hand. Genesis 2: 23-24 states:
And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.This affirms that Adam and Eve knew that they were destined at some point to be “two in one flesh”. However, it is unclear and not a defined dogma or doctrine as to the extent of their knowledge of this mystery at that time. Let me give a similar analogy. For example, God promised to them a Messiah in Genesis that would come through Our Lady:
And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. (Genesis 3: 14-15)Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, and very many saints down through the ages all teach that this is a prophecy of Our Lord who will come through Our Lady and that the Mother of the Savior will crush the serpent’s head.
Now, Adam and Eve became acquainted for the first time with this mystery that there will be a future seed (the Messiah) who will crush the serpent’s head. But we must ask: did they fully understand every little tiny aspect and detail of this Mystery of the coming Messiah? Did they know when and through which person and how? The answer is: absolutely not! God reserved for Himself, for the time being, this mystery of the details of the Redemption. Even Our Lady did not presume to know every detail prior to the Annunciation, as Scripture relates she said to the Archangel Gabriel: “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” (Luke 1:34)
Likewise, Genesis 2:24 affirms that Adam and Eve knew at least a rudimentary basic understanding of at least part of the mystery of the “two becoming one flesh” but, like the Mystery of the Redemption, it is very likely and very possible that they did not know every single tiny detail and all the aspects and the timing that God intended for them for this mystery. It is unclear and not a defined dogma how much they knew before they approached “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” (Genesis 2:17) Lust was certainly possible because they had free will, but they did not know of lust initially. They became aware of this possibility later.
She claims that at first Adam and Eve did not know how to engender children by means of the sexual union.That statement is untrue and this affirmation of Anselmo is actually based on his own presumption and misinterpretation of the text.
Someone once wrote: “If others tell us something we make assumptions, and if they don't tell us something we make assumptions to fulfill our need to know and to replace the need to communicate. Even if we hear something and we don't understand we make assumptions about what it means and then believe the assumptions. We make all sorts of assumptions because we don't have the courage to ask questions.”6 Let’s start asking intelligent questions!
Valtorta never said that Adam and Eve did not know how to engender children by means of the sexual union. We know Genesis 2:24 affirms they knew at least a rudimentary basic understanding of at least part of this mystery as discussed above. Here is the relevant paragraph in Valtorta’s writings that Anselmo is most probably referring to:7
God had said to the man and the woman: "You know all the laws and the mysteries of creation. But do not infringe on My right of being the Creator of man. My love will suffice for the propagation of the human race and it will spread among you and will excite the new Adams of the race without any lust of the senses but with purely charitable pulsations. I give you everything. I am only keeping for Myself this mystery of the formation of man".
Satan wanted to deprive man of this intellectual virginity and with his venomous tongue he blandished and caressed Eve's limbs and eyes, exciting reflections and a perspicacity which they did not have before, because malice had not yet intoxicated them.
She "saw". And seeing, she wanted to try.
In vain by now you have corrupted them, who had been created innocent, leading them to know and conceive by means of the sensuousness of lust, depriving God, in His beloved creature, of being the benefactor of the children according to rules, which, had they been respected, would have kept a balance on earth between sexes and races, a balance capable of averting wars between peoples and calamities between families.
By obeying, they would have also known love. Nay, only by obeying they would have known love and possessed it. A complete and peaceful possession of this gift from God, Who from the supernatural descends to the inferior, so that also the flesh may rejoice devoutly, since it is united to the spirit and created by Him Who created the spirit.
So, in the above quoted text, what is meant by the phrase, “I am only keeping for Myself this mystery of the formation of man”? Is “mystery of the formation of man” referring to merely the crude knowledge about the mechanical and biological processes involved in the formation of man or is that phrase referring to a more comprehensive idea or the concept of the totality of the formation of man (which would also include not only the material/biological aspect, but also the spiritual aspects, as well as the proper timing for it, the proper place and circumstances, etc.)? Anselmo presumes it must only refer to the former, whereas, an equally plausible alternative and a more correct and intelligent interpretation according to all the relevant context is that it is referring to the idea or subject or the essence of this mystery and its totality and all of its aspects (some of which, Adam and Eve were not privy to yet by God’s command). Adam and Eve could have (and did) know that they were destined to become one flesh (that is, they knew about a small percentage or portion of this mystery) but they did not necessarily know every aspect of it, and they could have known about this concept or this truth in such a way as to preserve their purity and have a guard against lust in the same way that children can know that their parents join together to form babies but without knowing certain details that they do not need to know yet and is not beneficial for them to know at that time. As stated earlier, Genesis affirms that Adam knew before the Fall “a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen 2: 24). However, he was expected to entrust to God the rules and timing of this “mystery of the formation of man” and not to consent pursuit of it until God says so. Adam and Eve knew about this mystery before the Fall, but to what extent, we do not know. But when God said, “I am only keeping for Myself this mystery of the formation of man” it means that this is the one thing that God asked them to not pursue or to consummate until He says so as a test of their obedience and love for Him. God is reserving the details and the timing, place, and circumstances of the consummation of this mystery to Himself. This passage in Valtorta does not contradict Scripture at all, as many theologians far more learned than Anselmo have already affirmed. What Anselmo seems to see as error is his own faulty interpretation, presumptions, and misunderstandings, in contradiction to the interpretations of theologians far more learned than Anselmo, one of whom is one of the top two most learned Mariologists of the 20th century who worked closely with Pope Pius XII.
Suffice it to add that the obscenities in some of Valtorta's descriptions of the Devil tempting Eve are sufficient to awaken doubts even in the most ignorant about the nature of her supposed “divine revelation” on Creation.Firstly, when her work is read in context and is being analyzed objectively and without bias, it is not possible to describe what is written as “obscene”. There are many very learned and balanced theologians who have expressed a contrary opinion to the one Anselmo posits. For just one example among dozens of others I could quote, I will quote Archbishop Carinci (who was the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites from 1930 to 1960, in charge of investigating pre-Vatican II causes of beatification and canonization, visited Maria Valtorta multiple times, wrote dozens of letters back and forth with her which have been published, and analyzed her case in depth). He praised Maria Valtorta and the Poem, writing in 1952:9
"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 also stated:10
“...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.”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 1952:11
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.
According to the Council of Orange, it was disobedience that caused our first parents, created in full integrity, to lose sanctifying grace and other gifts. Among these consequences came disorder in the concupiscence; that is to say, before the fall they suffered no disordered desire for sensible pleasures, including the sexual. The original sin was an act of disobedience that had no direct link with sexuality, which is set out in many sound Catechisms or accessible works like the Teología del Dogma Católico [The Theology of Catholic Dogma] by Fr. J. Abarzuza (p. 644).In the quote given earlier in this article, Fr. Gabriel Roschini already demonstrated that the act of disobedience can lead to impurity in later stages and he quoted Scripture, nine Church Fathers, nine canonized saints, and over a dozen other esteemed theologians to support this and to demonstrate and affirm that Valtorta’s interpretation of original sin is consistent with the positions and writings of these Church Fathers, saints, and esteemed theologians. Maria’s writings affirm that the original sin was a complex one that involved pride, disobedience, diffidence, doubt, rebellion, spiritual concupiscence and lastly carnal concupiscence.
Anselmo goes on to write:
But Valtorta insists again and again on her new version of original sin with so many details that suggests she had a morbid inclination to deal with sexual matters.This is a false, misleading, calumnious, and unsubstantiated subjective opinion and accusation. In fact, I don’t think it is worthy to be called an opinion, but rather it is a calumnious unsubstantiated attack and calumny. She did not have a morbid inclination to deal with sexual matters. In fact, in her 4,000 page work, relatively very little time was devoted to the original sin (I estimate the amount of text devoted to discussing the original sin to be less than 1% of her total work). Our critic is the one who is overly focusing on sexual matters.
Maria Valtorta received a dictation in which Our Lord said:12
To be able to read! Not all are able to do so, and do so with precision. To be able to, and to do so with precision, one must have sight purified of internal flames and external obscuration. If your spiritual sight – that is, your thought – is clear and pure, you see things as they are … But if your thought is obscured or enveloped in the smoky flames of human knowledge and the pride of having to be the only ones to know, or, worse, by impure fires, then it is your reflection that tinges what you contemplate with tones opposed to the real ones and turns a chaste, innocent episode into a sensual, sinful one.
[...] Say, then, if your opinion differs from what appears not at all doubtfully in the episode in question, that it is you that are casting upon this point in the episode what is churning in yourselves when you make “suppositions,” as you call other elements of yours, suppositions which nothing in the episode authorizes or justifies any one to suppose or believe.
The work is more for the teachers than for the throngs. The teachers will give the multitudes the essence of the work. But, in order to give that honey, they need to feed on the flowers of truth which I have given.
Everything is true in Religion. It is just that for thousands and thousands of years some truths have been given and stated with figures or symbols. And this is no longer enough now, in this century of rationalism and positivism and—why not say so?—incredulity and doubt working their way even into My ministers.
It is no longer enough. The fable of the apple, as it is called, is not convincing and is not accepted. It does not increase faith, but, rather, weakens faith in the truth of Original Sin and thus in the truth of My coming to redeem Original Sin and thus in My preaching, for I was the Teacher among the throngs, and thus in the divine establishment of the Church and thus in the truth of the Sacraments—and I could continue at length to list what is brought down by not accepting the fourth truth of faith—that is, Adam’s sin.
The first truth is the existence of God.
The second, Lucifer’s rebellion and thus the free transformation of the archangel into the Devil, into Satan, and thus the spirit of Evil and Darkness opposed to the spirit of Good and Light.
The third, creation.
The fourth, Adam’s sin, foreseen in its divine consequence by Lucifer, who became Satan so as not to worship Me, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Redeemer of Man, his Adversary and Victor over him.
The fable of the apple no longer suffices for today’s multitudes and, above all, for today’s teachers, who teach it poorly because their thought cannot accept it any longer. Let an open, clear, plausible, credible, serious version—as is fitting for a question related to God, which is a proof provided by God to His creatures—the only sincere, real version of the first sin, be set against the subtle, methodical erosion and corrosion of rationalism and other current tendencies. And the teachers will believe more and be able to bring the faithful to believe more. What was good at the dawn of Humanity, in the dimness of the early ages, is insufficient and even harmful at Humanity’s dusk, when spirits are adult and have been rendered so astute by many things.
Let us shed light! Shed light! For life is in the light.
Both God the Son and the Mother of God were, thus, without original sin and free from the inclinations toward evil that afflict the rest of the sons of Adam. Therefore, they were not and could not be tempted to do evil.It is true that God the Son and the Mother of God were/are without original sin (just like Adam and Eve were before they fell and committed sin). It is also true that God the Son and the Mother of God are free from the inclinations towards evil that afflicts the rest of the sons of Adam because in Our Lady and in Christ there always was and is order and harmony between the flesh and the spirit, both of them always submissive and perfect in giving glory to their Creator. However, Anselmo’s statement “Therefore, they were not and could not be tempted to do evil” is false and this conclusion does not follow from the first two premises. He must distinguish between temptation and consent and its effects. Theologians who know how to do correct theology and who are honest and thorough always make sure to make proper distinctions in their writing.
What is temptation? The Catechism says, “It is an incitement to sin which comes to us from the devil or the wicked or our passions.” It is an incitement. If it incites to sin, then, that is a sign that it is not a sin in itself. No, it is not a sin. Rather, it is a means to grow in justice and augment our merits by remaining faithful to the Law of the Lord.
Who does temptation come from? From the devil, the wicked, and the passions. It comes, then, from external factors and internal factors. Jesus could be tempted by the devil and the wicked (external factors), but He could not be tempted by His passions (internal factors), which were perfectly ordered to His soul and reason because in Christ there always was order and harmony between the flesh and the spirit. However, like I said, Jesus could still be tempted by external factors which Scripture itself even explicitly affirms in many places in many different books of Scripture.
Here is what Scripture states:
“For in that, wherein He Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor them also that are tempted.” (Hebrews 2:18)
“For we have not a high priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)
St. Paul affirms that Jesus was tempted. And St. Paul didn’t say that He was tempted only in some things, but he says “in all things”.
Jesus was both God and man. As God, He could not be tempted. As man, He could be tempted.
“Then Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil.” (Matthew 4:1)
It is important to remember that even before they committed the first sin and hence were still in the original state of justice and grace, Adam and Eve still were able to be tempted. Likewise, Jesus was sinless and did not have the effects of original sin (including a disordered concupiscence), but yet, He could still be tempted by external factors (not internal factors).
As St. Paul indicates, of course Satan could try to tempt Jesus also with temptations to impurity. However, because in Jesus there always was and is order and harmony between the flesh and the spirit, both of them always submissive and perfect in giving glory to their Creator, such temptations always miserably failed and to resist such temptations was ridiculously easy and required no effort on His part to smash. That is why Satan gave up on that type of temptation and proceeded to other ones with Jesus. Anselmo is ignorantly mixing up the attempt with the result and failing to make the distinction between external and internal temptations, and makes a logical fallacy by reasoning, “Since Jesus did not have disordered concupiscence, therefore Satan could not have given Him an external temptation/suggestion to impurity.” Of course he could but he would never be able to succeed or cause even the most infinitesimal disturbance in Christ apart from the holy disgust Christ had for sin.
Our Lord replied to some priests of Valtorta’s day who were having discussions on this subject:14
Is Paul perhaps a heretic in saying in his epistle that I was “tempted in every way, tested in every way, as a man among men,” with flesh, blood, intellect, and will, like you? Was Paul a heretic in writing to the Philippians, “Have the same sentiments in yourselves as Christ Jesus, who, possessing the form of God, did not regard this equality as a prize to be seized upon, but humbled Himself, taking on the form of a slave, and, in becoming like men, He appeared as a simple man”? [Hebrews 4:15; Philippians 2:5-8] Don't you think that in this “humbling Himself” of the Son of God there are found not only the opprobrious death on the cross, but also the wretchedness of being treated as a man by Satan and the world, that assailed Me with an ongoing siege and surrounded Me with temptations, bringing Me suffering? Don't you think that great beauty and justice reside in not regarding my equality with God as a prize to be held on to, but wanting to be Man, the Man of reparation, the Man of expiation, the Man of redemption, treated as a man and showing Himself to be God by daily acts of heroism?
I have replied to you with the words of my apostles, joined to mine, for you find it hard to accept the words which [Maria Valtorta] conveys to you as holy. You cannot find it hard to accept those of my apostles; they cannot prompt doubts as to their supernatural authority. You read them at the altar, comment on them from pulpits, and teach them from magisterial chairs. You thus regard them as words of truth.
And these words support my thesis, not yours – that, since I was Man, it was natural for Me to be tempted; that temptation is not inappropriate for Christ; that Christ does not emerge degraded therefrom, but even more glorified, for the high priest, who had to feel compassion for the weak and those led astray, having been tested, like them, and having been surrounded by infirmity, like them, was able to keep Himself holy, innocent, immaculate, and separate from sinners as regarded imitating them in evil, but remained their merciful Brother in order to say to all, “Come to Me, you that are afflicted and weary, and I will console you.”
Tell me, you that are scandalized by reading that I suffered that temptation, did I perhaps damage my divine and human Perfection because I was approached by the Tempter? What was altered in Me? What was corrupted? Nothing. Not even the most fleeting thought.
St. Paul affirms that Jesus was tempted. And St. Paul didn’t say that He was tempted only in some things, but he says “in all things”, and this would include Satan trying to tempt Him (woefully unsuccessfully) with impurity (the type of temptation that is the most effective of his arsenal in ensnaring the vast majority of men).
When Satan tried to tempt Christ to impurity, because Christ was perfect in His will and inclinations, He wasn’t affected or moved in any unholy way by such a temptation. It was like a rain drop against a granite wall. It splattered on the granite without causing any harm.
Nowhere did Valtorta write that Jesus “suffered terrible sexual temptations, which He had to overcome through hard struggle.” This statement by Anselmo is a flat-out falsehood and is his own deceiving, incorrect words and biased interpretation and not the words of the author under examination! It wasn’t a “hard struggle” for Jesus to resist those temptations! Like I said, those temptations were like a rain drop against a granite wall. It splattered on the granite without causing any harm. Jesus has affirmed this many times in the dialogues in the Poem of the Man-God as well as in other dictations. Satan did try to tempt Him to impurity – as he did with all men, including innocent Adam and Eve – but it didn’t do anything except arouse in Christ disgust over sin. As Christ said to Valtorta:15
I, Jesus, never consented to sin. I never felt disturbance because of sin. The only – remember this – the only disturbance that the stench of evil, being done around Me, could cause Me, was [My] loathing, [My] disgust for a sin. I preferred to draw near lepers dying of this disease rather than a healthy man covered with the scabs of vice and stinking of lust, especially if he was impenitent. My infinite love for sinners, who were to be saved, always made Me overcome the nausea caused by their spiritual stench. My Father, My Father alone, knows what sort of prolonged passion it was for Me to have to live enveloped in the whirlpool of temptations and the muddy wave of the sins streaming over the earth, doubling over and knocking down men. To have to live and see the shipwreck of so many, without being able to imprison the Beast, because the time to do so had not yet come. It still has not. And it heads on, with its hellish breath fuming out, sowing its poison, and is followed by the ever growing wave of ever increasing sins.Nowhere in Valtorta’s writings do I recall there being any discussion of Satan throwing darts of temptations of impurity at Our Lady. Anselmo insists so but he never provides a quote or page number reference. But – even if it were so – if Satan threw such a temptation at her, she would not feel disturbance because of the temptation, but would reject it with disdain as something beneath her, a futile pathetic attempt of Satan like an ant trying to move a mountain, and such a temptation would only serve to increase her merits and virtues.
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!
Valtorta also affirms that, throughout their lives, both Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin suffered terrible sexual temptations, which they had to overcome through hard struggle.Anselmo deceives when he writes “hard struggle”. Nowhere in Valtorta’s text does she write that Jesus had a “hard struggle” against any temptations to impurity! Quite the contrary! I’m actually wondering if Anselmo actually read Valtorta’s work. 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 (to say the least). 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.
Now to finish off addressing Anselmo’s claim, I want to include an excerpt that Maria Valtorta wrote where Christ is addressing some priests who were discussing the vision where Satan unsuccessfully tries to tempt Him to impurity:16
[...] Finally, I would have wanted this because it would have witnessed to me concerning the state of your intellect, free from what creates confusion and haze for the truths so clearly visible in my pages demonstrating the constant perfection of Jesus Christ the God-Man in all the circumstances of his mortal life, in all his actions, words, and even silences. For there are silences which speak more than all words and teach more than all doctrine.
And this episode, at the point which you do not want to accept, calling it “inappropriate,” speaks to you precisely with the magnificent lesson of my silence, set against this impure part of Satanic temptation. My silence and my complete indifference to the titillations of Satan should have articulated for you the glorification of Christ. Instead, in your view, they articulated something else: the degradation of Christ. Christ's being tempted by impurity gives you the impression that Christ's dignity was damaged. You are getting the attempt mixed up with the result. A result would have meant damage. Glorification is the failure of the attempt. Weren't you able to consider this difference? You were not able to read the truth which was silenced, but clearly visible in the vision and the dictations.
To be able to read! Not all are able to do so, and do so with precision. To be able to, and to do so with precision, one must have sight purified of internal flames and external obscuration. If your spiritual sight – that is, your thought – is clear and pure, you see things as they are. In this case, involving Christ's glorification. But if your thought is obscured or enveloped in the smoky flames of human knowledge and the pride of having to be the only ones to know, or, worse, by impure fires, then it is your reflection that tinges what you contemplate with tones opposed to the real ones and turns a chaste, innocent episode into a sensual, sinful one. Place the episode once again far from your lights, though, in its true light, and it will go back to being what it was: witness to a heroic chastity and innocence which are dishonored in vain.
Now, if you cast the reflection of your humanity upon the episode because you cannot admit that someone may not feel internal disturbance over an external temptation, because you cannot admit that not even the Christ, the Holy One of God, may have been tempted from outside without undergoing internal disturbance, then it is you that are giving that coloring to the episode. But you must not say, then, that this episode testifies to an inappropriate disturbance in Christ, a disturbance which truly may not be admitted out of respect for the dignity of the Lord Jesus, since, in reality, in Christ there always was order and harmony between the flesh and the spirit, both of them always submissive and perfect in giving glory to their Creator. Say, then, if your opinion differs from what appears not at all doubtfully in the episode in question, that it is you that are casting upon this point in the episode what is churning in yourselves when you make “suppositions,” as you call other elements of yours, suppositions which nothing in the episode authorizes or justifies any one to suppose or believe.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 1 in the Text
2. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. By Fr. Gabriel M. Roschini, O.S.M. Kolbe's Publications Inc. 1989. Page XIV in the Foreword. ISBN-13: 9788879870863.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 2 in the Text
3. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. pp. 276-277. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 3 in the Text
4. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. Footnote #137 on pp. 277-278. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 4 in the Text
5. In Response to Various Questions Regarding "The Poem of the Man-God”. By Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.D. April 15, 2006.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 5 in the Text
6. Quotes About Assumptions. Goodreads.com. Accessed online November 2015.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 6 in the Text
7. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 1, Chapter 17, p. 83; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 1, Chapter 17, p. 103. Translation improved by Giovanna Busolini upon investigating the original Italian: the phrase “I have given you” in the official English translation ought to be “I give you” since the original Italian is “Tutto vi dono” (present tense).
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 7 in the Text
8. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 1, Chapter 5, p. 31; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 1, Chapter 5, p. 40. Translation improved by Giovanna Busolini upon investigating the original Italian: the phrase “leading them to knowledge and conception” in the official English translation ought to be “leading them to know and conceive” since the original Italian are verbs for those words.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 8 in the Text
9. 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 9 in the Text
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 10 in the Text
11. 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 11 in the Text
12. The Notebooks: 1945-1950. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. February 18, 1947. p. 349. ISBN-13: 9788879870887.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 12 in the Text
13. The Notebooks: 1945-1950. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. November 4, 1947. pp. 438-439. ISBN-13: 9788879870887.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 13 in the Text
14. The Notebooks: 1945-1950. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. February 18, 1947. p. 364, 370, 373. ISBN-13: 9788879870887.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 14 in the Text
15. The Notebooks: 1945-1950. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. February 18, 1947. p. 357. ISBN-13: 9788879870887. Translation improved by someone knowledgeable in Italian upon investigating the original Italian.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 15 in the Text
16. The Notebooks: 1945-1950. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. February 18, 1947. pp. 348-349. ISBN-13: 9788879870887.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 16 in the Text