Maria Valtorta Readers' Group

A Complete Analysis and Refutation of the Resistance Dominican’s
Flawed Anti-Valtorta Article Entitled “What should we make of the book
The Poem of the Man God by Maria Valtorta?”

Theological Errors and Incompetency, Methodological Flaws, Distortions and Misrepresentations, Lack of Objectivity, and Ignorance on the Subject
They Are Writing About: How the Resistance Dominican's Anti-Valtorta Article Lacks Substance and Credibility and Stands Completely Refuted

By Stephen Austin, August 2016 (Updated May 2017)

I have analyzed just about every major anti-Valtorta argument and article in the English language and have either referred to another person’s refutation or wrote one myself which demonstrates that the arguments and articles in question are based on errors/falsehoods, methodological and logical fallacies, deficient theology, ignorance of relevant facts, wrenching of statements out of context with false unsubstantiated insinuations, or unsubstantiated subjective impressions which are contradicted by those of greater learning and authority than the critics. In the case of the Resistance Dominican anti-Valtorta article, this proves to also be the case, as we shall see.

In this current analysis and rebuttal, I will refer to the Dominicans as “Resistance Dominicans”. If you want to know what I mean by this term, click here for a brief explanation.

Below is a Table of Contents of the various parts of the refutation of Resistant Dominican’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.


The Very First Sentence of the Resistance Dominican’s Article is an Easily Provable
Factual and Historical Falsehood (and, Furthermore, is, in Fact, Calumny)

Refuting Their Erroneous Statements Concerning the Historical Audience of Pope Pius XII
(Which Was Undeniably Documented in the Vatican Newspaper – Which, Not Surprisingly,
They Were Ignorant of, Like So Many Other Relevant Facts)

Refutation of What the Resistance Dominicans Wrote About
the Anonymous Explanatory Letter in the L'Osservatore Romano

Refutation of Their First Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

Refutation of Their Second Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

Refutation of Their Third Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

Refutation of Their Fourth Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

Refutation of Their Fifth Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

Refutation of Their Sixth Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

Refutation of Their Seventh Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

Refutation of Their Eighth Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

Refutation of Their First Failed Attempt to Demonstrate a Contradiction with the Canonized Gospels

Refutation of Their Second Failed Attempt to Demonstrate a Contradiction with the Canonized Gospels

Refutation of Their Third Failed Attempt to Demonstrate a Contradiction with the Canonized Gospels

Refutation of Their Groundless Accusation of Sensualities

About the Full Sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre Wherein He Mentions Valtorta and a Refutation
of Their Isolated Partial Quotation and Incomplete Analysis of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Words
(and a Reference to a Full Analysis)

A Refutation of the Concluding Paragraph of the Resistance Dominicans

An Analysis and Refutation of Their Footnote #4

Addressing Their Recommendation of Fr. Herrbach’s Book and Reasons Why His Analysis is Inadequate and Erroneous, Especially Compared to the Analysis, Writings, and Testimonies of More Qualified, Trustworthy World-Renowned Theologians Who Have Studied Valtorta's Writings in Depth for Years
and Who Actually Met and Closely Investigated the Author in Question

References



The Very First Sentence of the Resistance Dominican’s Article is an Easily Provable
Factual and Historical Falsehood (and, Furthermore, is, in Fact, Calumny)

The Resistance Dominicans wrote:

Maria Valtorta died in 1961 “in an incomprehensible physical [sic] isolation” (in an insane asylum).

The above sentence contains a blatant falsehood, which is easily proven to be a falsehood to anyone who consults relevant sources, which I will get to shortly. However, I want to address something else first. This statement seems calculated to give the readers the impression that Maria Valtorta was somehow untrustworthy as a person and a Catholic and that therefore, the entire summation of her writings from earlier in her life, is thus somehow untrustworthy or suspect. This is false reasoning and lacks substance. This also constitutes a type of character assassination and calumny since it is inaccurate. Furthermore, it is biased since they do not take into account the testimonies of those who attested to her virtues and holiness, those who assisted at her deathbed, or the high esteem that many trustworthy high-ranking clerics held her in, including after her death. For evidence of this, read what Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M. (world-renowned Mariologist and pre-Vatican II Consultant to the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints), did after her death. I’ll provide some details below:

Maria Valtorta died on October 12, 1961. An article relates: “The rector of the Third Order of the Servants of Mary, Fr. Innocenzo M. Rovetti, assisted her at her deathbed. At the very moment the priest recited the words: Proficiscere, anima Christiana, de hoc mundo (“Depart, o Christian soul, from this world”), Maria breathed her last. Ten years after Maria Valtorta’s death, on October 12, 1971, her mortal remains were exhumed from the earth and placed in the family niche. On the 2nd of July 1973, however, with civil and ecclesiastic permissions, they were transferred from Viareggio to Florence to be entombed in the Capitular Chapel in the Grand Cloister of the Basilica of the Most Holy Annunciation [the mother church of the Servite Order], where the tomb of Maria Valtorta is still venerated.”1 Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., world-renowned Mariologist, wrote that after her death, “People noticed that her right hand – with which she had written so many sublime texts – contrarily to her left hand, retained the color, suppleness, and beauty of someone alive rather than dead.”2 Fr. Roschini presided over the relocation of the remains of Maria Valtorta from Viareggio to the Grand Cloister of the Basilica of the Most Holy Annunciation, including presiding over the Mass, giving the appropriate discourse for this occasion, and giving the blessing for her burial.3 The inscription on her tomb reads: “Divinarum Rerum Scriptrix” (Writer of Divine Things).

For more details about Fr. Roschini and Valtorta, see this article: Fr. Gabriel Roschini’s Strong Approval of Valtorta and Her Work (Greatest Mariologist of the 20th Century).

As a side note, the Resistance Dominicans start out the very first sentence of their article with a typo. I think they intended to write “psychological”, not “physical”, because it is most probably the case that they took this expression from the Preface written for The Poem of the Man-God, which uses the exact phrase “psychological isolation”, when it mentions her Alzheimer’s-like state that she began entering into during the very last part of her life after she had offered also her intelligence to God as a victim soul.4 However, typos are not the least of the errors of their article, because their article’s factual errors, methodological and logical fallacies, distortions and misrepresentations, and unsubstantiated subjective accusations are far worse than typos, even though such a basic typo that makes their sentence lose logical sense does shed some evidence on the minimal amount of scholarly effort and review that they put into their article.

The Resistance Dominicans did not provide any evidence that Maria Valtorta was in an insane asylum, which is not surprising since this is a patent falsehood. Maria Valtorta died in her house which is proven not only by the priest who was praying over her in her very last moments, but also by the two men who did an imprint of her face after her death, and you can see the photograph taken right after her death showing her dead body lying on the bed where she had lived for so many years. It is also evident from the testimonies of many others that she died in her own bed in her own house, where she had spent the vast majority of her time during the last decades of her life. Furthermore, Maria’s live-in companion and housekeeper for 26 years, Marta Diciotti, wrote a detailed account of Maria Valtorta’s life during those 26 years, which has been published in Italian under the title Una vita con Maria Valtorta: Testimonianze di Marta Diciotti (A Life with Maria Valtorta: Testimonials of Marta Diciotti, 528 pages, 1987; not yet translated into English). In this book she describes how the only institution or clinic Maria Valtorta visited for any length of time during the last part of her life was for the second half of September 1961 for some examinations in the clinic of "Suore dell'Addolorata" in Via Manzoni, Pisa. That is the only time she was away from her room in her home for any length of time during the last years of her life when she had succumbed to symptoms of Alzheimer’s. If you investigate this clinic, you will see that it was an ordinary medical clinic (and still is) and wasn’t even close to being what could be called “an insane asylum”.

Furthermore, all the documents regarding the staying of Maria in Pisa (from the 16th to the 29th of September 1961) and all the examination results are in the hands of the CEV (Centro Editoriale Valtortiano) Foundation.

It was 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 spoke with the Mother Superior of the Nuns and together agreed to do these examinations in Pisa. The personal doctor of Maria Valtorta wanted these examinations because her ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate) was extremely high and therefore he was quite sure that somewhere there was a cancer, and one of the highly aggressive types, but they did not know where without an examination. However, from the examinations done in Pisa, it was excluded that there was any cancer and this made Maria's doctor very disconcerted. Marta recalls how he investigated all the results of the examinations very carefully and then said, “I didn't expect this! The ESR is extremely high. There is a cancer here. Somewhere there must be.”5

When Maria Valtorta was back in her house, on the morning of the 30th, her condition was very serious. The ambulance that brought her back home had to go very slowly because Maria had a syncope on the 28th, because the radiologist doing the X-rays did not take into account the serious state of the patient.6

It is very clear from the detailed accounts of Marta Diciotti that Maria Valtorta was not insane. Marta had in fact discovered a letter that Maria Valtorta had written to Madre Teresa wherein she confided to her that she (Valtorta) had offered her intelligence to God as the last thing she could offer Him as a victim soul, after having previously offered her body as a victim soul to God and taken private vows of virginity, poverty, and obedience.7 And Maria Valtorta did indeed make this offering of her intelligence to God. Marta explains many times in detail in her book the condition Maria Valtorta was in and what she did during those last years. For instance, the Sunday before Valtorta’s death, when she was already in critically bad condition (she was to die the following Thursday), while Marta was following on the radio a beatification ceremony in Rome, while praying the litanies in Latin, Valtorta answered at every invocation with “ora pro nobis” or “orate pro nobis” (appropriately differentiating between these responses and saying them at the correct times), until the end. Also, almost by a miracle, whenever Valtorta was questioned about her work by priests or authorities during the last years of her life, she came out of her Alzheimer’s-like state and was able to offer coherent, intelligent responses.8 For most of the rest of the time during the last 8.5% of her life, she was in a state similar to (if not precisely) Alzheimer’s. This is not insanity. This was a form of suffering she offered up to God and is a state that many other saints and renowned clerics, religious, and lay faithful have suffered down through the centuries in their later years. Maria Valtorta was extremely holy.

Now, just to completely demolish the calumnious insinuation of the Resistance Dominican’s (and presumably of Fr. Herrbach’s as well if they got this idea from his book), and for the sake of a devil’s advocate argument, even if Valtorta had been placed for years in the equivalent institutional care that all other Alzheimer’s patients were placed in at the time (whatever label you want to apply to such hospitals), that wouldn’t have any bearing on her personal character or the holy life and profound writings she wrote before she developed her Alzheimer’s.

It should be noted that there have been numerous saints, victim souls of Our Lord, and even just plain holy and devout ordinary Catholics of notable repute throughout the centuries who suffered a type of suffering as Maria Valtorta had undergone in the latter years of their life (whether it was Alzheimer’s or whatever other type of sickness engulfed the life or aging mind of the patient). One famous example is St. Martin, the holy father of St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus, who suffered a similar fate as Maria Valtorta (coincidentally, he also offered himself as a victim soul of sorts to God, just like Maria Valtorta). He is known to have lost the faculties of his mind towards the end of his life. Such suffering of St. Martin and Maria Valtorta is not in the least an indication of lack of holiness nor does it cast doubt on the obvious soundness of Valtorta’s mind that she possessed during the first 91.5% of her life, prior to her catatonic state that she started entering into during the last 8.5% of her life.9 As a victim soul, she suffered many intense and varied illnesses (attested to by dozens of witnesses). They began with a fatal blow to her spine when she was younger (an injury that eventually caused a cascade of many nervous system ailments). It is very reasonable to infer that her illnesses would consume also her mind later on in life — not unlike the countless famous and world-renowned people who lived honored lives and suffered the horrible psychological isolation of Alzheimer’s later on in life. I doubt that the Dominicans would so carelessly calumniate all the devout Catholics, clerics, and even princes and kings throughout the centuries who suffered from Alzheimer’s or a similar illness in their later years.

It is noteworthy that another critic of Valtorta tried to use this same tactic of calculated calumny and failure of distinction against Valtorta. Read the middle section with the heading entitled “Fr. Benedict Groeschel & Mark Slatter” in the following URL: Maria-Valtorta.net: Response to Notable Critics.

If you click the rebuttal, you can read the whole text. I will quote only a short excerpt from it:

Dr. Pisani believed that Maria Valtorta succumbed to Alzheimer's disease in her final days, which affects 1 in 85 people towards the end of their lives. Symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease are commonly described as withdrawal, as well as psychological and social isolation. Rev. Mark Slatter writes: "Her personal life raises serious questions". Because she had Alzheimer’s? Following this line of reasoning, are we now to consider the "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" speech to be the ravings of a crazy person? Are we to start questioning the life works of former President Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston, Rita Hayworth, etc.?

[…] It is important to remember that unethical cynics insulted Jesus to His face when he was alive and walking. Now they insult deceased holy people by diagnosing them with whatever they like without ever meeting them. Notwithstanding that "The Catholic Herald" (Britain’s Leading Catholic Newspaper) touts Saint Thérèse of Lisieux as "The Greatest Saint of Modern Times", unethical cynics took the liberty of writing books performing psychological analysis of the saint's character, concluding that she was mentally ill and neurotic:

• Ida Friederike Gorres, "The Hidden Face: A Study of St. Therese of Lisieux", page 83, London, 2003.

• Karen Armstrong, "The Gospel According to Woman: Christianity’s Creation of the Sex War in the West", page 234, London, 1986.

• Monica Furlong, "Therese of Lisieux", page 9, London, 2001.

• Jean Francois, "La Verdadera Infancia do Teresa de Lisieux: Neurosis y Santidad", Passim, Spain, 1976.

You can see the above rebuttal for a further development of the above points, which reinforces the groundlessness of the insinuation and calumny in the Resistance Dominican anti-Valtorta article. The Resistance Dominicans are no better than the anti-Catholic liars and poor researchers who calumniated St. Thérèse of Lisieux in just the same way.

The falsehood that Maria Valtorta was in an insane asylum has not only been thoroughly disproven by evidence, eyewitness accounts, and facts; but these accounts also objectively demonstrate that the Resistance Dominicans did not adequately research the topic at hand, did not consult primary sources, and are guilty of misinformation and calumny against a truly saintly victim soul. If the Dominicans are just and honest, they will publicly correct their falsehood and publicly apologize for their calumny. However, based on their behavior in the past few years, more than a few traditional Catholics wouldn’t be holding their breath that the Resistance Dominicans are capable of such acts of humility and honesty at this point, although we should give them the benefit of the doubt in charity and continue to pray for them.

If they got this falsehood and calumny from Fr. Herrbach’s book (which they reference for more details), he owes a public correction and apology as well.

In a dictation that Maria Valtorta received from her guardian angel, he said something that seems applicable here:10

“Many are the learned, but few those who join justice to learning. And why? Because they know what God is, but do not want to take this knowledge from the brain to the heart, to the spirit, and they are learned, but they are not just, and do not evolve from human into spiritual creatures. They are great in pride, but they are not great in obedience. Bold in judging, but fainthearted in loving.”

The greatest commandment is charity (Matthew 22: 36-40). If the Resistance Dominicans are truly seeking to practice the virtues of charity and justice, they need to publicly correct their falsehood and publicly apologize for their calumny against a saintly victim soul, a public falsehood that has already misled people and for which they need to take responsibility.

Refuting Their Erroneous Statements Concerning the Historical Audience of Pope Pius XII
(Which Was Undeniably Documented in the Vatican Newspaper – Which,
Not Surprisingly, They Were Ignorant of, Like So Many Other Relevant Facts)

The Dominicans wrote:

Her confessor Father Migliorini, claims to have been received in audience with Pope Pius XII alongside Father Berti, in February 1948 and the Pope is supposed to have said to them to publish this work, adding ” Whoever reads it, will understand“. This oral authorisation of the Pope seems very unlikely: The Pope could only have given the authorisation of the work if he had read it and been assured of its orthodoxy; but how would the Pope have found the time to read these 10,000 pages? This authorisation appears even less credible when the Holy Office forbade the work definitively (with no possible correction) one year later in February 1949.

All the issues brought up in the above paragraph are thoroughly and entirely addressed, and the accusations of the Resistance Dominicans refuted, in the subchapter of this e-book entitled “The Statements and Actions of the Popes Regarding the Poem of the Man-God”. For a short introduction to the history of the imprimaturs Valtorta’s work has received over the years, see: An Analysis and Refutation of All the Top Anti-Valtorta Articles.

However, I will also expound on the facts here, although I refer readers to the above e-book for a complete and more thorough exposition of all of the relevant facts.

The fact that the Resistance Dominicans did not come even close to “doing their homework” on this subject matter and did not come even close to consulting all the relevant sources is aptly shown by their statement “Her confessor Father Migliorini, claims to have been received in audience with Pope Pius XII alongside Father Berti, in February 1948”. By the fact that they use the words claims to have been received” suggests that Fr. Migliorini and Fr. Berti were lying and that there is no proof of this. This is quite an accusation. Furthermore, these priests (especially Fr. Berti) are not the type of priests who you would automatically presume to be lying without providing any sort of evidence. In fact, the Church teaches that the virtues of charity and justice demands that we must not make accusations against other people unless we have proof. The Dominicans lack both proof and a high level of probability; therefore, their insinuation that these renowned priests were lying is a sin of calumny (apparently, calumniating Valtorta and smearing her reputation with a falsehood wasn’t enough so they also want to calumniate priests as well without evidence). Even Scripture states: “Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19, Douay-Rheims).

The Dominican’s groundless accusation/insinuation that these priests were lying about their audience with Pope Pius XII wouldn’t be so damning for the Dominicans if there were not concrete, hard evidence proof that both of these priests did, in fact, have this audience that they claimed. But, fortunately, there is this proof. Below is a photocopy of the front page of the February 27, 1948, edition of the Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. Underneath, you can see a close-up of the section (highlighted in yellow) where it explicitly states that Pope Pius XII received in a private audience Fr. Andrea M. Cecchin (Rector of the International College of the Servants of Mary), Fr. Romualdo M. Migliorini, and Fr. Corrado M. Berti.

L'Osservatore Romano, February 27, 1948, Pope Pius XII Audience

L'Osservatore Romano, February 27, 1948, Pope Pius XII Audience About Maria Valtorta

Close-up

L'Osservatore Romano, February 27, 1948, Pope Pius XII Audience About Maria Valtorta Close-Up

It is to be noted that Fr. Romualdo M. Migliorini had been a Prefect Apostolic in Africa. Fr. Andrew M. Cecchin was the Prior of the International College of the Servites of Mary in Rome. Fr. Corrado M. Berti, O.S.M., was a 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. Fr. Berti was the theologian assigned by the Servites in 1946 to study Maria Valtorta’s writings in depth, as she was a Third Order Servite.

We have already refuted the supposition and accusation of the Resistance Dominicans that Fr. Cecchin and Fr. Berti were lying in their claim to have had a private audience with the Sovereign Pontiff.

Now the Resistance Dominicans try to deny the assertion of the papal audience members that the Pope commanded them to publish the work and that the Pope had said, “whoever reads it will understand.”

Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.D. (Doctor of Sacred Theology), responds:11

It has been objected that Pope Pius XII never gave approval for The Poem of the Man-God since this approval was not printed in the February 27, 1948 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, which documented the papal audience of Pius XII with Father Migliorini, Father Berti, and Father Cecchin, spiritual directors and custodians of The Poem of the Man-God. There is no substantial reason to doubt the oral statement granted by Pope Pius XII during a papal audience given to the spiritual director of Maria Valtorta, Father Romualdo Migliorini, O.S.M., Father Berti, O.S.M., and Father Andrea Cecchin, Prior of the Order of the Servants of Mary (papal audience, February 26, 1948; L'Osservatore Romano, February 27, 1948), whereby they record the words of the pope saying, "Publish this work as it is. There is no need to give an opinion about its origin, whether it be extraordinary or not. Who reads it, will understand. One hears of many visions and revelations. I will not say they are all authentic; but there are some of which it could be said that they are." Speculations on "how much was read" by Pius XII whether in "whole or in part" posed to undermine the oral statement of Pius XII, as faithfully transmitted by the Prior of the Order of the Servites of Mary, would represent speculation without factual foundation.

An article relates concerning the papal audience with Pope Pius XII:12

“Some critics have attempted to discredit its authenticity, however without citing any real evidence to the contrary. Thus, we have not found any reason for rejecting the testimonies of these three priests as a mistake or a lie, especially given their distinguished repute (Prior of the Servites of Mary in Rome, Professor of Dogmatic Theology, and Prefect Apostolic in Africa). It may also be worth mentioning, in a court of law in the United States, only two eyewitnesses are necessary to convict someone with the death penalty.”

Fr. Berti’s signed testimony is available here:
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.html
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.

Another 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).

It is obvious to any scholar of Valtorta that this papal audience was about the topic of Maria Valtorta and her mystical writings. This is absolutely unquestionable. Fr. Migliorini was Maria Valtorta’s spiritual director from 1942 to 1946 and Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M., 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 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.

He visited Maria Valtorta often (totaling over 180 visits). He attested many times – including in his signed testimony on December 8, 1978 – to her holiness and virtue. He was well acquainted with Valtorta and her writings, including before this papal audience. In fact, he stated in his signed testimony written on December 8, 1978, in Rome:13

I knew Maria Valtorta in 1946, and, given the fact that she lived close enough to my mother, I often met with her at least once a month until the year of her death in 1961.

I read and annotated (by myself from 1960 to 1974; with the help of some confreres from 1974 on) all the Valtorta writings, both edited and unedited.

I can certify that Valtorta did not, by her own industry, possess all that vast, profound, clear, and varied learning which is evident in her writings. In fact, she possessed, and at times consulted, only the Catechism of Pius X, and a common popular [Italian] Bible.

Since Maria was a humble and sincere woman, we can accept the explanation which she herself furnished about her learning: attributing it to supernatural visions and dictations, besides her natural skill as a writer. And this is also the opinion of Miss Marta Diciotti who assisted Valtorta for 30 years, and who today receives so many visitors in Valtorta's little room.

Finally, this is also the opinion of the editor, Dr. Emilio Pisani, who hears the written and oral echo of very many readers.

Hence, it is obvious that the subject matter of this papal audience was Valtorta and her writings. What events led up to this papal audience?

Fr. Corrado Berti, Secretary of the Pontifical Marianum Theological Faculty in Rome from 1950 to 1959, relates in a signed testimony that he wrote on December 8, 1978: “Since the writings of Maria Valtorta present themselves as emanating from supernatural visions and dictations, [in 1946] I took council with two very experienced persons, that is, with his Excellency Msgr. Alphonsus Carinci, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and vicar for the Causes of the Saints; and with Rev. Augustin Bea, S.J., confessor of Pope Pius XII, and rector and professor of the Pontifical Biblical Institute of Rome. Both [who approved her writings] advised having typewritten copies of such writings conveyed to his Holiness Pope Pius XII, through a prelate of the Secretary of State. Pius XII became personally acquainted with these writings, as I was assured by the bearer himself of the typescript.”14

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.15 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.”16 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.”17 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 1948.18 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."19 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).20

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!”21

The Pope has the right to command a work to be published. Though this should be obvious, let us illustrate this principle with a published quotation from Cardinal Gagnon, who is an expert in this field. In 1944, the future Cardinal Gagnon wrote in his doctoral thesis on book censorship:

“Since the Supreme Pontiff is vested with the fullness of power and is the immediate pastor of all the faithful (canon 218 [in the 1918 Code of Canon Law]), he could, before anyone else and with his supreme authority, approve a book and grant it the Imprimatur. As far as we know, he has not yet done so” — [remember, this was written in 1944] — “since the modern [ecclesiastical] laws of preventive censorship.” (Translated from Fr. Edouard Gagnon. La censure des livres. Sainte-Foy (Quebec), Université Laval, Faculté de Droit canonique, 1944. p.178)

Prof. Leo A. Brodeur, M.A., Lèsl., Ph.D., H.Sc.D., wrote:22

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.

Prof. Leo A. Brodeur, M.A., LèsL., Ph.D., H.Sc.D., wrote:23

On February 26, 1948, Pope Pius XII, during an official special audience mentioned in the Osservatore Romano the following day, had much to say about The Poem of The Man-God.

"Pubblicate quest'opera così come sta, senza pronunciarvi a riguardo dell'origine straordinaria o meno di essa: chi legge, capirà. Si sente parlare di tante visioni e rivelazioni. lo non dico che tutte siano vere; ma qualcuna vera ci può essere."

"Publish this work just as it is, without giving an opinion about its origin, whether it be extraordinary or not. Who reads it, will understand. [Nowadays] one hears of many visions and revelations. I do not say they are all authentic; but some of them can be authentic."

Pope Pius XII was a very strict conservative who did his utmost to destroy heresies. Also, he had been a Church diplomat and had mastered the art of prudent understatement. Therefore, when he said, in the context of a special audience whose purpose was to discuss the future of The Poem of The Man-God, that some visions and revelations in his day and age could be said to be authentic, he was very diplomatically, very guardedly letting on that he deemed the visions described in The Poem of The Man-God to be authentic.

During that special audience, Pope Pius XII spoke as a superior to someone in front of two other witnesses. By the canon law in force then, such an oral statement carried as much weight as a signed document. The fact that he said to publish a typescript just as it is, thus constituted more than an imprimatur. That is because the word imprimatur merely means "it may be printed." Here the Pope did not merely say that The Poem of The Man-God may be printed; he said: "Publish this just as it is."

Everyone should respect such an initiative by a Pope, the supreme visible authority in the Church, especially when he was known to be unflinchingly traditional. Un-traditional people do not like Pope Pius XII precisely because he was such a bastion of tradition.

For all his efforts as a good practicing Catholic and Vicar of Christ on earth from 1939 to 1958, the beatification procedures for Pope Pius XII were begun by Pope Paul VI on March 12, 1964.

Pope Pius XII was a serious, scholarly man who always double-checked everything personally before signing anything or saying anything. He was a pillar of the Church, a staunch defender of Catholic doctrine. If the contents of The Poem of The Man-God were fine by such a great Pope, how come we still find people opposing The Poem of The Man-God?

These documented words of Pope Pius XII are considered by many leading scholars, journalists, and dozens of bishops to be a fact. For example, Antonio Socci is a leading Italian journalist, author, and public intellectual in Italy. He had his own television show, which he hosted, and is a prominent media personality, especially for topics on the Catholic Church. He has regularly held press conferences for cardinals (including Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Bertone). He is well known among many Catholics because of his book The Fourth Secret of Fatima, which is one of the most prominent books about Fatima (in particular, the Third Secret of Fatima) in recent times. Recently, Antonio Socci wrote an article about the Poem of the Man-God that was originally published in an Italian newspaper and which he also published on his blog on April 7, 2012, in which he highly praises the Poem, saying:24

These are exceptional pages, which practically contain all four Gospels and fill in missing periods, solving so many enigmatic points or apparent contradictions.

Reading these pages is not only an extraordinary adventure for the mind since it reveals everything you would want to know and illuminates every truth, but it also changes your heart and changes your life.

Above all, it confirms the veracity of all the dogmas and teachings of the Church, of St. John, St. Paul, and of all the Councils.

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. [emphasis added]

Notice what he said about Pope Pius XII above. Bishop Johanan-Mariam Cazenave, the Secretary of the Syrian-French Synod, wrote a preface for Jean-François Lavère’s 339-page book entitled (in Italian) L’Enigma Valtorta (The Valtorta Enigma), (in French) L´énigme Valtorta, Une Vie de Jésus Romancée? (The Valtorta Enigma, a Fictionalized Life of Jesus?), and (in German) Das Rätsel Valtorta: Das Leben Jesu in Romanform?. Jean-François Lavère’s book was released in June 2012. The English translation of this book has been completed and will be released soon. In this preface, the Bishop writes:25

This remarkable work could not have been done fifty years ago. Maria Valtorta died in 1961; it was during the blackest years of the War that she was inspired with l’Evangile tel qu’il m’a été révélé [The Gospel as it was Revealed to Me]. Pope Pius XII, Sovereign Pontiff reigning at that time, issued on this publication a positive discernment: “Publish this work as it is. There is no need to give an opinion as to its origin, whether it is extraordinary or not; those who read will understand.” The word of a Pope is not without value and is based on the sentiment that the Pontiff shared with his contemporaries, that this text is orthodox. Pius XII, better than anyone, is the guarantor that the Work [of Valtorta] does not betray in any way the Canonical Gospels and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church; he therefore recommends this reading.

Honest scholars recognize that there is far more evidence that Pope Pius XII said these words than there is evidence that he never said these words or evidence that the three priests (of distinguished repute) in audience with the Pope were all lying.

The Pope commanded them to publish her writings. I also consider his oral command to publish her writings as equivalent to or better than an imprimatur, because 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."

If the Resistance Dominicans refuse to believe that his command to publish her work constitutes something equivalent to an imprimatur, Valtorta supporters really don’t care. Valtorta supporters would take a command to publish any day over an imprimatur (mere “permission to publish”).

Furthermore, Valtorta supporters do not need merely the affirmation of Pope Pius XII to know that her work has been determined by competent ecclesiastical authorities to be free from error in faith and morals. Why? For the following reasons:

1. 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 of Valtorta’s work 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.”26

2. The official letter of endorsement of Bishop Roman Danylak, S.T.L., J.U.D., Titular Bishop of Nyssa, for the English translation of The Poem of the Man-God is available here: Official Letter of Endorsement of Bishop Roman Danylak (Dated June 24, 2001). The conclusion of his letter states: “This major work of Maria Valtorta, The Poem of the Man-God, is in perfect consonance with the canonical Gospels, with the traditions and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.”

Bishop Roman Danylak also stated: “I have studied The Poem in depth, not only in its English translation, but in the original Italian edition with the critical notes of Fr. Berti. I affirm their theological soundness, and I welcome the scholarship of Fr. Berti and his critical apparatus to the Italian edition of the works. I have further studied in their original Italian the Quaderni or The Notebooks of Maria Valtorta for the years from 1943 to 1950. And I want to affirm the theological orthodoxy of the writings of Maria Valtorta.”27

It is to be noted that Bishop Danylak has a License in Sacred Theology and Doctorates in both Canon Law and Civil Law from the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome.

3. The Malayalam translation of Maria Valtorta’s work The Poem of the Man-God was granted an imprimatur by Bishop (later Archbishop) Soosa Pakiam M. of Trivandrum, India, on March 17, 1993. A photocopy of this signed imprimatur letter is available here: Official Letter of Imprimatur of Bishop Maria Callist Soosa Pakiam (Dated March 17, 1993).

4. In 1992, seven bishops sent warm letters of congratulations to the publisher of the Malayalam translation of The Poem of the Man-God, all of them heartily approving The Poem of the Man-God and its translation and dissemination. These seven bishops include:

• Cardinal Antony Padiyara of Ernakulam-Angamaly
• Archbishop Gregorous, D.D., of Trivandrum
• Bishop Benjamin of Darjeeling
• Bishop D'souza of Pune
• Bishop (later Archbishop) Kundukulam of Trichur
• Bishop Kureethara of Kochi
• Bishop (later Archbishop) Soosa of Trivandrum

Computer-scanned signed original letters of each of these seven bishops' approvals are downloadable and viewable online here: Maria-Valtorta.net Document Library. In his signed letter, Bishop Kureethara wrote, “No flaws in theological or moral matters are seen. On the contrary, I see this as the best work to study more deeply, understand, and interpret the Gospels.” In his signed letter, Bishop Kindukulam wrote, “There is nothing contrary to faith and morals in this work. Blessings for an extensive circulation of the Malayalam translation of this work.”

5. Archbishop Alberto Ramos of Belem, Brazil, granted the imprimatur to an anthology of The Poem of the Man-God that was published in 1978.28

6. In 1992, Cardinal Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gave permission for her work to be published. In a letter dated May 6, 1992 (Prot. N. 324-92), addressed to Dr. Emilio Pisani (the publisher of Maria Valtorta’s works), Monsignor Dionigi Tettamanzi, secretary to the Italian Episcopal Conference, gave permission for the work to continue to be published for the “true good of readers and in the spirit of the genuine service to the faith of the Church.”29 Dr. Pisani relates concerning this letter:30

Our comment immediately points to the conclusion that the Work of Maria Valtorta does not contain errors or inaccuracies concerning faith and morals; otherwise Monsignor Tettamanzi would have asked the Publisher to correct or eliminate such specific errors or inaccuracies “for the true good of readers.”

Monsignor Tettamanzi did not even ask that any form of expression that declares the supernatural origin of the Work be corrected, because he maintained that the only declaration that the Publisher had to make at the beginning of the volumes would be enough “for the true good of readers,” and to act “in the spirit of an authentic service to the faith of the Church”: thereby signifying that the content of the Work is sound. In fact, the Church has condemned books that are contrary to faith and morals and which did not claim to be a revelation or even inspired at all.

Approved in content and exonerated in its form. This is how we can sum up the latest position taken by the Ecclesiastical Authority on Maria Valtorta’s Work.

Such a position was confirmed verbally to the publisher, Emilio Pisani, in the Palace of the Holy Office at the Vatican, 30 June 1992. On that occasion, he learned that the letter of the Secretary General of the CEI had been suggested by an office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as it had been decided “on High” that the Work of Maria Valtorta could be read by everyone “like a good book.”

Everything had returned to where it first started, in essence, to the views expressed unofficially by Pope Pius XII before the Holy Office blocked attempts to publish the Work without any prior accurate examination. In the Audience granted 26 February, 1948 to three Religious of the Order of the Servants of Mary, the Pope, who had previously had the typewritten documents, advised him to publish the work without a preface that would illustrate the nature of this Work and without any formal editing. He concluded: “The reader will understand.” (We refer to the chapter on p. 61). […]

Note that in each country, it was the secretary of the episcopal conference who transmitted the official position of the Church on such works. Regardless of the reason that the first edition was placed on the Index, the placement of the first edition on the Index of Forbidden Books was effectively nullified by those who approved the second and subsequent editions. See footnote 31 for more details.31 Her writings cannot be considered condemned or forbidden for contemporary Catholics.

Archbishop Nuncio Apostolic Monsignor Pier Giacomo De Nicolò said in his homily on October 15, 2011, for the 50th anniversary of Maria Valtorta’s death in the Basilica of the Annunciation in Florence, Italy:32

...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. [emphasis added]

For the most in-depth examination of all things concerning Maria Valtorta and her work I recommend the e-book A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta's Extraordinary Work, which can be downloaded here: A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work.

So if the Resistance Dominicans deny the words of Pope Pius XII which were documented by reputable, trustworthy eyewitnesses, one of whose signed letter we have available, then that is their own issue of not wanting to be “confused with the facts” and their arguments about the canonical status of Maria Valtorta are still refuted because her work has received numerous imprimaturs and episcopal endorsements since then and the latest pronouncement by the Holy Office (a.k.a., the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) includes the granting of permission to the publisher to publish it and the faithful to read it (something the Holy Office would not do if it were 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 her work 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.

For a very good overview of why Valtorta’s work cannot any longer be considered forbidden for Catholics to read, see Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.D’s (Doctor of Sacred Theology) article: In Response to Various Questions Regarding "The Poem of the Man-God".

It is very interesting to note that the Resistance Dominicans don’t hesitate to look at all sorts of qualifiers and factors when analyzing the case of Archbishop Lefebvre and the founding of the SSPX to explain why the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre by the Pope was invalid, why his suspension a divinis was invalid, why he was right in disobeying certain commands of the Pope, why and how he was unjustly treated by Rome, etc., but they seem to be quite unwilling to adequately investigate qualifiers and necessary factors in the analysis of the case of Maria Valtorta’s work, thus betraying a notable level of inconsistency (some might even say hypocrisy). They – like many of Valtorta’s critics – like to present an erroneous 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” (The Resistance Dominicans are a traditional Catholic religious order who highly reveres Archbishop Lefebvre and the position he took and considers that the Pope’s excommunication of him was invalid. What a poignant situation that shows how, if they want to avoid hypocrisy, they cannot claim the Hierarchy made a mistake with Archbishop Lefebvre – an assertion they defend 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).

The Resistance Dominicans believe her work has been condemned. 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 the Dominicans say is true, why and how has her work received multiple imprimaturs from bishops and favorable statements from several Popes (one of whom was pre-Vatican II), and was granted approval for publishing in 1992 by Monsignor Dionigi Tettamanzi, secretary to the Italian Episcopal Conference? 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.

I want to address the current canonical status of Valtorta’s writings in terms of the Index of Forbidden Books in further depth.

To start out, I recommend readers check out the article of Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.D. (Doctor of Sacred Theology) where he succinctly explains why The Gospel as Revealed to Me / The Poem of the Man-God cannot any longer be considered forbidden to Catholics and why every Catholic is free to read it. He also refutes some of the most popular (flawed) objections to Valtorta's work. His article can be read here: In Response to Various Questions Regarding "The Poem of the Man-God".

Throughout the history of the Church, many times books that were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books were later removed from the Index. Even the works of St. Thomas Aquinas were condemned on January 18, 1277 by Pope John XXI, and the condemnation later annulled.33 Venerable Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God was examined for fourteen years and afterwards placed on the Index of Forbidden Books for three months, before it was later vindicated by Pope Clement XI who strictly prohibited the Mystical City of God from ever being put on the Index of Forbidden Books again in two decrees of June 5, 1705 and September 26, 1713. Her Mystical City of God was furthermore vindicated by two Popes of the past century who went so far as to give an Apostolic Blessing to readers and promoters of the Mystical City of God, much in contrast to the actions of the Hierarchy which once put this work on the Index of Forbidden Books.34

The placement of a work on the Index was not an infallible act, and, contrary to popular belief, was not always done because a book had an error against faith or morals or was obscene. Other reasons for why books were placed on the Index of Forbidden books were for disciplinary reasons, or simply because a book requiring prior Church approval before publishing was published without prior approval (not necessarily because of harmful content), or because it was judged that the book might be dangerous for groups of people at that time in history (and when the conditions changed such that such dangers were no longer present, these books could be removed from the Index).35 During the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII, the pontiff revised the Index of Forbidden Books and dropped about a thousand books from it.36 He also overhauled the rules at that time, something done by Popes multiple times during the history of the Index, with the last one being the abolishment of the Index by Pope Paul VI in 1966.

In the case of the first edition of Maria Valtorta’s main work, The Poem of the Man-God, it is clear from the explanatory letter which accompanied the notification of its placement on the Index that the reason for its placement on the Index was not due to any errors against faith or morals, but because of a disciplinary matter due to allegedly grave disobedience by an unspecified person (presumably Fr. Berti).

Fr. Berti gives details of relevant events and facts in his signed testimony. The charge of disobedience is untrue and perhaps represents a misunderstanding on the part of some individuals. The explanatory letter did not tell the whole story nor did it even mention a name of who was supposedly disobedient. The facts are that Fr. Berti chose to obey the order of Pope Pius XII who had commanded him to publish the work in 1948. The two officials in 1949 called him to a private meeting the year after the Pope had commanded him (in front of two other eyewitnesses) to publish it. They refused to let him speak so that he could tell them the Pontiff’s command to publish it. The Pope had higher authority and jurisdiction than these two officials. He was given contradictory orders and so he obeyed the orders of the highest authority (the Pope). Regardless, what is relevant for this present discussion is his testimony of how Fr. Giraudo, O.P., Commissioner of the Holy Office, later gave permission to continue publication of the second edition in 1961.

First, let’s give some details about Fr. Berti. Fr. Berti was a 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. He is one of the three priests who had an audience with Pope Pius XII about the Poem of the Man-God wherein Pope Pius XII commanded him to publish the Poem of the Man-God “just as it is”. Fr. Berti is also the one who supervised the editing and publication of the critical second edition of the Poem and provided the extensive theological and biblical annotations that accompany that edition and all subsequent editions. Fr. Berti wrote in his signed testimony on December 8, 1978: “I read and annotated (by myself from 1960 to 1974; with the help of some confreres from 1974 on) all the Valtorta writings, both edited and unedited.”37

Fr. Berti was an extremely learned and traditional/orthodox scholar who thoroughly analyzed Maria Valtorta’s writings and provided more than 5,675 scholarly footnotes and appendices for her work, including for difficult passages that critics have or could potentially criticize. This averages about 568 footnotes per volume and averages slightly more than one footnote per page throughout the whole 5,264 printed pages. In 1961, the second critical Italian edition of the Poem of the Man-God, published by Knight Michele Pisani's son Emilio Pisani, contained these scholarly footnotes and appendices by Fr. Berti. The subsequent editions, including the current fourth edition released in 2001, have many of these footnotes.

Below is an excerpt from his signed testimony on December 8, 1978 (note that Fr. Berti refers to himself in the third person):38

8. SECOND EDITION OF "THE POEM OF THE MAN-GOD"

Sir Michael Pisani was not impressed by the aforesaid Life of Jesus being placed on the Index. But feeling somewhat aged and suffering, he instead entrusted the task of publishing the Valtorta writings to his son, Doctor Emilio Pisani, a doctor of jurisprudence and at that time in the prime of life.

It was then that the Pisani Publishing House, with full confidence in God's help and in the future, conceived and decided on the publication of a second edition of The Poem, with a better cover and better paper, with newer and cleaner type, and in less thick volumes. Moreover, Dr. Emilio asked Fr. Berti to provide the new edition with explanatory notes of difficult passages, and to point out the biblical substrata of the Work. The edition was provided also with illustrations redacted by professor Lorenzo Ferri, under the personal guidance of Maria Valtorta.

Thus this Work on the Gospel came out in ten fine volumes, provided with an introduction and notes, and was pleasing to all. The previously mentioned Fr. Gabriel M. Roschini, consultant of the Holy Office, customarily repeated that such a new 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.

9. ATTEMPTED INTERVIEW WITH HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI

Fr. Berti was nevertheless always worried and very anxious because of the placing of The Poem on the Index, though it was only of the first edition; and, in his confidence of having the decision revoked and obtaining security for the Second edition, he began by asking for an audience with Msgr. Pasquale Macchi, the faithful and dynamic private secretary of Pope Paul VI. (1963).

Msgr. Macchi engaged in an amiable dialogue with Fr. Berti for about an hour during which, with lively astonishment, he was heard to repeat that the Work was not on the Index and that the Pope [Paul VI], when he was Archbishop of Milan, had read one volume, had appreciated it and sent the whole Work to the Seminary [of Milan].

The secretary accepted the various volumes of the Second edition, which had meanwhile come out, but after a few days, he diplomatically had them returned to Fr. Berti with a note in which he suggested that [Fr. Berti] direct himself to the Secretary of State, in the event he wished to approach His Holiness in person. And thus evaporated the desire and project of an interview with Paul VI.

10. THE HOLY OFFICE AUTHORIZES THE SECOND EDITION

In December of 1960, Fr. Berti was called to the Holy Office and was received by Fr. Mark Giraudo, O.P., Commissioner of that Congregation, who was very amiable. Fr. Berti, seeing that this time he could handle it calmly, related to the Commissioner the words ("Publish [it]") given in audience by Pope Pius XII in 1948, and brought to him photostats of the certifications on the Life of Jesus [i.e., The Poem...] by Maria Valtorta —three of these certifications turned out to be drawn up by the consultants of the Holy Office, that is, those by Fr. [later, Cardinal] Bea, S.J., by Msgr. Lattanzi and by Fr. Roschini, OSM.

Fr. Giraudo, who knew nothing of the words of Pius XII and of the certifications of these three personages of the Holy Office itself, after having received Fr. Berti many times, after having himself consulted with his Superiors and having pondered on the certifications, spoke these words: "Continue to publish this second edition. We will see how the world receives it."

And thus The Poem came out, and continues to come out, not only by order of Pius XII, but also with the approval of the Holy Office. (1961).

11. SUPPRESSION OF THE INDEX OF FORBIDDEN BOOKS

But in 1966, Pope Paul VI, who carried the II Vatican Ecumenical Council forward, as well as to its completion, who effected the reform of the Roman liturgy, who brought about the renewal of the Curia, including the Holy Office, also accomplished the courageous act of suppressing the Index of Forbidden Books on which The Poem written by Maria Valtorta had strangely been placed. And thus, from 1966 on, The Poem... found itself free of any ecclesiastical sanction.

Perhaps it was of this [Papal] act, already known only to him, that Msgr. Macchi was thinking, when in his interview he asserted to Fr. Berti that The Poem was not on the Index.

Some readers have wanted to propose the hypothesis that Paul VI had suppressed the Index just to liberate The Poem in a dignified way. But it is not known if this hypothesis, though not impossible, has any basis; and therefore it is wise not to give it out as certain.

12. VALTORTA WRITINGS EDITED THROUGH 1978

The first work published was the Life of Jesus. It was originally entitled: The Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as revealed to Little John. 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]. But that earlier title seemed a little imprudent to Valtorta herself, who imagined various other ones, yet without being satisfied with them. Then the great physician, professor Nicholas Pende, admirer of Valtorta and of her writings, suggested to her the title of Poem of Jesus. But since this title already existed for a little poetic composition, and its author protested, [the title] was retouched by Fr. Berti into: The Poem of the Man-God. And thus conceived and retouched, it pleased Maria Valtorta herself who approved it and made it her own.

Two editions, quite different, of this life of Jesus [The Poem...] have been published. The first, printed in the years 1956-59 [as stated above in #6], was very modest: four overly thick volumes, without an introduction, unprovided with even the most prudent notes. It was imperfect even as regards the text, because it did not directly reproduce the Valtorta manuscript, but a typewritten copy very unfaithful and incomplete. And this was the edition that met the difficulties described in their place (#7 above).

The second edition, instead, under the editorship of Dr. Emilio Pisani, printed in the years 1960-67 in ten manageable volumes, was redacted on the basis of a strict comparison with the original Valtorta manuscript and was provided with thousands of theological notes, especially biblical, prepared with years of intense labor by Fr. Corrado M. Berti of the Order of the Servites of Mary, professor in the Pontifical "Marianum" Theological Faculty at Rome. And this second edition is the one which has met with no trouble, but had been authorized in 1961, even by the Holy Office, now called the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as was related above in these pages at the proper place (#10 above).

Because the placement of the first edition of The Poem of the Man-God on the Index was not due to any errors against faith or morals, the reasons for why it was placed on the Index were deemed by the Holy Office in 1961 as no longer applicable and they approved its publication. In more recent times, in a letter dated May 6, 1992 (Prot. N. 324-92), addressed to Dr. Emilio Pisani (the publisher of Maria Valtorta’s works), Monsignor Dionigi Tettamanzi, secretary to the Italian Episcopal Conference, gave permission for the work to continue to be published for the “true good of readers and in the spirit of the genuine service to the faith of the Church.” Dr. Pisani relates concerning this letter, “Our comment immediately points to the conclusion that the Work of Maria Valtorta does not contain errors or inaccuracies concerning faith and morals; otherwise Monsignor Tettamanzi would have asked the Publisher to correct or eliminate such specific errors or inaccuracies ‘for the true good of readers.’”39 Note that in each country, it was the secretary of the episcopal conference who transmitted the official position of the Church on such works.

Even if critics wanted to pretend or try to argue that the placement of The Poem on the Index was due to an error against faith or morals, approval for publication of the second and subsequent editions implicitly negates the placement of the first edition of the work on the Index.

These points may help illustrate the above facts more clearly:

1. Normally, in the days that the Index was maintained, after the first edition of a work had been condemned due to an error against faith or morals, the approval of the second edition of that work did not automatically reverse the condemnation of the first edition: that statement of normality assumes the normal functioning of the index used for its purpose of forbidding the reading of something heretical or immoral. If the condemnation of the first edition of something had been validly done because of proven heresy or immorality, there is nothing that could ever be done afterwards to exonerate that first edition from condemnation.

2. In the case of Valtorta’s Work, however, it has been demonstrated that the putting on the Index of its first edition was not done for heresy or immorality, because even the article in the Osservatore Romano purporting to explain why the work had been put on the Index failed to list even one heresy or one passage that promoted immorality. The end of the article revealed the real reason for the putting on the Index: it was a “punishment” due to allegedly grave disobedience. However, the article did not tell the whole story nor did they even mention a name of who was supposedly disobedient. The facts are that Fr. Berti chose to obey the order of Pope Pius XII who had commanded him to publish the work in 1948. The two officials in 1949 called him to a private meeting the year after the Pope had commanded him (in front of two other eyewitnesses) to publish it. They refused to let him speak so that he could tell them the Pontiff’s command to publish it. The Pope had higher authority and jurisdiction than these two officials. He was given contradictory orders and so he obeyed the orders of the highest authority (the Pope). Even in that meeting with those two officials, besides silencing him, they tried to get him to hand over the typescripts and manuscripts of the work to them so that they could bury them forever. Fr. Berti testified that Msgr. Pepe even verbally admitted that this was his intention, when the latter exclaimed, “Here they will remain as in a tomb.” But, even if Fr. Berti had been guilty of disobedience, the putting on the Index of the work on merely the grounds of disobedience, even grave disobedience, would not have been because of any error against faith or morals and thus is easily overturned by subsequent authorities in the Holy Office. When all of the facts (especially concerning Pope Pius XII’s command to publish the work) are brought to light, even the pretext of punishment for alleged disobedience could not justify the putting of the first edition on the Index, but even this question is a moot point at this point in history because the work has since been permitted for publication.

3. Now, what is very interesting is that the text of the first edition was not modified in any substantial way in the second, third, or fourth editions of the work. The only changes were fixes of very minor typographical mistakes or misreadings of very secondary words that had no theological or moral impact on the text. The second edition did see the addition of many footnotes and some appendices, but the underlying text was not changed as far as the theological or moral meaning went.

4. The second edition was approved for publication, which meant that the Holy Office did not consider that it contained any theological or moral errors in either the underlying text (which was substantially the same as in the first edition) or the added footnotes or appendices.

5. Because the text of the second edition contained all the contents of the first edition with no alterations that might have impacted the Faith or moral contents of the work, that means that if the text of the second edition was approved for publication, the text of the first edition was implicitly approved by the officials who approved the second edition.

6. Thus the approval of the second edition, in the particular case of Valtorta’s work, amounted to an implicit discreditation of the placement of the first edition on the Index.

7. For those who claim the placement of the first edition on the Index was due to a demonstrated error against faith or morals (which a careful examination of the explanatory letter shows it was not), were it not for the fact that no change in wording between the first and second editions of the work had an impact on its Faith and moral meaning, then one could not say that the approval of the second edition had implicitly reversed the alleged condemnation due to faith or morals of the first edition. Had there really been heresy or immorality in the first edition, then the second edition would not have escaped condemnation, because no changes had been made to the passages that would have been heretical or immoral. But because no changes with a theological or moral impact were made and the second (and later in 1992, even a newer than second) edition was approved for publication, then the first one, logically, should have been approved for publication as well (if the true reason for its placement on the Index was because of errors against faith or morals). The only other possible reasons why the first edition could have been placed on the Index would be due to disciplinary reasons, publication without prior required permission to publish (which it had in Pope Pius XII), or because it was judged that the book might be dangerous for groups of people at that time in history. By allowing publication of the second edition, these reasons are no longer considered an issue. Thus, regardless of the reason that the first edition was placed on the Index, the placement of the first edition on the Index of Forbidden Books was implicitly repealed by those who approved the second and subsequent editions.

For a far deeper and more complete analysis of this topic, see the chapter of my e-book entitled “Statements and Actions of the Popes, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Holy Office), and the Vatican Newspaper on Maria Valtorta’s Primary Work”.

The Resistance Dominicans wrote:

how would the Pope have found the time to read these 10,000 pages?

First off, it is very misleading and ignorant to claim that the Pope was handed 10,000 pages. Valtorta wrote her writings on notebooks. Her total writings that comprised The Poem of the Man-God / The Gospel as Revealed to Me constituted approximately 9,000 handwritten notebook pages (8,972 handwritten pages to be exact). When these were typed up and printed, the number of typewritten pages was significantly less. Fr. Berti testifies that the Pope was handed typewritten copies, not the original handwritten notebook pages. For example, in the modern printing of the first English edition of The Poem of the Man-God, the total summation of her work came out to approximately 4,175 pages (less than 42% the length that the Dominicans quoted). Pope Pius XII was not handed 10,000 pages. At most, he was probably handed something around 4,200 typed pages.

Second, Pope Pius XII possessed a brilliant mind and was a very capable reader and scholar. We can’t presume that he was incapable of reading all of the typewritten pages handed to him. There is no evidence to suggest that he didn’t read everything handed to him. In fact, you can look into what scientific studies have shown for how long it takes the average person to read a certain number of pages. There is a very handy website called www.readinglength.com, where you can enter in a book title, and it will estimate how many hours it would take the average person (based on the averaging reading speed of most people) to read that book. I typed in “The Poem of the Man-God”. The results showed Maria Valtorta’s Volume 1 and it stated:40

The average reader will take 16 hours, 9 minutes to read "Poem of the Man-God, Vol. 1" at a speed of 250 WPM.

The website says that this work is 782 pages (242,420 words). This comes out to about 1 minute, 14 seconds per page. Given the size of the font and from my own experience reading it, this seems reasonable. If we total up the total printed pages of all five volumes, it comes out to about 4,175 pages (I actually included all the indexes and introductory materials and copyright pages of all five volumes to be conservative, all of which probably wasn’t in the typewritten manuscripts handed to the Sovereign Pontiff). So, taking the average of 1 minute, 14 seconds per page, it would take him approximately this long to read her entire work if he read at the average reading speed of most people: 90 hours, 19 minutes, 10 seconds.

Since the evidence suggests that he was reading it over the course of about three or four months, this would be approximately 90-120 days. This means that to read her entire printed work (assuming that he read at the average reading speed of most people), he would have to have spent 45-60 minutes per day reading her work to finish it in three to four months.

To put 45-60 minutes per day into perspective to modern readers: studies say that the average American spends more than five hours per day (300 minutes per day) watching television.41 I have also heard that Pope Pius XII was among those people who do not need as much sleep each night and that he only slept five hours or less most nights. If this is true, this would afford additional explanation for how he might have found time to devote 45-60 minutes on average each day to personal spiritual reading (such as Valtorta’s work) during those months. 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.

If the Pope were interested enough in reading Valtorta’s work based on the recommendation of renowned theologians like Archbishop Carinci (see Fr. Berti’s testimony), it is reasonable to conclude that he would be able to find 45-60 minutes per day on average to read her work (obviously, some days more and some days less, depending on his schedule). Maybe he chose to make it part of his daily required spiritual reading for all we know, and for those three to four months, he read her work instead of something else that he was reading beforehand. To me – and to many others I’ve asked this question – they don’t think this is unreasonable or unrealistic. Furthermore, for those skeptics who would claim that he might not have been handed all 4,175 typed pages to read and that he was handed less, then this would substantially reduce the amount of time per day it would take him to read them. Furthermore, these estimates are based on the average reading speed of the general population. I think most biographers would agree that Pope Pius XII was of undoubtedly above-average intelligence and that his reading ability was also probably above average. It is very likely that he read faster than 250 words per minute (the average), which would also reduce the amount of minutes required each day for him to have finished reading all of the typescripts handed to him.

Therefore, considering that there is no evidence that he did not read all the typescripts handed to him, and considering that mathematically and practically it was very reasonable and possible for him to read all of them, there are no grounds to suggest that he didn’t read all of the typescripts handed to him. Besides, as Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.D. (Doctor of Sacred Theology), wrote:42

Speculations on "how much was read" by Pius XII whether in "whole or in part" posed to undermine the oral statement of Pius XII, as faithfully transmitted by the Prior of the Order of the Servites of Mary, would represent speculation without factual foundation.

Personally, I don’t really consider it a big concern if he never read all of her work or if he was not able to finish reading all of the typewritten manuscripts handed to him. He still said what he did and I consider his judgement as reliable. Besides, since the time of Pope Pius XII’s audience, there have been many renowned, highly learned theologians who have affirmed Valtorta’s work is in line with faith, morals, truth, realism, and the teaching of the Church, including those who have combed through every single sentence of Maria Valtorta’s work in the original Italian for years (in some cases, more than a decade), among them Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M., a 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 thoroughly analyzed Maria Valtorta’s writings and provided more than 5,675 scholarly footnotes and appendices for her work, including for difficult passages that critics have or could potentially criticize. This averages about 568 footnotes per volume and averages slightly more than one footnote per page throughout the whole 5,264 printed pages of the Italian edition — and some of those footnotes and appendices are quite lengthy.

These scholars and theologians also include Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M. Fr. Gabriel Roschini was a world-renowned Mariologist, decorated professor and founder of the Marianum Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome, 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:43

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). 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. 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 and the revolution in the Church that has broken out during the past 50 years. 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.”44

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).45

Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., in his last book, The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta, outlines the greatest female Marian mystics of all time:46

III. THE GREATEST FEMALE MARIAN MYSTICS

The greatest female Marian mystics in ancient and modern times are:

- St. Hildegarde of Bingen, Benedictine (1098-1179), known as “the Sibyl of the Rhine”;
- St. Mechtildis of Helfta (St. Matilda), Cistercian (1241-1299);
- St. Gertrude the Great, Cistercian (1256-1302 or 1309), the greatest mystic of the 13th century;
- Blessed Angela of Foligno, secular Franciscan (1246-1309);
- St. Bridgèt of Sweden (Birgitta) (1309-1373), “the Northern Mystic”;
- St. Catherine of Siena, tertiary Dominican (1347-1380), Doctor of the Church;
- St. Mary Magdalen of Pazzi, Carmelite (1566-1607);
- Venerable Maria de Agreda, Franciscan (1602-1665);
- St. Veronica Giuliani, Capuchin (1660-1727);
- Blessed Mary-Magdalen Martinengo, Capuchin (1687-1737);
- Servant of God Mary of St. Theresa Petit, Third Order Carmelite (1623-1677);
- Venerable Mary-Archangel Biondini, of the Handmaids of Mary (1641-1712);
- Servant of God Cecil Bay, Benedictine (1694-1766);
- Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, Augustinian (1774-1824);
- Servant of God Marie Véronique of the Heart of Jesus, founder of the Institute of the Victims of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (1825-1883);
- Guglielmina Ronconi (1864-1936);
- Servant of God Lucia Mángano, Ursuline (1896-1946);
- Maria Valtorta, tertiary of the Order of Servants of Mary (1897-1961).

Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., then writes in the preface of this same book, The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta:47

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!

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.

For a theologian, such as Fr. Roschini, O.S.M., to be so well-read and so learned as to have written 130 totally orthodox books about Our Lady, and to be a decorated professor at the Marianum Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome (which he founded), an advisor to the Holy Office, and to be called by a Pope “one of the greatest Mariologists who ever lived”, it is not presumptuous to assume that he has probably read every single great work ever written about Our Lady – including Venerable Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God, the revelations of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, the revelations about Our Lady given to St. Bridget of Sweden, and almost every single other major work about Our Lady. Yet – even so – Fr. Roschini declared: “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.” Such a declaration from such a theologian as he carries a lot of weight!

In fact, Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., had personally met Valtorta, but admitted that, at first, 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."48 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.49

There are also other renowned theologians who have affirmed her writings are free from error in faith and morals.

Archbishop Alfonso Carinci (1862-1963) was 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). 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 of the Man-God (now entitled The Gospel as Revealed to Me), writing in 1952:50

“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:51

“...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.”

Archbishop Carinci's Signed Valtorta Letter He 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”.52 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 1948.53 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.54 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.55 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.56

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. In this letter, Archbishop Carinci wrote:57

“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.”

Prof. Leo A. Brodeur, M.A., Lèsl., Ph.D., H.Sc.D. relates more details about Archbishop Carinci:58

We could list several Church personalities who highly esteemed Valtorta’s work. Let us mention only Archbishop Alphonso Carinci, Secretary of the Congregation of Rites, where he was in charge of the causes of beatification. He was also the confidant of Pope Pius XII. Born in 1862, Most Rev. Carinci outlived Maria Valtorta (1897-1961), whom he knew. He was over 100 years old when he died. He began reading some of her writings before 1948, and corresponded with her. Three times he traveled from Rome to Viareggio and visited her: in April 1948, June 1952, and January 1958. In 1952, since Valtorta was paraplegic and bedridden, he said Mass, with two Servite priests, in her bedroom. He wore the ornaments for a great feast, having borrowed them from the Santissima Annunziata basilica in Florence. Marta Diciotti, Maria Valtorta’s homemaker, knew Most Rev. Carinci, and said that he “entertained no doubts as to Maria Valtorta and her writings.” Diciotti says that he used to comfort Valtorta with these words: “He is the Master. He is the Author.” And Diciotti explains: “He used to say ‘the Author’ and write ‘the Author’ with a capital A.” Such is the witness of a great archbishop, who knew in depth the discernment of spirits, since its role is fundamental in the beatification procedures.

In fact, as a result of the findings of my research, I can provide you with the following facts (there are undoubtedly more but these are only the ones I have been able to document so far):

Valtorta Approval List
Therefore, Valtorta supporters don’t even need Pope Pius XII’s approval to maintain, argue, and prove the true reality that Maria Valtorta’s work is free from error in faith and morals and is perfectly acceptable and highly recommended for Catholics to read for generations to come. Pope Pius XII’s approval and command to publish her work is just a cherry on top; a bonus as it were. If the Dominicans don’t want to be “confused with the facts” and if they want to reject the evidence of his approval, then that’s their problem. Valtorta supporters don’t really care what the Resistance Dominicans do or don’t believe. They care about objective facts and reality.

Nor do traditional Catholic Valtorta supporters need to rely solely on what Pope Pius XII said to demonstrate that her work is free from error in faith and morals and not only acceptable, but highly recommended for traditional Catholics to read (just as Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle, FSSPX, whom Archbishop Lefebvre called “our model spiritual guide,” affirmed when he declared to the SSPX Econe seminarians, “If you wish to know and love the Sacred Heart of Jesus, read Valtorta!”).59 Fr. Barrielle’s position is also shared and substantiated by leading pre-Vatican II theologians who are more learned than most priests and layman (including the Resistance Dominicans), especially in the areas needed to judge mystical writings, and who furthermore studied it in much further depth (not to mention that many of them actually personally knew, investigated, and communicated at length with the author of the work in question). These theologians also exhibited a healthy open mind free of presumption and prejudice, humility, and a healthy understanding of and balance in the area of emotions and affections, all of which served to make their theological examination of the author and her work all the more credible, trustworthy, and objective.

The Dominicans wrote:

This authorisation appears even less credible when the Holy Office forbade the work definitively (with no possible correction) one year later in February 1949.

First off, it is very apparent from the Resistant Dominican’s article that they are highly ignorant of even basic elementary facts and historical events regarding the history of Maria Valtorta and her work. They are far from being a Valtorta scholar. If they can’t even get basic facts straight and if they have never consulted primary sources and other reliable sources, how can they expect to understand or to reliably speak on the more complicated events and issues?

Probably the #1 objection or argument raised against the Poem of the Man-God is that it was put on the Index of Forbidden Books at a certain point in time. For many uninformed Catholics, they read that and immediately throw out the Poem of the Man-God without any further consideration or research (which I did, in fact, years ago when I first encountered this bit of information).

They neglect the fact that there is significant historical evidence of many works of authentic private revelation and writings of saints being put on the Index of Forbidden Books, and then later taken off of the Index and approved and promoted by Popes. Between 1923 and 1931, Saint Padre Pio was hit with five decrees of condemnation by the Holy Office that were later reversed.60 Pope Pius XI, who reversed the ban on Padre Pio, stated, “I have not been badly disposed toward Padre Pio, but I have been badly informed.”61 St. Faustina Kowalska’s writings were put on the Index of Forbidden Books before she was later canonized. In fact, Saint Faustina’s Divine Mercy writings were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books the very same day as Maria Valtorta’s writings, and the former were vindicated by Pope John Paul II. Even the works of St. Thomas Aquinas were condemned on January 18, 1277 by Pope John XXI, and the condemnation later annulled.62 Venerable Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God was examined for fourteen years and afterwards placed on the Index of Forbidden Books for three months, before it was later vindicated by Pope Clement XI who strictly prohibited the Mystical City of God from ever being put on the Index of Forbidden Books again in two decrees of June 5, 1705 and September 26, 1713. Her Mystical City of God was furthermore vindicated by two Popes of the past century who went so far as to give an Apostolic Blessing to readers and promoters of the Mystical City of God, much in contrast to the actions of the Hierarchy which once put this work on the Index of Forbidden Books.http://www.valtorta.org.au/refutation-of-resistance-dominican-anti-valtorta-article.html#fn63" id="ref63">63 During the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII, the pontiff revised the Index of Forbidden Books and dropped about a thousand books from it.64

The Index of Forbidden Books does not participate in the infallibility of the Magisterium as such. Throwing out the Poem of the Man-God simply because it was once placed on the Index, without researching the matter further or seeking for the truth, would be equivalent to someone saying that Saint Padre Pio wasn’t holy because he was hit with five decrees of condemnation by the Holy Office in the past. That is foolish because the Holy Office was wrong and ended up saying the exact opposite later on when they reversed their condemnations and eventually went so far as to declare him a canonized saint and approved the miraculous phenomena of his stigmata and other miracles which they once erroneously declared was of no supernatural origin.

When you read the accounts of what had happened with Fr. Berti and Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office, as well as why the Poem of the Man-God was put on the Index of Forbidden Books in the first place, as well as understand the authority of Pope Pius XII’s order to publish the Poem of the Man-God, you will see that the fact that it was once put on the Index of Forbidden Books does not in any way mean it is officially condemned by the Church, or that it is declared as not inspired by God, or that it contains any errors against faith or morals.

To the contrary, the Poem of the Man-God enjoys the approbation of Pope Pius XII, whose authority supersedes the Holy Office, which the latter, in contradiction to his command to publish this work, put this work on the Index of Forbidden Books due to spurious reasons after he died (and then officials in the Holy Office/CDF later allowed the second edition to be published in 1961 and even newer editions to be published in 1992); the English translation of the Poem has received a letter of endorsement of Bishop Roman Danylak, S.T.L., J.U.D. (titular bishop of Nyssa); the Malayalam translation of the Poem has received the imprimatur of Archbishop Soosa Pakiam M. of Trivandrum, India; and the Poem has received the approbation and approval of Blessed Gabriel Allegra, many high-ranking clerics in Rome (both before and after Vatican II), and the approbation and approval of many cardinals, archbishops, bishops, theologians, and Scripture scholars (not to mention Saint Padre Pio). On top of all of this, the Index of Forbidden Books was suppressed by Pope Paul VI in June 1966, which the “issue of the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, announced that, while the Index maintained its moral force, in that it taught Christians to beware, as required by the natural law itself, of those writings that could endanger faith and morality, it no longer had the force of ecclesiastical positive law with the associated penalties.”65

As if that were not enough, the Commissioner of the Holy Office, Fr. Giraudo, O.P., effectively repealed the 1959 censure of the Poem on the Index when he stated to Fr. Berti, in 1961: “Continue to publish this second edition. We will see how the world receives it.”66 (An explanation of how the approval of the second edition effectively repealed the 1959 censure of the first edition is given in footnote 31 of this article).

In fact, even before Fr. Giraudo’s statement, Fr. Gabriel Roschini, Consultant of the Holy Office, stated in that same year that the new critical second edition of the Poem “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.”67

Furthermore, Pope Paul VI had a letter of endorsement sent to this same world-renowned Mariologist, Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., for his last book entitled The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta, which says: “The Holy Father thanks you wholeheartedly for this new testimony of your respectful regards and wishes you to receive from your labor the consolation of abundant spiritual benefits.”68 You can view this letter (dated January 17, 1974) from the Secretary of State at the following link: Letter of Appreciation from Pope Paul VI to Gabriel Roschini for His Book The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. An English translation is on this page (scroll down a little to see it): Fr. Gabriel Roschini’s Strong Approval of Valtorta and Her Work (Greatest Mariologist of the 20th Century).

An article relates:69

This letter, penned by the Secretariat of State and authorized by the Pope, undoubtedly conveys a positive tone, praising the author for his "piety and his zeal, for which this publication is the obvious result". It is illogical to conclude that the Pope would authorize such a letter, if he thought the writings were condemned or contained error. The Secretariat of State is the highest ranked curial official next to the Pope, and is considered the Popes’ "right arm". Those who question whether the letter was written with the Pope’s authorization are advised to look up the job description for the Secretariat of State, for this is what he does. Even though the Pope may not have put the pen to the paper, the implication is the same. This event falls naturally in line with the Holy Father’s action decades earlier of sending the complete writings [of Maria Valtorta] to the Milan seminary library.

Of course, the Resistance Dominicans distrust virtually almost everything Pope Paul VI did and would not hesitate to call almost everything he did modernist (and he did do very many bad things), but they must remember that he did do some good things, such as condemn contraception in Humane Vitae, which many traditional Catholics praise him for doing. Not everything he did was harmful. I consider the above action as one of the good things that Pope Paul VI did during his pontificate, analogous to the command of Pope Pius XII to publish her writings. I only include the above information about Pope Paul VI to show that, even as far back as the reign of Pope Paul VI, the Magisterium did not consider Valtorta’s writings as forbidden for reading to Catholics or else the Sovereign Pontiff would not have issued such a letter praising a publicly available 395-page Mariological study of her writings by one of the world’s leading and most learned Mariologists.

Furthermore, Bishop Roman Danylak, S.T.L., J.U.D. (who issued an official letter of endorsement of the English translation of the Poem in 2001) wrote:70

Cardinal Ratzinger [later Pope Benedict XVI] in private letters has acknowledged that this work is free from errors in doctrine or morals. The Conference of Italian Bishops has acknowledged the same in its correspondence with the current editor, Dr. Emilio Pisani.

Bishop Roman Danylak also wrote:71

“I have studied The Poem in depth, not only in its English translation, but in the original Italian edition with the critical notes of Fr. Berti. I affirm their theological soundness, and I welcome the scholarship of Fr. Berti and his critical apparatus to the Italian edition of the works. I have further studied in their original Italian the Quaderni or The Notebooks of Maria Valtorta for the years from 1943 to 1950. And I want to affirm the theological orthodoxy of the writings of Maria Valtorta.”

Fr. Kevin Robinson, FSSPX, relates:72

I received a letter from Cardinal Gagnon in Rome (Jan 3, 1992) assuring me that many good people are benefiting from Valtorta's works…

Given the genuine approval, widespread growth, and immense spiritual fruit of The Poem of the Man-God, it would be rash to deny, refuse, or fight against this great gift of God (see Gamaliel's advice, Acts 5: 38-39).

Let us not forget that even the works of St. Thomas Aquinas were at first condemned, as were the person of St. Athanasius and the writings of Saint Faustina Kowalska. Truth will find its way in the end, and the judgement of Pope Pius XII will be clearly vindicated. In 1978 an anthology [of the Poem] was published in Portuguese with the imprimatur of the Archbishop of Belem, Brazil. In India seven bishops have sent warm letters of congratulations to the publisher of the Malayalam translation. One of these bishops gave his imprimatur in 1993. Don't forget, the approval of Pope Pius XII was more than an imprimatur (permission to publish). It was an instruction to publish, given at the Vatican before official witnesses on February 26, 1948.

It is more than evident that the Holy Office/Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, starting as far back as 1961 (according to the testimony of Fr. Berti), and more certainly in recent times, does not treat or consider Valtorta’s work to be in any way forbidden for Catholics to read or to be considered on the Index any longer (which is now decommissioned anyway). Therefore, the whole issue of the Index is now outdated and a moot point.

It tends to be a sort of naive over-simplification of some uninformed traditional Catholics who are lazy researchers who conclude that the Index of Forbidden Books was somehow infallible or always correct, that the pre-Vatican II Holy Office (which condemned Padre Pio multiple times) was somehow always right and infallible, and that there were no such things as politics going on in the Vatican prior to Vatican II. This is a wrong attitude and set of beliefs. Both common sense and history thoroughly disprove such naive beliefs. The Holy Office made terrible mistakes, even long before the 20th century started (many of which were listed earlier in this article). Furthermore, Cardinal Ottaviani, the head of the Holy Office at the time, did do some good things during his time in the Holy Office on other subjects/topics, but he was certainly not infallible in his judgements, as confirmed by the fact that he avidly campaigned to have St. Padre Pio condemned multiple times by the Holy Office because “he was sure” Padre Pio was a fraud. That goes to show how infallible and reliable his judgements were on mystics and saintly souls.

For anyone interested in further information about the issue of Valtorta’s work and the Index, I recommend checking out the following chapters of A Summa & Encyclopedia of Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work:

• Statements and Actions of the Popes, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Holy Office), and the Vatican Newspaper on Maria Valtorta’s Primary Work

• An Analysis and the Full Details Regarding the First Edition of the Poem Being Placed on the Index of Forbidden Books

• A Detailed Analysis of Maria Valtorta and Her Writings According to the Traditional 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia’s Thorough Criteria for Assessing Private Revelations

The subchapter in the e-book entitled “The Position of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Holy Office)” will also give further details about how and possibly why some officials in the Holy Office worked so hard against Valtorta’s work, about an illegal proceeding, a gag order put on Fr. Berti when summoned to a “kangaroo court” type meeting of a few officials, as well as other issues which shows how and why certain members in the Holy Office succeeded in having the first edition of her work temporarily put on the Index for unjust and spurious reasons and why many of the other Holy Office officials were uninformed of the momentous contents of what Pope Pius XII said during his papal audience and were possibly misled by certain “less than honest” officials. Understanding these events helps explain to those who find it hard to reconcile the contents of the Pope’s audience with the act of the Holy Office placing the first edition of the work on the Index (after Pope Pius XII died); which, by the way, was done without giving valid and convincing reasons for doing so that can hold up to serious scrutiny apart from a non-binding highly flawed anonymous explanatory letter in L’Osservatore Romano (which has since been thoroughly refuted, and which even world-renowned Mariologist, Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., openly criticized when discussing the topic of original sin in his 395-Mariological study of Valtorta’s writings which was praised by the Sovereign Pontiff at the time).

Now, I want to point out that even if you totally disagree with me and think that the Holy Office’s condemnation of the first edition of Valtorta’s work was completely valid and licit, and you think that Fr. Berti was objectively guilty of true disobedience, then the fact still remains: it is now irrelevant because the latest pronouncement by the Holy Office (a.k.a. the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) is that the publication of her work is allowed, and they admit that it does not contain any heresy or anything against faith or morals. The Index of Forbidden Books is dissolved and Canon 1385 was suppressed in 1966 by Pope Paul VI (not that this canon was breached in the first case with Maria Valtorta’s work anyway), so now it is doubly undeniable that every Catholic is completely free to read it without any fear of it being an act of canonical or ecclesiastical disobedience. So, the opponents’ arguments regarding the original condemnation of the first edition of the Poem are already defeated.

Furthermore, for traditional Catholics, they have more than enough traditional, trustworthy, highly learned, renowned theologians who have reviewed her entire work in the original Italian who have confirmed it is free of error in faith and morals for us to trust her writings completely. In more recent times, numerous SSPX priests (among those who have actually put forth the effort and time to adequately study her writings and the relevant issues at hand), and notably, Fr. Barrielle, FSSPX, have affirmed her writings are free of errors in faith and morals and highly recommend her writings. Even the leader of the traditional Catholic Resistance, Bishop Williamson, has written multiple articles praising Valtorta’s work and has recommended people to read it.

As Camillo Corsánego (1891-1963) said, who was national president of Catholic Action in Italy, Dean of the Consistorial Lawyers, and a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome:73

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.

It has been said that the Work lowers the adorable Person of the Saviour. Nothing could be more wrong: Christians, I believe, usually after having affirmed faith in Jesus Christ, God and man, always forget to consider the humanity of the Incarnate Word, Whom He is regarded as the true God, but rarely as true Man, frustrating the invitation to many ways of sanctification, which is offered to us by the exemplary human life of the Son of God.

Anyone who reads [even] a limited number of these wonderful pages, literally perfect, if he has a mind free of prejudices, cannot not draw from them the fruits of Christian elevation.

As Fr. Kevin Robinson, FSSPX, said:74

The work continues to bring about conversions and vocations and deeper insight into the Holy Word of God. It is another weapon in our fight against Modernism… The holiest and most learned clergy I know are those who appreciate Valtorta… they continue to edify the Church resulting in many conversions and vocations… [Maria Valtorta’s writings] reveal the truth of the Gospel in a special way. They fill in the gaps. They put you in the picture. They amplify the sacred text, e.g., the Passion may be five pages in your Gospel, it is 100 pages in The Poem... It is a masterpiece of sacred literature, unlike anything ever written.

I have read about a 1,000 pages a year of Valtorta for 20 years, since Fr. (now Bishop) Williamson appointed me to run the seminary bookstore. He was led to read it by the great Retreat Master of Econe, Fr. Barrielle.

I have in my office a huge file “pro”, and a small file “con” of the works of Maria Valtorta. I have the 10-volume Italian edition for reference with its many profound footnotes. The pros far outweigh the cons.

The holiest and most learned clergy I know are those who appreciate Valtorta, including two Rome-trained Pre-Vatican II Doctors of Canon Law who only say the Tridentine Mass.

Refutation of What the Resistance Dominicans Wrote About the
Anonymous Explanatory Letter in the L'Osservatore Romano

The Dominican article then quotes four paragraphs from the L’Osservatore Romano article. I quote from my e-book below:

One of the most common quoted articles against the Poem of the Man-God is the anonymous explanatory letter published in the L'Osservatore Romano in January 1960 next to the since annulled placement of the first edition of the Poem on the Index. It is important to note that:75

L'Osservatore Romano ("The Roman Observer") is the Vatican’s newspaper, which was founded in 1861 for apologetic reasons, and, according to the Vatican website, to be "deliberately polemical and propagandist". In 1929, the newspaper relocated to within the premises of the Vatican, yet still operates as an independent entity. Strictly speaking, the newspaper is not authoritative in and of itself. Any authority it contains is dependent on whether it accurately reports information/events within the Roman Curia. While its purpose is objective reporting, it is nonetheless subject to the same dynamic as any lay run organization, which may or may not be influenced by the politics of the time.

In response to this anonymous letter, here is a thoroughly researched, very well-written article from a website which shows how the explanatory letter of condemnation published in L’Osservatore Romano does not hold up to the Norms in Proceeding in Judging Alleged Apparitions promulgated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (a.k.a. the Holy Office) and how all the reasons stated in this letter are either false, are spurious reasons, lack reasonable substantiation or evidence, or are subjective and ambiguous: A Critical Analysis of the Explanatory Letter Published in 1960.

I provide a more in-depth refutation of the explanatory letter in the subchapter of this e-book entitled “About the Anonymous Letter in the L'Osservatore Romano and a Thorough Analysis and Refutation of This Letter”. It is about three times as thorough and in-depth as the link given above.

Here are the topics I cover in this aforementioned subchapter:

Sections of the Refutation of the Anti-Valtorta L'Osservatore Romano Article
If you see that chapter, all of the paragraphs of the anonymous explanatory letter that the Resistance Dominican article quoted are thoroughly and objectively refuted.

Refutation of Their First Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

The Resistance Dominicans made a list in which they attempted to demonstrate errors in Valtorta’s work. Here is their first listed item:

Our Lord thinks that words tire now and we must have recourse to visions… of Maria Valtorta;

This statement is not only confusing and ambiguous, but they fail to provide evidence about what they are trying to insinuate and also the relevant context. Fortunately, I already thoroughly analyzed and refuted the same supposition from someone else who argued it with far superior wording and clarity than this ambiguous phrase from the Resistance Dominicans. See the sections “Refuting His First Paragraph”, “Refuting His Second Paragraph”, “Refuting His Third Paragraph”, and “Refuting His Fourth and Fifth Paragraphs” of the following rebuttal for a thorough refutation of this groundless claim: 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”.

Prof. Leo A. Brodeur, M.A., LèsL., Ph.D., H.Sc.D., wrote:76

Let us return to the alleged dogmatic or moral errors which some opponents of the Poem of the Man-God claim to find in it. The alleged errors result from the opponents’ own doing: they rarely present complete quotations, they mutilate them; they wrench the quotations out of context, when only the context gives them their proper meaning; they sometimes even go so far as to falsify certain texts. Also, the testimony of those opponents often is not credible because of their lack of knowledge in mystical theology, their ignorance of Valtorta’s work, or their prejudice against it. Some have even gone so far as to declare publicly that they had not read it and did not intend to in the least.

Refutation of Their Second Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

The Resistance Dominicans made a list in which they attempted to demonstrate errors in Valtorta’s work. Here is their second listed item:

The tree of life in the terrestrial paradise is only a symbol;

See this rebuttal: 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 “A Generalized Sexual Obsession”.

Then, in the rebuttal above, read the two quotes from Fr. Gabriel Roschini (world-renowned Mariologist, who is easily ten times more learned than the Dominicans in Mariology). For the sake of brevity, I will only quote only his second quotation (but I encourage you to read both of his quotations at the link above):79

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 [1948], 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 [1948], 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 [1949], p.490-520; 31 [1950], 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.]

Also see the commentary of Fr. Corrado Berti (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 did a detailed and thorough and proper theological analysis of what Valtorta wrote about the question at hand. Among the things he wrote, he says:78

4. Among the plants were distinguished the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil [Gen 2:9]. True trees, or only symbolic? True trees, and also a symbol and cause of reality or of real effects? [Valtorta] seems to lean toward true trees with true fruit, but with a symbolic import, if one observes the text...and note 9 of paragraph 26.

Hence, the Resistance Dominicans wrote a falsehood, which doesn’t surprise me since I can tell from their article that they carried out a cursory, superficial analysis of Valtorta’s writings most likely with a strong bias. It is also significant that they fail to mention the esteemed theologians who have studied her writings for years and provided thousands of footnotes and hundreds of pages of theological analysis, many of which dispel and address many of their groundless accusations and insinuations.

Refutation of Their Third Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

The Resistance Dominicans made a list in which they attempted to demonstrate errors in Valtorta’s work. Here is their third listed item:

The sin of Adam and Eve consisted in the use of marriage in a spirit of lust;

This is a falsehood and misrepresentation of the text of Valtorta. See this rebuttal for a complete refutation of this false claim of theirs: 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 “A Generalized Sexual Obsession”.

Refutation of Their Fourth Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

The Resistance Dominicans made a list in which they attempted to demonstrate errors in Valtorta’s work. Here is their fourth listed item:

Saint Anne gave birth without pain;

If there was any woman in the history of mankind who would be blessed with giving birth to a child without pain besides the Blessed Virgin Mary, wouldn’t it make sense that this privilege would be granted to the extremely pure and holy mother of the Ark of the Covenant herself (St. Anne)? In fact, personally, I would consider it unbecoming for the dignity and glory of Our Lady for her to have caused her saintly mother pain when she was born. How can she who is “full of grace” be a source of pain for her mother? It is not defined dogma or doctrine that St. Anne must have suffered the usual pains of childbirth simply because this is the ordinary punishment for women since the Fall of Adam and Eve. Since it is not a defined dogma or doctrine, Catholics are free to form their opinion on this matter.

In the chapter in Valtorta’s work about St. Anne praying in the Temple, Our Lord gave Valtorta the following dictation which sheds more light on the extremely high virtue and purity of the Blessed Virgin’s holy parents:79

« The just are always wise, because, as friends of God, they live in His company and are taught by Him, yes, by Him, Infinite Wisdom.

My grandparents were just and therefore they possessed wisdom. They could quote accurately from the Book, singing the praises of Wisdom from its context: "She it was I loved and searched for from my youth: I resolved to have her as my bride".

Anne of Aaron was the strong woman of whom our Ancestor speaks. And Joachim, a descendant of King David, had not sought so much charm and wealth as virtue. Anne possessed a great virtue. All holy attributes joined together like a sweet-smelling bunch of flowers to become one beautiful thing that was: this exceptional Virtue. A real virtue, worthy of being set before the throne of God.

Joachim had therefore married wisdom twice, "loving her more than any other woman": the Wisdom of God enshrined in the heart of a just woman. Anne of Aaron had not sought anything else but to join her life to that of an upright man, certain that family joy lies in uprighteousness. And to be the embodiment of the "strong woman" she lacked only the crown of children, the glory of the married woman, the justification of marriage, the one of which Solomon speaks, as for her happiness she lacked children, the flowers of a tree that has become one thing with the adjoining tree and obtains thereof abundance of new fruit, in which the two good qualities blend into one, because she had never experienced any disappointment on account of her husband.

Although she was now approaching old age and had been Joachim's wife for many years, she was always for him "the spouse of his youth, his joy, the most dear hind, the graceful fawn", whose caresses always had the fresh charm of the first nuptial evening and sweetly fascinated his love, keeping it as fresh as a flower sprinkled with dew, and as ardent as a fire continuously kept burning. Therefore, in their affliction, their childless state, they spoke to each other "words of consolation in their thoughts and troubles".

And eternal Wisdom, when the time came, besides teaching them in waking consciousness, enlightened them with dreams at night, visions of the poem of glory that was to come from them and was Most Holy Mary, My Mother. If their humility made them hesitant, their hearts trembled in hope at the first hint of God's promise. There was already certainty in Joachim's words: "Do hope… We shall gain our favour from God by our faithful love". They were dreaming of a child: they got the Mother of God.

The words of the book of Wisdom appear to be written for them: "By means of her I shall acquire glory before the people… by means of her, immortality shall be mine and I shall leave an everlasting memory to my successors". But to obtain all this they had to become masters of a true and lasting virtue which no event marred. Virtue of faith. Virtue of charity. Virtue of hope. Virtue of chastity. The chastity of a married couple! They possessed it, because it is not necessary to be virgins to be chaste. And chaste nuptial beds are guarded by angels and from them descend good children who make the virtue of their parents the rule of their lives.

But where are they now? Now children are not wanted, neither is chastity. I therefore say that love and marriage are desecrated. »

In another dictation, Our Lord said to Maria Valtorta, when speaking of chastity:80

The first chaste love of a spouse, love as that of men ought to have been, according to the Creator's thought: love without the sting of sense and the mire of malice. A love at once natural and angelic, for in the souls of Adam and his children, according to the thought creating them, there was to be the angelic purity of the spirit mingled with human tenderness, and like a flower opening sinlessly from the stem bearing it, so, without the worm of lust, love was to arise in spouses and give children to chaste marriage beds.

To be chaste does not mean to prohibit union. It means to fulfill it while thinking of God, who makes two reasoning animals into two lesser creators, and as God created the male and the female without introducing malicious thought into them and did not place in their pupils a fleshly light to reveal the flesh to the innocent, so spouses ought to make marriage a holy creation gladdened by cradles, but not sullied by lust.

Such was the pure union of St. Anne and St. Joachim, which was guarded from impurity by God to such a degree that St. Anne merited the grace to be able to give birth to the Queen of Heaven and the Queen of Angels without the usual pains that all other women (besides Our Lady) have to endure in giving birth.

In fact, in the chapter in Valtorta’s work about the death of St. Anne and St. Joachim, Valtorta received a dictation from Our Lord where He explains this privilege and this phenomenon:81

« Like a quick winter twilight when an ice-cold wind gathers clouds in the sky, the lives of My grandparents had a quick decline, after the Sun of their lives was placed to shine before the Sacred Veil of the Temple.

But it is said:

"Wisdom brings up her own sons,
and cares for those who seek her.
Whoever loves her loves life,
those who wait on her will enjoy peace.
Those who serve her, minister to the Holy One
and the Lord loves those who love her.
If he trusts himself to her he will inherit her
and his descendants will remain in possession of her
because she accompanies him in his trials.
First of all she selects him,
then she brings fear and faintness on him,
ploughing him with her discipline,
until she has tested him in his thoughts
and she can trust him.
In the end she will make him firm,
will lead him back to the straight road
and make him happy.
She will reveal her secrets to him,
She will place in him treasures of science,
and knowledge of justice".

Yes, all this has been said. The books of wisdom may be applied to all men, who will find guidance in them and a light for their behavior. But happy are those who can be recognized amongst the spiritual lovers of Wisdom.

I surrounded Myself with wise people, in My human kinship. Anne, Joachim, Joseph, Zacharias, and even more Elizabeth, and then the Baptist, are they not real wise people? Not to mention My Mother, the abode of Wisdom.

Wisdom had inspired My grandparents how to live in a way which was agreeable to God, from their youth to their death, and like a tent protecting from the fury of the elements, Wisdom had protected them from the danger of sin. The sacred fear of God is the root of the tree of wisdom, that thrusts its branches far and wide to reach with its top tranquil love in its peace, peaceful love in its security, secure love in its faithfulness, faithful love in its intensity: the total, generous, effective love of saints.

"Who loves her, loves life and will inherit Life" says Ecclesiasticus. This sentence is linked with Mine: "Who loses his life for My sake, will save it". Because we are not referring to the poor life of this world, but to the eternal life, not to the joys of one hour, but to the immortal ones. Joachim and Anne loved Wisdom thus. And Wisdom was with them in their trials.

How many trials they experienced, whilst you, men, do not want to have to suffer and cry, simply because you think that you are not completely wicked! How many trials these two just people suffered, and they deserved to have Mary as their daughter! Political persecutions had driven them out of the land of David, and made them excessively poor. They had felt sadness in seeing their years fading through without a flower that would say to them: "I shall be your continuation". And afterwards, the anxiety of having a daughter in their old age when they were certain they would never see Her grow into a woman. And then the obligation of tearing Her from their hearts to offer Her on the altar of God. And again: their life became an even more painful silence, now that they were accustomed to the chirping of their little dove, to the noise of Her little steps, to the smiles and kisses of their creature, having to wait for the hour of God, their only company being the memories of the past. And much more… Diseases, calamities of inclement weather, the arrogance of mighty ones of the earth… so many blows of battering rams on the weak castle of their modest possessions. And it is not enough: the pain for their far away creature, who was going to be left lonely and poor and, notwithstanding their cares and sacrifices, would get only the remains of Her father's property. And how will She find such remains, since they will be left uncultivated for many years, awaiting Her return? Fears, trials, temptations. And yet, loyalty to God forever!

Their strongest temptation: not to deny their declining lives the consolation of their daughter's presence. But children belong first to God and then to their parents. Every son can say what I said to My Mother: "Do you not know that I must be busy with My Father's affairs?" And every father, every mother must learn the attitude to be maintained looking at Mary and Joseph in the Temple, at Anne and Joachim in the house of Nazareth, a house which was becoming more and more forlorn and sad, but where one thing never diminished, but increased continuously: the holiness of two hearts, the holiness of a marriage.

What light is left to Joachim, an invalid, and to his sorrowful wife, in the long and silent nights of two old people who feel they are about to die? Only the little dresses, the first pair of little sandals, the simple toys of their little daughter, now far away, and memories of Her, memories… And peace when they say: "We are suffering, but we have done our duty of love towards God".

And then they were overcome by a supernatural joy shining with a celestial light, a joy unknown to the children of the world, a joy that does not fade away when heavy eyelashes close on two dying eyes: on the contrary, it shines brighter in the last hour, illuminating the truth that had been hidden within them throughout their lives. Like a butterfly in its cocoon, the truth in them gave faint indications of its presence, just soft flashes, whereas now it opens its wings to the sun and shows its beautiful decorations. And their lives passed away in the certainty of a happy future for themselves and their descendants, their trembling lips murmuring words of praise to God.

Such was the death of my grandparents. Such as their holy lives deserved. Because of their holiness, they deserved to be the first guardians of the Virgin Beloved by God, and only when a greater Sun showed itself at the end of their days, they realized the grace God had granted them.

Because of their holiness, Anne suffered no pain in giving birth to her child: it was the ecstasy of the bearer of the Faultless One. Neither of them suffered the throes of death, but only a weakness that fades away, as a star softly disappears when the sun rises at dawn. And if they did not have the consolation of having Me present, as Wisdom Incarnate, as Joseph had, I was invisibly present, whispering sublime words, bending over their pillows, to send them to sleep, awaiting their triumph.

Someone may ask: "Why did they not have to suffer when generating and dying, since they were children of Adam?" My answer is: "If the Baptist, who was a son of Adam, and had been conceived with the original sin, was presanctified by Me in his mother's womb, simply because I approached her, was no grace to be granted to the mother of the Holy and Faultless One, Who had been preserved by God and bore God in Her almost divine spirit, in Her most pure heart, and was never separated from Him, since She was created by the Father and was conceived in a womb, and then received into Heaven to possess God in glory forever and ever?" I also answer: "An upright conscience gives a peaceful death and the prayers of saints will obtain such a death for you".

Joachim and Anne had a whole life of upright conscience behind them and such a life rose like a beautiful landscape and led them to Heaven, while their Holy Daughter was praying before the Tabernacle of God for Her parents far away, whom She had postponed to God, Summum Bonum [“the highest good”; i.e., the supreme good from which all others are derived], and yet She loved them, as the law and Her feeling commanded, with a perfect supernatural love. »

I believe the clarification and details shown in Valtorta’s work more than adequately justifies the idea that St. Anne was able to give birth to the Queen of Heaven without pain. As I said earlier, if there was any woman in the history of mankind who would be blessed with giving birth to a child without pain besides the Blessed Virgin Mary, wouldn’t it make sense that this privilege would be granted to the extremely pure and holy mother of the Ark of the Covenant herself (St. Anne)? In fact, personally, I would consider it unbecoming for the dignity and glory of Our Lady for her to have caused her saintly mother pain when she was born. How can she who is “full of grace” be a source of pain for her mother? It is not defined dogma or doctrine that St. Anne must have suffered the usual pains of childbirth simply because this is the ordinary punishment for women since the Fall of Adam and Eve. Since it is not a defined dogma or doctrine, Catholics are free to form their opinion on this matter.

It is precisely those who don’t know actual Church teaching on what is and is not permitted to be believed regarding matters that have not yet been defined, who like to set themselves up as their own Magisterium and pretend that anything that is not exactly as they themselves personally think must be wrong (as if their opinion and exegesis is the highest authority on such matters). There were precisely these types of people during Jesus’ day who would not accept so many of Jesus’ teachings and would not accept Him as the Messiah because they thought they knew better and they had preconceived ideas on what the Messiah must be (Pharisees and Sadducees).

I could go on listing 24 extremely learned clerics or Doctors of Theology/Divinity/Canon Law, 7 Members or Consultants of the Holy Office/Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and 7 Saints/Blesseds/Venerables/Servants of God (not all of whom honest traditional Catholics would doubt their holiness or learning) who have all publicly praised Valtorta’s writings and recommended their use and affirmed that they are free of errors in faith and morals. All of these renowned theologians fully approved and embraced the written account of the chapters and statements under examination. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of lay faithful and dozens of bishops have also expressed approval and appreciation of the chapter in question (the Birth of Mary). The only ones who would have problems with it are those who are purposefully looking for faults, are highly uneducated in the relevant issues under examination, and are oftentimes swayed by personal bias. 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.

Many renowned theologians have read this chapter of Valtorta’s work and affirmed it is perfectly consistent with the canonized Gospels and is not only not against faith or morals, but is remarkably instructive and enlightening, including Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M. (one of the top two Mariologists of the 20th century and Consultant to the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints), Archbishop Carinci (Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites from 1930 to 1960), Blessed Gabriel Allegra, O.F.M. (world-renowned scripture scholar and theologian, whose work had the support and acknowledgement of successive popes from Pius XI to Paul VI), Msgr. Hugo Lattanzi (Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Lateran Pontifical University and Consultant to the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints), Bishop John Venancio (who taught Dogmatic Theology at a Pontifical University in Rome and was Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Portugal, from 1954 to 1972), and many others.

Now getting back to addressing the Resistance Dominicans: many theologians and exegetes have a certain view of the way things were. They form images in their mind and preconceptions and they sometimes find it disturbing to consider another view that is different or contradicts their view.

There are also other viewpoints that cannot be scientifically or historically proven. These consist of interpretations of events based on a study of Scripture (a.k.a. scriptural exegesis), archeological evidence, and historical writings of the time. This is an imperfect science and there is often room for different and contradicting interpretations and presumptions, and the best exegetes (including saints and eminent Catholic theologians) have indeed contradicted each other and disagreed with each other on many points and often throughout the centuries, including today. It is impossible to know with certainty what it was really like without being a witness (such as Maria Valtorta was through supernatural means and the two Evangelists who were Apostles, but who, nevertheless, themselves didn’t witness every event they reported – as, for example, Matthew wasn’t at the Crucifixion) and even then, what we know of the witnesses depends on the accuracy and the level of detail (and the length) of the writings of the witness in question.

Once you remove away subjective unprovable preconceptions based on what one thought things were like (which other theologians and exegetes can validly disagree with and hold their own opinion on as well), there is lack of evidence of an inability to reconcile Valtorta with the canonized Gospels or with Tradition.

You have Blessed Gabriel Allegra and other theologians such as Archbishop Carinci who affirm that Valtorta’s revelations are in accordance with the canonized Gospels, the doctrines and dogmas of the Church, and Tradition. On the other hand, you have the Resistance Dominicans who have their own personal interpretation of the historical events (such as St. Anne giving birth to the Blessed Virgin Mary) based on their own subjective understanding which is less than credible or objective as evidenced by the academic falsehoods, logical and methodological fallacies, unsubstantiated presumptions, and other errors they have fallen into in their anti-Valtorta article, time and time again, as shown throughout this refutation. Because Valtorta’s writings in this scene conflict with this critic’s personal subjective interpretation and understanding of things, they affirm that her writings must be erroneous (as if their exegesis is the authority and the measure of authenticity on this matter and above the exegesis of the likes of world-renowned pre-Vatican II exegetes more learned than them who hold the contrary position). Personally, I will put more stock in the world-renowned exegetes who actually investigated her writings much more in depth and who haven’t made fallacious arguments of the type the Resistance Dominicans have done multiple times.

I’d also like to point out that sometimes learned scholars can get so proud about their understanding, opinion, and learning and their ability to impress others or about the reputation they have, that they are opposed to contrary ideas more out of pride or a desire to be right or to maintain a certain position than out of an honest desire to find out what is correct and what is the truth. That is why Our Lord sometimes referred to “the difficult doctors” and “the ever-alive Scribes and Pharisees” in His dictations to Valtorta. Blessed Gabriel Allegra also alluded to a similar phenomenon and mentioned that it takes a certain amount of humility to reconsider previously-held (erroneous) presumptions.

Christ said to Maria Valtorta:82

One of the greatest sorrows I have is seeing how rationalism has infiltrated into hearts, even into hearts that say they are Mine. It would be useless to let the other priests share in such a gift [His revelations to Maria Valtorta]. It is precisely among them that one finds those who, while preaching Me and My past miracles, deny My Power, as if I were no longer the Christ, capable of speaking again to souls who languish for lack of My Word; nearly admitting a current incapacity on My part for miracles and for making grace powerful in a heart.

To believe is a sign of purity as well as of faith. To believe is intelligence as well as faith. One who believes with purity and with intelligence distinguishes My Voice and gathers it in.

The others quibble, argue, criticize, deny. And why? Because they live from their heaviness and not from their spirit. They are anchored to the things they have found, and do not consider that these are things that have come from men who have not always seen correctly; and even if they have seen and written correctly, they have written for their own times and have been badly understood by those of the future. They do not consider that I could have something else to say, suitable to the needs of the times, and that I am Master of saying it however and to whomever I please, since I am God and the Eternal Word Who never ceases being the Word of the Father.

Camillo Corsánego (1891-1963) was national president of Catholic Action in Italy, Dean of the Consistorial Lawyers, and a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome, and he wrote:83

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.

[…] Anyone who reads [even] a limited number of these wonderful pages, literally perfect, if he has a mind free of prejudices, cannot not draw from them the fruits of Christian elevation.

Refutation of Their Fifth Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

The Resistance Dominicans made a list in which they attempted to demonstrate errors in Valtorta’s work. Here is their fifth listed item:

Our Lady brags of her humility and her calm;

This is a flat-out falsehood. They provide no evidence of this. If they provided the quote with relevant context where they think she was doing this, I am very certain that I could expose the false reasoning and groundlessness of their argumentation. Would they consider that Our Lady was “bragging of her humility” in the canonized Scriptures when she exclaimed, “Because He has regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. He that is mighty, has done great things to me” (Luke 1: 48-49)? How many priests do you see at the pulpit during Mass exclaiming, “He has regarded my humility, and so from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. He that is mighty, has done great things to me”? Not very many because that might come off as somewhat proud. Yet was Our Lady proud in saying it in Scripture? Nope; not when you take into account the relevant context and the situation. The same thing occurs in Valtorta’s work: the context excludes the possibility that she was bragging. If she was boasting at all, it was only of the Lord and not of herself, just like St. Paul says in Scripture: “Therefore, as it is written: ‘Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.’” (1 Corinthians 1:31)

I think it is fair to say that the Resistance Dominicans have already made so many unsubstantiated accusations and objective falsehoods in their article, that they have lost all credibility, especially when it comes to making accusations without providing any reference (volume, chapter, page number), development of points, explanation, or proof. In other words, for an honest person with credibility and a solid reputation and track record, their arguments still wouldn’t hold weight without proof; but, given the track record of the Resistance Dominicans in this article, their argument without proof or reference holds even less weight than a normal person and ought to be considered false until proven otherwise, especially when you compare their analysis with the thorough and highly developed analysis of world-renowned theologians and Mariologists who investigated Valtorta’s writings for years, who affirm the contrary to what the (comparably uneducated on this topic) Resistance Dominicans claim.

Besides, if there were such basic/elementary Mariological problems with Valtorta’s text, world-renowned Mariologist, Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M. (praised by Pope Pius XII and considered as one of the most learned and top Mariologists of the 20th century), would not write in his 395-page Mariological study of Valtorta’s writings:84

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! [emphasis added]

Fr. Roschini was at least ten times (if not fifty times) more learned than the Dominicans in Mariology and you will see this if you read more about him. He is considered to be one of the top two greatest and most learned Mariologists of the 20th century and he is completely traditional/orthodox in all of his Mariology. 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). For more details, see this page: Fr. Gabriel Roschini’s Strong Approval of Valtorta and Her Work (Greatest Mariologist of the 20th Century).

Prof. Leo A. Brodeur, M.A., LèsL., Ph.D., H.Sc.D., wrote:85

Let us return to the alleged dogmatic or moral errors which some opponents of the Poem of the Man-God claim to find in it. The alleged errors result from the opponents’ own doing: they rarely present complete quotations, they mutilate them; they wrench the quotations out of context, when only the context gives them their proper meaning; they sometimes even go so far as to falsify certain texts. Also, the testimony of those opponents often is not credible because of their lack of knowledge in mystical theology, their ignorance of Valtorta’s work, or their prejudice against it. Some have even gone so far as to declare publicly that they had not read it and did not intend to in the least.

Refutation of Their Sixth Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

The Resistance Dominicans made a list in which they attempted to demonstrate errors in Valtorta’s work. Here is their sixth listed item:

She says that she redeemed women through her maternity;

We need the original context. I am quite confident considering the thorough combing through every line of her work done by world-renowned trustworthy theologians, that the statement in question is completely fine when considered in the relevant context.

Before we begin analyzing this, it is important to establish the complete legitimacy of referring to Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix.

Fr. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, O.P., wrote in The Mother of Our Savior and Our Interior Life:86

A decree of the Holy Office praises the custom of adding after the name of Jesus that of His Mother, our Co-Redemptrix, the Blessed Virgin Mary. The same Congregation has indulgenced (Jan. 22nd, 1914) the prayer in which Mary is addressed as Co-redemptrix of the human race. Since the word ‘co-redemptrix’ signifies of itself simple cooperation in the work of redemption, and since it has received in the theological usage of centuries the very precise meaning of secondary and dependent cooperation…there can be no serious objection to its use, on condition that it be accompanied by some expression indicating that Mary's role in this co-operation is secondary and dependent.

Furthermore, I quote #24 and #25 from St. Louis de Montfort’s True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary (whose book Pope St. Pius X granted an Apostolic Blessing for those who read it) about Mary’s role as Mediatrix of All Grace: 87

24. God the Son imparted to his mother all that he gained by his life and death, namely, his infinite merits and his eminent virtues. He made her the treasurer of all his Father had given him as heritage. Through her he applies his merits to his members and through her he transmits his virtues and distributes his graces. She is his mystical channel, his aqueduct, through which he causes his mercies to flow gently and abundantly.

25. God the Holy Spirit entrusted his wondrous gifts to Mary, his faithful spouse, and chose her as the dispenser of all he possesses, so that she distributes all his gifts and graces to whom she wills, as much as she wills, how she wills and when she wills. No heavenly gift is given to men which does not pass through her virginal hands. Such indeed is the Will of God, who has decreed that we should have all things through Mary, so that, making herself poor and lowly, and hiding herself in the depths of nothingness during her whole life, she might be enriched, exalted and honored by Almighty God. Such are the views of the Church and the early Fathers.

With those preliminaries, we will now begin addressing the specific objection of the Resistance Dominicans.

Pope Saint Pius X wrote in his encyclical Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (notice the bolded words below and how perfectly it matches what the Resistance Dominicans were so quick to denounce):88

Now the Blessed Virgin did not conceive the Eternal Son of God merely in order that He might be made man taking His human nature from her, but also in order that by means of the nature assumed from her He might be the Redeemer of men. For which reason the Angel said to the Shepherds: "Today there is born to you a Savior who is Christ the Lord" (Luke ii., 11). Wherefore in the same holy bosom of His most chaste Mother Christ took to Himself flesh, and united to Himself the spiritual body formed by those who were to believe in Him. Hence Mary, carrying the Savior within her, may be said to have also carried all those whose life was contained in the life of the Savior. Therefore all we who are united to Christ, and as the Apostle says are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones (Ephes. v., 30), have issued from the womb of Mary like a body united to its head.

12. Moreover it was not only the prerogative of the Most Holy Mother to have furnished the material of His flesh to the Only Son of God, Who was to be born with human members (S. Bede Ven. L. Iv. in Luc. xl.), of which material should be prepared the Victim for the salvation of men; but hers was also the office of tending and nourishing that Victim, and at the appointed time presenting Him for the sacrifice. Hence that uninterrupted community of life and labors of the Son and the Mother, so that of both might have been uttered the words of the Psalmist “My life is consumed in sorrow and my years in groans" (Ps xxx., 11). When the supreme hour of the Son came, beside the Cross of Jesus there stood Mary His Mother, not merely occupied in contemplating the cruel spectacle, but rejoicing that her Only Son was offered for the salvation of mankind, and so entirely participating in His Passion, that if it had been possible she would have gladly borne all the torments that her Son bore (S. Bonav. 1. Sent d. 48, ad Litt. dub. 4). And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world (Eadmeri Mon. De Excellentia Virg. Mariae, c. 9) and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood. […]

14. We are then; it will be seen, very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace – a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno, and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces.

Then the love of God with which she burned made her a partaker in the sufferings of Christ and the associate in His passion; with Him moreover, as if forgetful of her own sorrow, she prayed for the pardon of the executioners although they in their hate cried out: "His blood be upon us and upon our children" (Matth. xxvii., 25).

15. These principles laid down, and to return to our design, who will not see that we have with good reason claimed for Mary that – as the constant companion of Jesus from the house at Nazareth to the height of Calvary, as beyond all others initiated to the secrets of his Heart, and as the distributor, by right of her Motherhood, of the treasures of His merits, – she is, for all these reasons, a most sure and efficacious assistance to us for arriving at the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ. Those, alas! furnish us by their conduct with a peremptory proof of it, who seduced by the wiles of the demon or deceived by false doctrines think they can do without the help of the Virgin. Hapless are they who neglect Mary under pretext of the honor to be paid to Jesus Christ! As if the Child could be found elsewhere than with the Mother! [emphasis added]

So we have the Dominicans criticizing the idea that Our Lady contributed to the merits of redemption of women by means of her Divine Motherhood, and yet we have Pope St. Pius X saying, Hence Mary, carrying the Savior within her, may be said to have also carried all those whose life was contained in the life of the Savior. Therefore all we who are united to Christ, and as the Apostle says are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones (Ephes. v., 30), have issued from the womb of Mary like a body united to its head. […] These principles laid down, and to return to our design, who will not see that we have with good reason claimed for Mary that … as the distributor, by right of her Motherhood, of the treasures of His merits, – she is, for all these reasons, a most sure and efficacious assistance to us for arriving at the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ.” [emphasis added]

Matching what Pope St. Pius X said, it is interesting that St. Catherine of Sienna is quoted as having said more or less the same thing that the Resistance Dominicans denounced:89

“O Mary, Mary, bearer of the fire of love, and dispenser of mercy! Mary, Co-redemptrix of the human race, when you clothed the Word with your flesh, the world was redeemed. Christ paid its ransom with His Passion and you paid it with the sorrows of your body and soul.” [emphasis added]

St. Irenaeus wrote: “Mary is the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.”90

As a side note: it is a secondary causality completely dependent upon the all-encompassing causality of Christ; it is an instrumental causality, but it is a true causality.

In addition to these considerations, it is helpful to point to the classic parallel that Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, and many saints and Doctors of the Church have recognized: Jesus is the New Adam and Our Lady is the New Eve. In Fr. Roschini’s book, The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta, he comments on the development of this theme in the Mariology in Maria Valtorta’s writings:91

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.

Characteristics of Valtorta’s Mariology

On January 6, 1960, the Osservatore Romano published an article about Il Poema dell’Uomo-Dio [the Poem of the Man-God] as well as a stern censure against it. However, in the article it frankly admitted that we can find in this work “lessons in Marian Theology which show a complete knowledge of the latest studies by present day specialists on the matter.... These theological lessons are written in the very terms which a professor of our day would use.” The article went so far as to insinuate that a knowledgeable Marian theologian could have helped Valtorta to write her work! This admitted that the Marian doctrine in this work is accurate; which is undeniable. But, it is also undeniable that Maria Valtorta never read a Mariological treatise. She never took courses or lessons on that subject, nor was there a Mariologist to suggest to her what she wrote on the Blessed Virgin.

Maria Valtorta did not invent her Mariology on her own; that much is obvious. Nor is it in the slightest [way] possible that it could be the devil’s invention. As Most Reverend Carinci, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, cleverly put it: “the devil has too little in common with the Blessed Virgin.” (Poema, IX, 219, note 69) As we shall see, Maria Valtorta’s writings constitute the most melodious hymn rising from earth to the noble Queen of Heaven.

“My dear daughter,” [the Virgin Mary told Maria Valtorta,] “write about Me. All your grief will be comforted.” (Poem, Vol. 1, p. 11) [Jesus said:] “Find your happiness in My Mother!” (Quaderni dal 1943. p. 699. December 6)

She obeyed, she wrote and she found her delight in Mary.

There are basically three characteristics of Valtorta’s Mariology:

1. It is a new Mariology in several respects;
2. It is a vivid Mariology, for various reasons;
3. It is an eminently biblical Mariology.

1. A New Mariology

Valtorta’s Mariology is new in several respects. It sheds more light on old, traditional Mariology as it completes and renews it (always, however, “in eodem sensu eademque sententia” – “In the same sense and along the same line of thought”). One of the many reasons which led our divine Master to give us The Poem of the Man-God is:

“To restore both the characters of the Son of Man and of Mary back to their original truth. They were true children of Adam according to flesh and blood, but of Adam from when he was innocent.” (Poem, Vol. 5, p. 947)

The idea is to restore our perception of Christ and Mary. This restoration implies the overcoming of obvious omissions in the Canonical Books about the Blessed Virgin.

Jesus Himself told Maria Valtorta:

“The Gospels had described Me well enough to save souls, at least. The Blessed Virgin, however, was little known. Her personality was described incompletely; too many things were left in the dark. Now I have revealed Her. I Myself have given you this perfect account of My Mother. She is the Glory of Orderliness. . . . Her name adorns the Orderliness [of all things]. . .“ (Text dictated on Jan. 6, 1949).

The goal of this extended knowledge of Mary is to increase our love for Her. The Blessed Virgin told Maria Valtorta:

“Presently you are a child who does not know much about Me, your Mother, but one day you will know many things about Me. You will no longer know Me as one knows a nameless, distant star from its ray of light. Nor will you know Me only as an ideal or idealized being. You will know Me as a living and loving reality. You will know the heart of the Mother of God and the dear Mother of Jesus. I am a woman who understands the sufferings of women; I understand because I was not spared the worst sufferings of all. To understand the sufferings of others, I have only to remember My own. When you see all this, you will love Me as I loved My Son, with your whole being.” (Quaderni dal 1943. p. 639. December 8)

This explains why Maria Valtorta, as a writer, spared neither labor nor sacrifice.

“I don’t feel well at all,” [she admitted]. “To write wears me out. After writing, I turn into a rag doll. But I don’t hold back: I want to make other people know Her better and love Her better. My shoulders hurt? My heart fails? I get headaches? My temperature goes up? So what! As long as Mary is known, beautiful and lovable as I see Her, thanks to God’s goodness and Hers too, that’s enough for me.” (Quaderni dal 1944. p. 381. June 7)

Maria Valtorta’s work, going in Italian under the title of Il poema dell’Uomo-Dio, could just as well have been called Il poema of the Mother of God. Besides restoring and completing the evangelical form of Christ, it also restores and completes Mary’s.

We could also say that Maria Valtorta’s Mariology is new, because it presents the Blessed Virgin in a new light, it presents Her as a new creature. While apparently similar to all other pure creatures, in reality She is very different. [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]. She is a creature always engulfed in the infinite light of Her Creator, in the light of the One God in three Persons. She is a creature surrounded with an exceptional and fascinating splendor which emanates from Her unique mission. God

“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 [by God]. Generated as such. Remained such. Crowned such. Eternally such. She is the Virgin. She is the {abyss} of intangibility, of purity, of grace that is lost in the Abyss from which it emerged: in God: most perfect Intangibility, Purity, Grace.” (Poem, Vol. 1, p. 32)

Finally, Maria Valtorta’s Mariology is new, because she presents the Blessed Virgin in a new form, with new developments and new, attractive images.

One example of new developments in Maria Valtorta’s writings is the famous classical parallel Eve/Mary. None of the Fathers or ecclesiastical writers, not even all of the Fathers and writers put together, have developed this parallel in such a captivating, expansive, or complete a way as Maria Valtorta did. What is amazing is that she was totally independent of these traditional sources: they were totally unknown to her.

I think that these considerations more than adequately refute the Dominican’s groundless objection (which itself is rather ambiguous, unclear, and definitely not developed). Moreover, as I said earlier, we need the original context of their isolated quotation. No serious scholar quotes from a book he is criticizing without giving a reference. Did they merely paraphrase in their own words what Valtorta wrote or is it a word-for-word quotation? Did they misrepresent or distort what Valtorta actually wrote (which they have already done on other occasions) and did they take into account the relevant context? How do we look the quotation up if they didn’t provide a reference? (We are talking about a text of 4,200 printed pages here). I am quite confident, considering the thorough and detailed combing through every line of her work done by world-renowned trustworthy theologians and by Fr. Gabriel Roschini (one of the greatest and most learned Mariologists of the 20th century who published a 395-page Mariological study of Valtorta’s writings), that the statement in question is completely fine when considered in the relevant context.

Scripture, the writings of the saints, and Church Tradition all confirm that Mary was and is Co-Redemptrix. I would be surprised if knowledgeable Catholics were not already aware of this. The Church Fathers and Scripture frequently speak about Our Lady as the New Eve. It is obvious that Our Lady’s holy maternity contributed to the merits that she accumulated during her life as Co-Redemptrix; and, as the New Eve, that Our Lady's "Fiat" (which cancelled Eve's disobedience) contributes to the redemption of women, just as many saints have already written.

Refutation of Their Seventh Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

The Resistance Dominicans made a list in which they attempted to demonstrate errors in Valtorta’s work. Here is their seventh listed item:

She said that she saw God at her creation

And how is that a problem? In order to do a proper analysis of this objection, I would need to consult the original statement with surrounding context, just as anyone has to do when analyzing any work, including Scripture (the reference for which, in typical fashion, they fail to provide).

Their objection cannot be taken seriously if they don’t provide the reference and the relevant context. They have already proven themselves untrustworthy in being capable of accurately quoting or summarizing in their own words what Valtorta has written on other occasions in their article.

However, in general terms, the possibility that Our Lady’s soul saw God at her creation is a non-problem. As a matter of fact, the Church herself implies much more than the mere idea that Our Lady (in some form) saw God at her creation. The Church applies these Scripture verses to Our Lady on many feast days in the traditional liturgical calendar where this verse is read on her feast days:

From the beginning, and before the world, was I created, and unto the world to come I shall not cease to be, and in the holy dwelling place I have ministered before Him. And so was I established in Sion, and in the holy city likewise I rested, and my power was in Jerusalem.

And I took root in an honourable people, and in the portion of my God His inheritance, and my abode is in the full assembly of saints. I was exalted like a cedar in Libanus, and as a cypress tree on mount Sion. I was exalted like a palm tree in Cades, and as a rose plant in Jericho: As a fair olive tree in the plains, and as a plane tree by the water in the streets, was I exalted. I gave a sweet smell like cinnamon and aromatical balm: I yielded a sweet odour like the best myrrh:

And I perfumed my dwelling as storax, and galbanum, and onyx, and aloes, and as the frankincense not cut, and my odour is as the purest balm. I have stretched out my branches as the turpentine tree, and my branches are of honour and grace. As the vine I have brought forth a pleasant odour: and my flowers are the fruit of honour and riches. I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue.

Come over to me, all ye that desire me, and be filled with my fruits. For my spirit is sweet above honey, and my inheritance above honey and the honeycomb. My memory is unto everlasting generations. They that eat me, shall yet hunger: and they that drink me, shall yet thirst. He that hearkeneth to me, shall not be confounded: and they that work by me, shall not sin.

They that explain me shall have life everlasting. (Ecclesiasticus 24: 14-31)

Not only does the Church put these words into the mouth of Our Lady in the traditional liturgy, but the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary places the whole of Sirach 24 as the voice of Lady Wisdom into the mouth of the Immaculate Mary. Notice the bolded words in the above quotation.

Also, for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, the Church has the priest reading the following verse referring to Our Lady:

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His ways, before He made any thing from the beginning. I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made. The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived; neither had the fountains of waters as yet sprung out; the mountains with their huge bulk had not as yet been established; before the hills I was brought forth;

He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was present; when with a certain law and compass He enclosed the depths; when He established the sky above, and poised the fountains of waters; when He compassed the sea with its bounds, and set a law to the waters that they should not pass their limits; when He balanced the foundations of the earth; I was with Him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before Him at all times;

playing in the world; and my delights were to be with the children of men. Now therefore, ye children, hear me: Blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, and that watcheth daily at my gates, and waiteth at the posts of my doors. He that shall find me, shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord. (Proverbs 8: 22-35)

Notice the bolded words above. So if the Church, in her wisdom, is so “daring” to imply to the faithful via liturgy and the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary that Our Lady’s spirit/soul was with God at the Creation of the world, is it unreasonable to conclude that Our Lady saw God at her creation, which the Resistance Dominicans find so impossible?

I think that the above quotations more than adequately refute the Resistance Dominican’s groundless objection. Moreover, as I said earlier, we need the original context of their isolated quotation. No serious scholar quotes from a book he is criticizing without giving a reference. Did they merely paraphrase in their own words what Valtorta wrote or is it a word-for-word quotation? How do we look it up if they didn’t provide a reference? (We are talking about a text of 4,200 printed pages here). I am quite confident, considering the thorough combing through every line of her work done by world-renowned trustworthy theologians and by Fr. Gabriel Roschini (one of the greatest and most learned Mariologists of the 20th century who published a 395-page Mariological study of Valtorta’s writings), that the statement in question is completely fine when considered in the relevant context.

Refutation of Their Eighth Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

The Resistance Dominicans made a list in which they attempted to demonstrate errors in Valtorta’s work. Here is their eighth listed item:

Satan became flesh in the form of Judas.

The Resistance Dominicans again fail to provide the relevant quotation or context. However, I was able to find the passage in Valtorta’s work that they are most likely referring to. Here is the relevant citation with surrounding context (at the scene of the Last Supper), with Jesus first speaking in this excerpt:92

« […] Do not say: "So, if You chose us, why did You choose a betrayer. If You know everything, why did You do that?" Do not even ask who he is. He is not a man. He is Satan. I said so to My faithful friend and I let My beloved son say so. He is Satan. If Satan, the eternal mimic of God, had not become incarnate in human flesh, this possessed man could not have escaped My power of Jesus. I said: "possessed". No. He is much more: he is annihilated in Satan. »

« Since You have driven demons away, why did you not free him? » asks James of Alphaeus.

« Are you asking that for your own sake, fearing that you are the one? Be not afraid of that. »

« I, then? »

« I? »

« I? »

« Be quiet. I am not mentioning that name. I am being merciful, do likewise. »

« But why did You not defeat him? Could You not do that? »

« I could. But in order to prevent Satan from taking bodily form to kill Me, I should have had to exterminate the human race before Redemption. So what would I have redeemed? »

There is absolutely no problem with the above passage when you read it in context and understand hyperbole, which the canonized Scriptures itself also employs.

First, let us see what the canonized Scriptures say about whether Judas Iscariot was possessed by Satan:

“When Jesus had said these things, He was troubled in spirit; and He testified, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, one of you shall betray Me. […] Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when He had dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the morsel, Satan entered into him [Judas Iscariot].” (John 13: 21, 26-27)

The canonized Scriptures affirm very clearly that Satan entered into Judas Iscariot and that consequently he became possessed.

Jesus affirms the same thing in Valtorta’s work. However, what the Resistance Dominicans seem to be objecting to is the use of hyperbole in Our Lord’s words in Valtorta’s work, when He says:93

Do not even ask who he is. He is not a man. He is Satan. I said so to My faithful friend and I let My beloved son say so. He is Satan. If Satan, the eternal mimic of God, had not become incarnate in human flesh, this possessed man could not have escaped My power of Jesus. I said: "possessed". No. He is much more: he is annihilated in Satan.

Fr. Kevin Robinson, FSSPX, wrote:94

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. These distinctions are usually not needed for the simple faithful as the context gives them the truth without danger.

Does Holy Scripture use allegory or hyperbole similar to the literary device used in the above passage in Valtorta? Well, let’s see. This is from the Book of James:

“Even so the tongue is indeed a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold how small a fire kindleth a great wood. And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is placed among our members, which defileth the whole body, and inflameth the wheel of our nativity, being set on fire by hell. For every nature of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of the rest, is tamed, and hath been tamed, by the nature of man: But the tongue no man can tame, an unquiet evil, full of deadly poison.” (James 3: 5-8) [emphasis added]

St. James is referring to the tongue being “a fire”, “a world of iniquity”, and an “unquiet evil, full of deadly poison”. I have yet to see inside someone’s mouth a tongue which is literally “a fire”. And according to the logic of the Resistance Dominicans, that might be unacceptable or quite an exaggerated term to call a tongue “a world of iniquity.” These quotes and terms are from the canonized Scripture and their literary use is not too far off from Maria Valtorta’s use of the term “annihilated in Satan” in her personal description of her authentic vision in reference to Judas Iscariot’s complete possession by Satan, which the canonized Gospels also refer to: “Satan entered into him.” (John 13:27)

Or what about this hyperbolic expression of Our Lord:

“And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell. And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.” (Matthew 5: 29-30) [emphasis added]

It goes without saying that our critic is criticizing a type of literary device (allegory/hyperbole) that is used in the canonized Gospels themselves.

So now let us go back to what Jesus said in the passage in Valtorta. When Jesus said, “He is not a man. He is Satan.” Did He mean this properly and literally or allegorically? It is obvious from the context that He meant this allegorically (a.k.a. hyperbole). Jesus Christ has used hyperbole in the canonized Scriptures itself, as I just demonstrated above. Therefore, the Resistance Dominicans cannot “play dumb” and take it too literally here and cast out the possibility of allegory/hyperbole here and at the same time accept the allegory/hyperbole in the canonized Gospels. If they take the phrases above in Valtorta’s work only literally and insist that everyone must interpret it only literally, then if they ever sinned with their eye or hand at some point in their life, they better start plucking their eyes out and cutting off their hands right now because Jesus told us to do this in the canonized Gospels:

“And if your right eye scandalizes you, pluck it out and cast it from you. […] And if your right hand scandalizes you, cut it off, and cast it from you.” (Matthew 5: 29-30) [emphasis added]

I think their poor argument and lack of distinction and scholarly work is more than refuted and that this is obvious to anyone with at least average common sense and critical reading skills.

What about what Jesus said later on in that passage? What He said here:95

« I could. But in order to prevent Satan from taking bodily form to kill Me, I should have had to exterminate the human race before Redemption. So what would I have redeemed? »

This above phrase is merely a reference to Satan completely possessing Judas Iscariot. Satan did indeed take bodily form to kill Jesus insofar as he took possession of Judas Iscariot’s body. I advise the Resistance Dominicans to watch an exorcism and they will see very quickly that a demon does indeed take possession of the body of the one they inhabit. The canonized Gospels also relate this fact and this reality.

A demon could be said to “take bodily form” (at least in terms of allegorical speech) when it completely possesses a human body. In fact, it is well known that evil spirits can sometimes have power over matter. Just read about any exorcism (and there are hundreds of testimonies, videos, books, etc. about exorcisms). With possessed people (or even outside of them such as in haunted houses), demons are able to move objects, make objects fly in the air, make the possessed person speak in other languages, make the possessed person float in the air, cause strange smells and sights, and do all sorts of crazy activity that defies the normal laws of gravity, physics, and the normal laws of nature. Even canonized Scripture attests to how evil spirits can perform amazing feats to deceive people: “Now there was a certain man named Simon, who before had been a magician in that city, seducing the people of Samaria, giving out that he was some great one: to whom they all gave ear, from the least to the greatest, saying: This man is the power of God, which is called great. And they were attentive to him, because, for a long time, he had bewitched them with his magical practices.” (Acts of the Apostles 8:9-11) The apocryphal “Acts of Peter” gives a legendary tale of Simon Magus' death: In order to prove himself to be a god, Simon performed magic in the Forum, and levitated up into the air. The apostle Peter prayed to God to stop his flying, and he stopped in mid-air and fell, breaking his legs.96 Jesus encountered many possessed people in the Gospels, and remember how the demon-possessed man of the Gadarenes, who was possessed by a multitude of demons (Legion), had superhuman strength:

And they came over the strait of the sea into the country of the Gerasens. And as He went out of the ship, immediately there met Him out of the monuments a man with an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling in the tombs, and no man now could bind him, not even with chains. For having been often bound with fetters and chains, he had burst the chains, and broken the fetters in pieces, and no one could tame him. And he was always day and night in the monuments and in the mountains, crying and cutting himself with stones.

And seeing Jesus afar off, he ran and adored Him. And crying with a loud voice, he said: “What have I to do with Thee, Jesus the Son of the Most High God? I adjure Thee by God that Thou torment me not.” For He said unto him: “Go out of the man, thou unclean spirit”. And He asked him: “What is thy name?” And he said to Him: “My name is Legion, for we are many.” (Mark 5: 1-9) [emphasis added]

No normal man could burst chains like that unless he had preternatural help (in this case, by evil spirits). Now, could one allegorically (or by hyperbole) say that demon(s) took bodily form by entering into this possessed man and imparting to him superhuman strength? Yes, one could.

Yet how much more could one say the same of Judas Iscariot, which Scripture relates Satan entered into him (John 13:27), and about whom Christ said, “But woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born”! (Matthew 26:24) The expression “annihilation in Satan” is a very apt description of someone who was completely possessed totally (arguably more than any other man ever was or will be).

It goes without saying that the Resistance Dominican’s very weak, subjective argumentation is both absurd, unfounded, and is criticizing a type of literary device used in the canonized Gospels themselves, not to mention is in contradiction to the opinion of world-renowned theologians who have found Valtorta’s writing truly phenomenal.

As Msgr. Maurice Raffa, Director of the International Center of Comparison and Synthesis, wrote:97

...I found therein incomparable riches...Wanting to express a judgment on its intrinsic and aesthetic value, I point out that to write just one of the many volumes composing the work, it would need an author (who today does not exist) who would be at once a great poet, an able biblical scholar, a profound theologian, an expert in archaeology and topography, and a profound connoisseur of human psychology.

Camillo Corsánego (1891-1963), former national president of Catholic Action in Italy, Dean of the Consistorial Lawyers, and a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome, wrote:98

"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'].

“[...] Anyone who reads [even] a limited number of these wonderful pages, literally perfect, if he has a mind free of prejudices, cannot not draw from them the fruits of Christian elevation.”

In fact, I wrote a refutation of another critic who tried to argue that the use of the literary expression “annihiliated in Satan” was somehow a problem. If you want to see this refutation, follow these steps:

1. Download the June 2017 edition of the e-book here: http://www.drbo.org/dnl/Maria_Valtorta_Summa_Encyclopedia.pdf

2. Go to page 948.

The above refutation will reinforce this present refutation and will make it even more clear just how absolutely fine and completely acceptable these hyperbolic expressions in the passage in Valtorta under question are and how they are very much like literary devices used in the canonized Gospels themselves (in fact, they are also like the often-used allegories and hyperboles often seen in the writings of canonized saints and other approved mystical writings). Just look at St. John of the Cross’s mystical writings for starters…

I don’t hear many people criticizing The Spiritual Canticle of St. John of the Cross for its use of allegories and hyperboles, which are often used in his writings, as explained in this introduction to his Spiritual Canticle:99

Although these canticles resulted from a love flowing out of abundant mystical understanding, they cannot declare fully the understanding or experience. John asks in the Prologue: "Who can describe in writing the understanding he [the Beloved] gives to loving souls in whom He dwells? And who can express with words the experience He imparts to them? Who, finally, can explain the desires He gives them? Certainly, no one can! Not even they who receive these communications." Always, as John explains in stanza 7, there is an "I-don't-know-what" that strives to be articulated, something further to say, something unknown, not yet spoken, a sublime trace of God still uninvestigated but revealed to the mystic. The effort to convey the contents of the experience becomes sheer stammering.

Faced with an inability to make their experience clearly known and at the same time feeling a loving impulse to convey it outwardly, these persons who speak of mysteries and secrets seem to be uttering absurdities. But the apparent absurdities of the poetic images and similes are a more powerful means than rational explanations for expressing the mystical experience; they can suggest so much more about its contents. John, in fact, points out that his is the method of the Holy Spirit who, "unable to express the plenitude of His meaning in ordinary words, utters mysteries in strange figures and likenesses," as for example in the Song of Songs.

In fact the Song of Songs is the principal source of The Spiritual Canticle. In this biblical work John found an expression of his own profound experience, and also found the scenes, images, and words, even though sometimes foreign to his environment, with which to create his own work.

I would advise the Resistance Dominicans to take measures to try to further develop their common sense and critical reading skills and to educate themselves a bit more about writing styles and the issues of context when trying to interpret texts before they wrench isolated quotations out of context and, using the same feigned scandal that the Pharisees used in Christ’s day to distort His words and take His words out of context to calumniate Him, actually apply honest, objective analysis, instead of being so quick to calumniate a saintly victim soul and her profound writings in an unbalanced and unjustified witch hunt. I also 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.

Refutation of Their First Failed Attempt to Demonstrate a Contradiction with the Canonized Gospels

The Resistance Dominicans made a list in which they attempted to demonstrate a contradiction between Valtorta’s work and the canonized Gospels. Here is their first listed item:

One can note numerous contradictions with the Gospel, for example: Our Lord is supposed to have sucked with avidity the vinegar given by the soldier;

This is a meaningless objection since the canonized Gospels themselves reveals that Jesus took the vinegar:

Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar. And they, putting a sponge full of vinegar and hyssop, put it to his mouth. Jesus therefore, when He had taken the vinegar, said: It is consummated. And bowing His head, He gave up the ghost. (John 19:29) [emphasis added]

Now let’s look at the context of the passage in Valtorta’s work that they criticize:100

A soldier goes towards a jar, in which the assistants of the executioner have put some vinegar with gall, so that with its bitterness it may increase the salivation of those condemned to capital punishment. He takes the sponge immersed in the liquid, he sticks it on a thin yet stiff cane, which is already available nearby, and offers the sponge to the Dying Victim.

Jesus leans eagerly forward towards the approaching sponge. He looks like a starving baby seeking the nipple of its mother.

Mary Who sees and certainly has such a thought, leaning on John, says with a moan: « Oh! and I cannot give Him even one of My tears… Oh! breast of Mine, why do you not trickle milk? Oh! God, why do You abandon us thus? A miracle for My Son! Who will lift Me up, so that I may quench His thirst with My blood, since I have no milk?… »

Jesus, Who has greedily sucked the sour bitter drink, makes a wry face in disgust. Above all, it must act as a corrosive on His wounded split lips.

He withdraws, loses heart, abandons Himself.

An article has a question and answer that is relevant to this discussion:101

Question: John 19:29-30 tell us that Jesus received the drink that was offered to Him while on the cross. "Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, it is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." Matthew 27:34 and Mark 15:23 say that Jesus refused this drink. Is there a contradiction?

Answer: There is no contradiction. It should be remembered that Jesus was alive on Calvary’s cross for some six hours [Note: most exegetes say three hours is the correct length of time; regardless, the point of this argument remains]. A lot can transpire in six hours [three hours]. Jesus was offered drink while He was on the cross on at least two, perhaps three, separate occasions. Furthermore, Matthew 27:34 says that drink was mixed with gall, that is, something that was bitter. Mark 15:23 tells us that it was myrrh, which is a narcotic.

The ancient Jews followed a practice, based on Proverbs 31:6, of administering pain-deadening medication mixed with wine. Proverbs 31:6 says, "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts." This is what Jesus refused, according to Matthew 27:34 and Mark 15:23.

It is significant that in Valtorta’s work Jesus commented about this in a dictation where He was giving details about His Passion:102

Thirst. What a torture thirst! And yet you have seen it. Among so many, there was not one who gave Me a drop of water. From the Supper onwards, I had no refreshment. And fever, sunshine, heat, dust, loss of blood, made your Savior so thirsty.

You have seen that I refused the wine mixed with myrrh. I did not want any lenitive for My suffering. When we offer ourselves as victims, we must be victims without pitiful arrangements, compromises, mitigations. It is necessary to drink the chalice as it is offered. We must relish the vinegar and gall to the very end. Not the spiced wine that deadens pain.

Oh! the destiny of a victim is really severe. But blessed are those who chose it as their fate.

What Valtorta wrote is not only not in contradiction to the Scriptures at all, but is very enlightening. Valtorta reported what the Scriptures themselves say Jesus did in John 19:29. Not only that, her work gives a keen insight into why Jesus refused the pain-deadening mixture mentioned in Matthew 27:34 and Mark 15:23, but took the vinegar and gall as stated in John 19:29. In fact, the Resistance Dominican’s objection here and their claim that what she wrote contradicts Scripture is so patently absurd and so obviously contradicted by John 19:29, that it makes one wonder if they even have a basic grasp of Sacred Scripture, thus calling into serious question their ability to evaluate and judge mystical writings like those of Valtorta, especially as compared to the renowned theologians like Archbishop Carinci, who have already evaluated her writings far more in depth than they and affirmed that they are completely in line with Sacred Scripture.

The Resistance Dominican's erroneous objection is without any substance and stands refuted by the Scriptures themselves. What Valtorta wrote not only does not contradict the canonized Gospels, but it also provides us with keen and instructive insight into why Jesus, the Supreme Victim, refused the wine and myrrh, but chose to drink from the vinegar and gall.

Refutation of Their Second Failed Attempt to Demonstrate a Contradiction with the Canonized Gospels

The Resistance Dominicans made a list in which they attempted to demonstrate a contradiction between Valtorta’s work and the canonized Gospels. Here is their second listed item:

One can note numerous contradictions with the Gospel, for example: On the Cross Our Lord did not cease to cry out “Mommy!” and she replied: “Yes, my treasure, I am here”;

What is written above is a flat-out falsehood in more than one way. In fact, there are two distinct factual falsehoods in their statement which can be easily objectively demonstrated as falsehoods. I will first list these falsehoods and then afterwards demonstrate how they are falsehoods.

The falsehoods in the Resistance Dominicans statement include:

1. Jesus did not say “Mommy” anywhere in the original Italian or in the English translation, not only in this particular passage, but also anywhere in Valtorta’s entire work.

2. It is a misrepresentation of the text and is misleading to claim that Jesus “did not cease” to cry out for His Mother during the time He was on the Cross.

These types of basic factual errors, which could have been easily avoided if they took even a few minutes to read the actual passage in question, suggests a certain amount of laziness and bias in their research, and puts into question their entire analysis and the credibility of the rest of their arguments (not to mention, puts into question their motives, honesty, and integrity).

Prof. Leo A. Brodeur, M.A., LèsL., Ph.D., H.Sc.D., wrote:103

Let us return to the alleged dogmatic or moral errors which some opponents of the Poem of the Man-God claim to find in it. The alleged errors result from the opponents’ own doing: they rarely present complete quotations, they mutilate them; they wrench the quotations out of context, when only the context gives them their proper meaning; they sometimes even go so far as to falsify certain texts. Also, the testimony of those opponents often is not credible because of their lack of knowledge in mystical theology, their ignorance of Valtorta’s work, or their prejudice against it. Some have even gone so far as to declare publicly that they had not read it and did not intend to in the least.

So now I will address the factual errors of the Resistance Dominicans, one by one.

Resistance Dominican Error #1: Jesus did not say “Mommy” anywhere in the original Italian or in the English translation, not only in this particular passage, but also anywhere in Valtorta’s entire work.

I contacted Giovanna Busolini, a native Italian who knows the Italian language from birth. I asked her about the words Jesus used when referring to His Mother in Valtorta’s work. She wrote to me:

“In Italian nowadays (and certainly also when Maria Valtorta wrote The Gospel as Revealed to Me / The Poem of the Man-God), mamma is the only name we use to call our mother. It was not a question of confidence or of age. So it is absolutely right that Jesus calls His Mother ‘mamma', also when He is an adult. That is the English equivalent of ‘mom’ (American English) or 'mum' (British English), not ‘mummy’. The translation for ‘mummy’ could be 'mammina'. Valtorta says that when Jesus was near to death, He called her 'Mum' not ‘mummy’. The big cry of the Gospel was the beginning of the word 'Mamma', which is the name Jesus usually used when speaking in private with His mother. On the other hand, Valtorta’s work is using the Italian used in the 1940s and not an ancient Italian when the mother was always called 'mother' (madre) also in private rather than ‘mom’. The difference in the English translation may be the cause of confusion for some people who are ignorant of language. Jesus used the word 'Madre' when speaking of her with His Apostles and also when speaking with her in front of others, as a form of respect, but definitely not in private.”

If you observe the original Italian of Valtorta’s work, you will see that Jesus does indeed refer to His Mother as “Madre” when speaking of her in the third person in front of crowds, but that when He addresses her directly, He uses the Italian word “mamma” (translated as “mom” in English). Does Jesus ever refer to His Mother in the Poem as “mammina” (which would be the English equivalent of “mummy”)? I asked Giovanna, “Does the Poem ever have Jesus refer to His Mother as ‘mammina’?” She replied, “Only Marjiam used the word ‘mammina’ in chapter 170, but Jesus (even in those episodes in the Poem when He was an infant) never calls her ‘mammina’ but only ‘mamma’ or ‘madre’. No little child in Italy would ever say ‘mammina’ unless a bit more grown up past infancy, as Marjiam already was. This is because no mother would ask little babies to call them ‘mammina’: it would be too difficult for them to pronounce.”

Hence, we have a native Italian speaker who consulted the original language that Valtorta’s work was written in, who completely refuted the Resistance Dominican’s falsehood, insinuation, and poor research.

Resistance Dominican Error #2: It is a misrepresentation of the text and is misleading to claim that Jesus “did not cease” to cry out for His Mother during the time He was on the Cross.

Here are all the instances in the long chapter of the Crucifixion when Jesus, on the Cross, calls for His Mother (note that I insert bracketed ellipses in between paragraphs, which sometimes represents a gap of many pages):104

Jesus seems to be turning ominously livid, because of a beginning of putrefaction, as if He were already dead. His head begins to hang over His chest. His strength fails Him rapidly. He shivers, although He is burning with fever. And in His weakness, He whispers the name that so far He has only uttered in the bottom of His heart: « Mother! Mother! » He murmurs it in a low voice, like a sigh, as if He were already lightly delirious and thus prevented from holding back what His will would not like to reveal. And each time Mary makes an unrestrainable gesture of stretching Her arms, as if She wished to succour Him. And the cruel people laugh at such pangs of Him Who is dying and of Her Who suffers agonies.

[…] And fainter and fainter, sounding like a child's wailing, comes the invocation: « Mother! » And the poor wretch whispers: « Yes, darling, I am here. » And when His sight becomes misty and makes Him say: « Mother, where are You? I cannot see You anymore. Are You abandoning Me as well? » and they are not even words, but just a murmur that can hardly be heard by Her Who with Her heart rather than with Her ears receives every sigh of Her dying Son, She says: « No, no, Son! I will not abandon You! Listen to Me, My dear… Your Mother is here, She is here… and She only regrets that She cannot come where You are… » It is heart-rending…

[…] Further silence. Also the death-rattle becomes fainter, It is just a breath confined to His lips and throat. Then, there is the last spasm of Jesus. A dreadful convulsion that seems to tear the body with the three nails from the cross, rises three times from the feet to the head, through all the poor tortured nerves; it heaves the abdomen three times in an abnormal way, then leaves it after dilating it as if it were upsetting the viscera, and it drops and becomes hollow as is it were empty; it heaves, swells and contracts the thorax so violently, that the skin sinks between the ribs which stretch appearing under the skin and reopening the wounds of the scourges; it makes the head fall back violently once, twice, three times, hitting the wood hard; it contracts all the muscles of the face in a spasm, accentuating the deviation of the mouth to the right, it opens wide and dilates the eyelids under which one can see the eye-balls roll and the sclerotic appear. The body is all bent; in the last of the three contractions it is a drawn arch, which vibrates and is dreadful to look at, and then a powerful cry, unimaginable in that exhausted body, bursts forth rending the air, the « loud cry » mentioned by the Gospels and is the first part of the word « Mother »… And nothing else…

So I counted and in the 24 pages (11,795 words) of the chapter of Jesus’ Crucifixion in Valtorta’s work, there are three instances when Jesus says the single word “Mother”, one instance when He said “Mother, where are you?”, and one instance in His last moments when He said the first part of the word “Mother”. Given the length of time that He spent on the Cross, five instances is certainly not excessive or unrealistic. One could be legitimately surprised that Valtorta didn’t report Jesus saying it at least a few more times than that considering that He was on the Cross for about three hours. Saying this five times averages a call to His Mother 1.7 times per hour (or less than twice per hour). That cannot be judged by any sane person as being excessive considering the context and that the saints have written about how Our Lady was Jesus’ greatest comfort while on the Cross (especially since He was experiencing abandonment by the Father, cf. Matthew 27:46). Therefore, the Resistance Dominican’s derogatory, somewhat sarcastic use of the phrase “did not cease to cry out ‘Mommy!’” is not only misleading and lacking relevant context (such as the fact that the five times He said it took place over the course of three hours), but is also expressed in a rather arrogant and irreverent way. The way they worded it also betrays a certain unjustified bias.

An objective, mature, honest, and scholarly critic of Valtorta would have worded their objection like this, “In Valtorta’s work, on the Cross, Jesus cries out to His Mother multiple times.” In fact, the best of them would actually research the topic thoroughly and be more precise and say, “In Valtorta’s work, on the Cross, Jesus cries out to His Mother five times over the course of the three hours that He was on the Cross.” Instead, the Resistance Dominicans (who obviously did not read the passage carefully; otherwise, they wouldn’t have made the multiple objective mistakes they did) wrote, “On the Cross Our Lord did not cease to cry out ‘Mommy!’” What is more accurate? To say “five times” or “did not cease”? Some readers who are unfamiliar with Valtorta’s works in reading “did not cease” might in their mind think a dozen times or more, especially considering Jesus was on the Cross for three hours. If one is said to say something “unceasing” over the course of three hours, would most people conclude five times or dozens of times? Most would logically conclude dozens of times (at least certainly more than a mere five times). Hence, what they wrote is very misleading and is not a fair and objective representation of the text. Again: strong bias, rash accusations, and misrepresentation of the text is not an uncommon fault of the Resistance Dominican’s which I clearly demonstrate in multiple places in this refutation.

Furthermore, is it fitting that Jesus cried out to His Mother five times (or more) during the three hours He was on the Cross? Most certainly! It is perfectly reasonable that this could have historically happened as Valtorta described given that Our Lady’s presence, love, and support was Jesus’ single greatest consolation while on the Cross and, as St. Louis de Monfort wrote in his book True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, for which Pope St. Pius X granted an Apostolic Blessing for those who read it:105

Mary is the supreme masterpiece of Almighty God and He has reserved the knowledge and possession of Her for Himself. She is the glorious Mother of God the Son who chose to humble and conceal Her during Her lifetime in order to foster Her humility. He called Her "Woman" as if she were a stranger, although in His heart He esteemed and loved Her above all men and angels. Mary is the sealed fountain and the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit where only He may enter. She is the sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendor than anywhere else in the universe, not excluding His dwelling above the cherubim and seraphim. No creature, however pure, may enter there without being specially privileged.

I declare with the saints: Mary is the earthly paradise of Jesus Christ the new Adam, where He became man by the power of the Holy Spirit, in order to accomplish in Her wonders beyond our understanding. She is the vast and divine world of God where unutterable marvels and beauties are to be found. She is the magnificence of the Almighty where He hid His only Son, as in His own bosom, and with Him everything that is most excellent and precious. What great and hidden things the all-powerful God has done for this wonderful creature, as she herself had to confess in spite of Her great humility, "The Almighty has done great things for me." The world does not know these things because it is incapable and unworthy of knowing them.

The saints have said wonderful things of Mary, the holy City of God, and, as they themselves admit, they were never more eloquent and more pleased than when they spoke of Her. And yet they maintain that the height of Her merits rising up to the throne of the Godhead cannot be perceived; the breadth of Her love which is wider than the earth cannot be measured; the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived; and the depths of Her profound humility and all Her virtues and graces cannot be sounded. What incomprehensible height! What indescribable breadth! What immeasurable greatness! What an impenetrable abyss!

Finally, we must say in the words of the apostle Paul, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has the heart of man understood" the beauty, the grandeur, the excellence of Mary, who is indeed a miracle of miracles of grace, nature and glory. "If you wish to understand the Mother," says a saint, "then understand the Son. She is a worthy Mother of God." Hic taceat omnis lingua: Here let every tongue be silent. [emphasis added]

Therefore, I think that it is entirely historically realistic and proper to believe that Christ called out to His Mother less than twice per hour while on the Cross, whom He revered as the greatest creature and was His greatest comfort during His affliction of undergoing death on the Cross, especially considering that He was in the midst of experiencing abandonment by the Father.

Maria Valtorta received a dictation from Our Lady where she said:106

[…] "From the height of the Cross the words had descended slowly, spaced in time like the striking of hours on a heavenly clock. And I had gathered all of them in, including the ones referring least to me, for even a sigh of the Dying One was gathered in, breathed in, by my hearing, my eyes, and my heart.

"'Woman, here is your son'. And from that moment on I have given children to Heaven, begotten by my pain. A virginal birth, like my first one, this mystical birth of you for Him. I give you to the light of the Heavens through my Son and my pain. And if this giving birth, which began with those words, lacks the wails of rent flesh, for my flesh was immune from sin and from the condemnation of giving birth through pain, my torn heart wailed voicelessly with the silent moaning of the spirit, and I can say that you are born by way of the passage opened by my pain as a Mother in my heart as a Virgin.

"But the word that was the queen of that cruel April afternoon remained one alone: 'Mother!' My Son's only comfort was to call me, for He knew how much I loved Him and how my spirit was ascending onto the Cross to kiss my holy Tortured One. It was repeated more and more frequently and painfully as the agony increased like a rising tide.

"The great cry the evangelists speak about was this word. He had said everything and done everything; He had entrusted his spirit to his Father and called upon the Father in his boundless pain. And the Father had not shown Himself to the One with whom He had been well pleased until that hour and who, burdened with a world's sins, was now looked upon with severity by God. The Victim called his Mother. With a wail of lacerating pain which pierced through the Heavens, causing forgiveness to rain down from them, and which pierced through my heart, causing blood and tears to rain down from it.

"I gathered in that cry, in which, because of the contractions of death, and of that death, the word foundered in an agonizing lament, and I bore that sound within me like a sword of fire until Easter morning, when the Victor entered, gleaming more than the sun on that serene morning, more beautiful than I had ever seen Him before, for the tomb had swallowed up my Man-God and was giving me back a God-Man, perfect in his virile majesty, jubilant over the trial which had been fulfilled.

"'Mother' then, too. But – O daughter! – this was the cry of his uncontainable joy, which He shared with me by clasping me to his Heart and cleansing his Mother's kiss of the absinthe of vinegar and gall.

"Let it not cause you amazement if, on the feast of my purity, I have spoken to you of my pain. For the sake of justice, a gift of the one benefited is set against every gift of God. Every election brings with it duties which are at once tremendous and sweet and which become eternal rejoicing when the trial is over.

"The gift, on my part, of being the Mother of the Redeemer – that is, the Woman of Sorrow – had to correspond to the supreme gift of the sinless Conception. And the agony of Golgotha is the crown set upon the glory of my Immaculate Conception."

This beautiful passage above shows Our Lady’s view of the context and meaning of Jesus crying out to her on the Cross. It is remarkable! It makes perfect sense. Jesus was abandoned by the Father: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying: Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46) Hence, it only makes sense that He would cry out to the only creature who could adequately give Him some level of solace during those hours of perfect torture and the only creature who has never abandoned Him: His Mother. Even St. John the Apostle, who was present at the foot of the Cross, only came there after having abandoned Jesus by not only falling asleep during Jesus’ Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (“And He came to His disciples, and found them asleep, and He said to Peter: ‘What? Could you not watch one hour with Me?’”, Matthew 26:40), but also by abandoning Jesus by running away when the soldiers took hold of Him. Hence, even his love was imperfect. The only perfect love – the only love that could compete with the Victim’s immeasurable torture of perfect hatred to afford Him some degree of relief – would be the perfect love of His Mother. Hence, how could Jesus not call out to His Mother multiple times, even dozens of times, over the course of the seemingly endless three hours of the worst possible agony, torture, and abandonment by the Father? As a matter of fact, if Valtorta’s work recorded that Jesus cried out to His Mother dozens of times rather than reporting five times, that wouldn’t be any less of a problem than merely five times. How could Jesus not do so? How could any soul who knows the perfect love, grace, and goodness of Our Lady, not call out to her in their own final agony? In fact, faithful Catholics pray thousands of times during their life with the Hail Mary: “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.”

But maybe the Resistance Dominicans are rigidly interpreting the Scriptures in such a way that they claim that if Valtorta saw in her visions Jesus say any words on the Cross apart from the few words recorded in the canonized Gospels, that is must be an error or be historically untrue. They seem to believe that the Evangelists would have recorded every single word and syllable and every single event that happened on the Cross in the canonized Gospels. To believe that the canonized Gospels provided every single tiny word and syllable ever spoken by Jesus and that therefore, if there is anything revealed to a mystic of historical visions that is not in the canonized Gospels, that it must necessarily then be a distortion or false, is naive and represents a faulty and immature understanding of Church teaching on Scripture, private revelations, and mystical writings.

The Scriptures don’t say that everything Jesus said is recorded in their brief canonized Gospels. In fact, St. John wrote: “Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book.” (John 20:30) Also: “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)

It is obvious to Scripture scholars that the Gospels do not capture every single tiny action of Christ. Most knowledgeable biblical scholars even agree that some of Christ’s sermons and parables in the canonized Gospels are mere summaries of the fullness of what He actually historically said. Common sense confirms this. As Blessed Gabriel M. Allegra, O.F.M., a world-renowned theologian, the first one to translate the entire Bible into Chinese (whose work had the support and acknowledgement of successive popes from Pius XI to Paul VI), and the only biblical scholar of the 20th century who has been beatified, wrote:107

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.

In fact, a dictation which Maria Valtorta received from Christ Himself says (even if you doubt whether this comes from a divine origin or not, just consider the argument in and of itself):108

I know the objection by many: “Jesus spoke simply.” In the parables I spoke simply because I was addressing crowds of common folk. But when I spoke to cultured minds—Israelite or Roman or Greek—I spoke as was most appropriate for perfect Wisdom.

My words, moreover, in the versions of the Evangelists, just two of them were Apostles—and if one observes closely, they are the two Gospels most clearly mirroring Me, for Luke’s, good stylistically, may be better termed the Gospel of My Mother and My Childhood, abundantly relating details in relation thereto which the others do not narrate, rather than the Gospel of My public life, being more an echo of the others rather than a new light, as is that of John, the perfect Evangelist of the Light who is Christ the God-Man—the versions, I was saying, of My words were greatly reduced by the Evangelists, to the point of being diminished to a skeleton—more an allusion than a version. A fact which deprives them of the stylistic form which I had given them.

The Teacher is in Matthew (see the Sermon on the Mount, the instructions for the Apostles, the praise of the Baptist and the rest of this chapter, the first episode in Chapter 15 and the heavenly sign, [the subject of] divorce in Chapter 19, and chapters 22, 23 and 24). The Teacher is [also] in the luminous Gospel of John, above all, the Apostle in love, fused in charity with his Christ the Light. Compare what this Gospel reveals about Christ the Orator, to what is displayed in this regard by the essential scantiness of Mark’s Gospel—precise in the episodes he had heard from Peter, but reduced to a minimum—and you will see whether I, the Word, used only a very humble style, or whether the power of the Perfect Word did not often flash forward in Me. Yes, it shines out in John, though quite reduced in a few episodes.

Now, if to [Maria Valtorta] I have wanted to grant an increase in knowledge of Me and My teaching, why should this make you incredulous and obstinate? Open up. Open your intellects and hearts, and bless Me for what I have given you.

Jesus addresses another objection:109

When I reveal to you unknown episodes in My public life, I already hear the chorus of difficult doctors saying, “But this fact is not mentioned in the Gospels. How can she say, ‘I saw this?’” I respond to them with the words of the Gospels.

“And Jesus passed through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, and healing all the weakness and illnesses,” Matthew says. (Matthew 4:23, 9:35)

And, in addition: “Go and tell John what you see and hear: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, and the good news is announced to the poor.” (Matthew 11:4-5, Luke 7:22)

And, in addition: “Woe to you, Chorazin; woe to you, Bethsaida – for if in Tyre and Sidon the miracles worked in your midst had taken place, for a long time now they would have been doing penance in sackcloth and ashes... And you, Capernaum – will you be exalted to Heaven? You will descend to hell, for if in Sodom the miracles worked in you had taken place, it might still exist.” (Matthew 11:20-24, Luke 10: 13-15)

And Mark: “... And many people followed Him from Galilee, Judah, ldumaea, and beyond the Jordan. Many people, having heard what He was doing, also came to Him from the surroundings of Tyre and Sidon…” (Mark 3:7-8)

And Luke: “Jesus went through the cities and villages, preaching and announcing the good news and the Kingdom of God, and with Him were the twelve and some women who had been freed from evil spirits and infirmities.” (Luke 8:1-3)

And My John: “After this, Jesus went beyond the Sea of Galilee, and a great crowd followed Him because they saw the miracles worked by Him among the sick.” (John 6:1-2)

And since John was present at all the miracles of whatever nature – which I worked for three years – the beloved one bears Me this unlimited witness: “This is the disciple who has seen these things and has written them. We know that his testimony is true. There are, moreover, other things done by Jesus, and, if they were to be written one by one, I believe the world could not contain the books which would have to be written.” (John 21:24-25)

So? What do the doctors of quibbling say now?

If My goodness – to relieve a woman who loves Me and bears My cross for you... to awaken you from the lethargy in which you are dying – makes known episodes in this ministry, would you like to turn this into a reproach for that goodness?

You won’t indeed want to think that in three years I worked the few miracles narrated? You won’t think that the few women mentioned were the only ones healed, or the few miracles mentioned were the only ones worked? If the shadow of Peter served to heal (Acts 5:14-15), what must My shadow have done? Or My breath? Or My glance? Remember the woman suffering from bleeding: “If I manage to touch the hem of His robe, I shall be healed.” (Matthew 9:20-22, Mark 5:25-29, Luke 8: 43-48) And so it was.

The power of miracles issued from Me continually. I had come to take people to God and open the dikes of Love, closed by the day of sin. Centuries of love expanded like waves over the little world of Palestine. [This was] all God’s love for man, which could finally expand as He desired, to redeem men first with Love, rather than with Blood.

You may ask Me, “But why to her, who is such a poor thing?” I shall answer you when she – whom you disdain and I love – is less exhausted. You would deserve the silence I observed with Herod (Luke 23:8-9). But it is My attempt to redeem you – whom pride makes the hardest to persuade.

If you look at the scene of Crucifixion in the canonized Gospels, you will see that there are omitted sentences and phrases among the various Gospels.

John 19:30 states: “Jesus therefore, when He had taken the vinegar, said: ‘It is consummated.’ And bowing His head, He gave up the ghost.”

This passage gives the impression that the last phrase He said before dying was “It is consummated”.

Luke 23:46 states: “And Jesus crying out with a loud voice, said: ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit.’ And saying this, He gave up the ghost.”

According to this text, the last phrase He said before dying was “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit”.

Matthew 27: 46-50 states: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying: Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? […] And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.” Note that I did not omit any other spoken words of Jesus in this excerpt.

This passage gives the impression that the last phrase He said before dying was “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”

Mark 15:34 also has these as the last words of Christ that were recorded by him.

These are apparent contradictions. John 19:30 states that He said “It is consummated” and then died. It doesn’t say He said “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit” and then died. Matthew 27:50 and Mark 15:34 state that He said “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” and then died. They don’t say He said “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit” and then died. Someone would clear up this apparent contradiction by saying, “It is not a contradiction because John 19:30, Matthew 27: 46-50, and Mark 15:34 don’t exclude the possibility that He said another phrase after ‘It is consummated’ and ‘My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ before bowing His head and giving up the ghost. John, Matthew, and Mark just chose to voluntarily omit several of Christ’s last words.”

This does indeed clear up this apparent contradiction. So now let’s apply this same standard to Maria Valtorta’s description of this vision. Besides the fact that St. John completely omitted the last words of Christ detailed by Luke and omits the last recorded words recorded by two other Gospel writers, here’s an explanation of another example in the canonized Gospels where the sequence of events and time intervals aren’t according to a scientific exact precision:110

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.

As a side note, 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:111

"...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..."

Maria Valtorta reports that Our Lord said “Mother” five times during the three hours that He was on the Cross, but the Gospel writers don’t report that He said “Mother” five times. That is not a problem! What Maria Valtorta wrote during the Crucifixion scene is not only highly probable, but is perfectly consistent with Scripture when you realize that the Gospel writers didn’t (and didn’t claim to) write every single tiny syllable Christ spoke, didn’t claim to give a perfect chronological order and time interval, and that John completely omitted in his Gospel the entire full last phrase Christ spoke (“Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit”) which is recorded by Luke in his Gospel! For the Evangelists to omit several cries to His Mother during the three hours He was on the Cross, is hardly a surprise or an unbelievable thing.

In fact, St. Louis de Montfort said in his book True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary (#4 and #5):112

“Mary is the supreme masterpiece of Almighty God and He has reserved the knowledge and possession of her for Himself. She is the glorious Mother of God the Son who chose to humble and conceal her during her lifetime in order to foster her humility. […] Even though Mary was His faithful spouse, God the Holy Spirit willed that His apostles and evangelists should say very little about her and then only as much as was necessary to make Jesus known.” [emphasis added]

Here we even have a motive attributed by an enlightened canonized saint of why the Evangelists might not have mentioned all the events involving Jesus’ Mother in the canonized Gospels, including perhaps the instances of Jesus crying out to His Mother.

So now let’s continue by giving an argument of probability. For the sake of argument, let’s say that Valtorta’s vision was 100% historically accurate and that she accurately described what she saw when transcribing her description of the vision onto paper and that St. John the Evangelist also saw and heard what she saw. Now, in such a case, it is perfectly reasonable for the Gospel writers to adequately summarize the words of Christ in the way they did in their Gospel rather than by adding a theoretical sentence like: “And over the course of the three hours that Jesus was on the Cross, He also called out to His Mother five times.”

If I was Luke, I wouldn’t hesitate to summarize and simplify what occurred by stating it as he did. Why? Because it is obvious to Scripture scholars that the Gospels do not capture every single tiny action of Christ. Most knowledgeable biblical scholars even agree that some of Christ’s sermons and parables in the canonized Gospels are mere summaries of the fullness of what He actually historically said. Common sense confirms this. As Blessed Gabriel M. Allegra, O.F.M., a world-renowned theologian, the first one to translate the entire Bible into Chinese, and the only biblical scholar of the 20th century who has been beatified, wrote:113

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.

I have addressed this issue. But critics may object: “But if He really did call out to His Mother multiple times, certainly the Gospel writers would have mentioned it.” Would they? It is important to keep in mind that none of the twelve Apostles or Evangelists were present at the death of Jesus except John. Only he was there to witness what words Christ spoke. In his Gospel, he indicates the last words of Jesus as “It is consummated”. He completely omitted in his canonized Gospel the entire full last phrase Christ spoke (“Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit”) which is recorded by Luke!

John 19:30 states: “Jesus therefore, when He had taken the vinegar, said: ‘It is consummated.’ And bowing His head, He gave up the ghost.” If John omitted the entire true last sentence that He spoke on the Cross, are you so certain that he and the other evangelists might not have omitted a few other words? The canonized Gospels never reported a single word that Our Lady said during the Crucifixion, but do you honestly think that Our Lady said absolutely no word whatsoever during the entire three hours that she was at the foot of the Cross and during all of the commotion and events?

It is also relevant to know that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their Gospel many years before John’s, relating the details of the Passion in their Gospels from the stories they heard from those who were present and/or by an illumination of the Holy Spirit who revealed the details to them directly. It is entirely possible that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not given every single possible tiny detail of every moment of Christ’s Passion by stories from others or by a vision so that they could relate every single detail. Maybe they weren’t even aware of all of the words spoken at the foot of the Cross. But if they were, it is perfectly reasonable that they related some of Christ’s last full sentences and words as they did without mentioning the five times He said “Mother”, just like John completely omitted in his Gospel the entire full last phrase Christ spoke (“Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit”) which is recorded by Luke in his Gospel! Keep in mind that even though John wrote down His Gospel after the other three Gospels were written, he still didn’t even include the last sentence that this earlier Gospel included. Apparently, he didn’t feel the need to include this last full sentence of Our Lord in his own Gospel even though he was the one Evangelist who was actually there at the Passion.

It is usually close-minded, rigid, uneducated, and presumptuous critics who find it so impossible to consider that there were more words spoken historically than the few recorded in the canonized Gospels and then try to use this argument against Valtorta or other authentic mystics who had visions of historical scenes like Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Venerable Mary of Agreda, St. Bridget of Sweden, Therese Neumann, etc.

People’s bias is all the more evident when they only focus on apparently negative things but totally ignore and fail to mention the astounding positive things, including the demonstrated historical and scientific accuracy and truly amazing exegetical value in Valtorta’s work, as well as the other proofs in astronomy, geography, and extreme accordance with the Shroud of Turin that she could not have possibly known (see this e-book for more details). For example, the Resistance Dominicans focused on apparent contradictions with Scripture (which I refuted/addressed) while ignoring the amazing exegetical synoptic problems Valtorta has solved that no (or hardly any) other exegete has done so well, as alluded to by many, including Blessed Gabriel Allegra (who especially pointed out the Resurrection apparent contradictions in Scripture she resolved). On this point, I will quote the traditional-minded priest, Father Kevin Fitzpatrick, doctor of theology, who was advising the late famous William F. Buckley, Jr., on Valtorta and who, like our critic, was initially skeptical of her:114

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.

In fact, I wrote a refutation of another critic who tried to argue that what Valtorta wrote about the last cry of Jesus contradicted the Scriptures. My refutation of that objection is somewhat related to this present discussion and it might help you to read it if you want to investigate this issue in further depth. If you want to see this refutation, follow these steps:

1. Download the June 2017 edition of the e-book here: http://www.drbo.org/dnl/Maria_Valtorta_Summa_Encyclopedia.pdf

2. Go to page 910.

The above refutation will reinforce this present refutation and will make it even more clear just how absolutely fine and completely acceptable Valtorta’s description of the Passion is, and how it does not truly contradict Scripture nor can it be proven to be historically inaccurate.

Now, even if Valtorta’s work could be objectively and thoroughly proven to contradict Scripture somewhere in historical or secondary details not related to faith or morals, according to the teaching of the Church, that would be an insufficient reason to reject her visions or writings and to try to prevent other Catholics from reading them. We could spend quite some time listing numerous mystics who have reported words and events of Christ in historical visions that were permitted or allowed by the Magisterium that I very much doubt this the Resistance Dominicans would consider 100% historically accurate (for example, read: A Critical Review of Mary of Agreda's Mystical City of God). So was the Magisterium wrong then in permitting and/or approving these mystical writings? Does this critic presume to hold a stricter criterion than previous Popes and the Magisterium?

Personally, I will follow the teaching of the Magisterium regarding what is permitted in mystical writings rather than the teaching of the Resistant Dominicans. I will also hold the position of leading pre-Vatican II theologians who approved Maria’s writings and considered them supernatural who are more learned than this critic, especially in the areas needed to judge mystical writings, and who furthermore studied it in much further depth (not to mention that many of them actually personally knew, investigated, and communicated at length with the author in question).

Archbishop Carinci (who was in charge of investigating pre-Vatican II causes of beatification and canonization, who visited Maria Valtorta multiple times, wrote dozens of letters back and forth with her which have been published, and who analyzed her case in depth) praised Maria Valtorta and the Poem, writing in 1952:115

"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:116

“...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.”

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), relates in his signed testimony written on December 8, 1978, in Rome:117

I knew Maria Valtorta in 1946, and, given the fact that she lived close enough to my mother, I often met with her at least once a month until the year of her death in 1961.

I read and annotated (by myself from 1960 to 1974; with the help of some confreres from 1974 on) all the Valtorta writings, both edited and unedited. I can certify that Valtorta did not, by her own industry, possess all that vast, profound, clear, and varied learning which is evident in her writings. In fact, she possessed, and at times consulted, only the Catechism of Pius X, and a common popular [Italian] Bible.

Since Maria was a humble and sincere woman, we can accept the explanation which she herself furnished about her learning: attributing it to supernatural visions and dictations, besides her natural skill as a writer. And this is also the opinion of Miss Marta Diciotti who assisted Valtorta for 30 years, and who today receives so many visitors in Valtorta's little room.

Finally, this is also the opinion of the editor, Dr. Emilio Pisani, who hears the written and oral echo of very many readers.

If certain people choose to reject this unparalleled and truly unique gift of God to the 20th/21st century, then it is their loss. My hope and prayer is that an increasing number of humble, open-minded faithful Catholics of good will can and will discover, benefit from, and receive tremendous spiritual benefit from these unparalleled writings just as hundreds of thousands around the world already have and which I believe many more will for generations to come.

In summary: In this section of my article, I have demonstrated multiple factual falsehoods in the Resistance Dominican’s statement. These types of basic factual errors, which could have been easily avoided if they had taken even a few minutes to read the actual passage in question, suggests a certain amount of laziness and bias in their research, and puts into question their entire analysis and the credibility of the rest of their arguments.

I furthermore analyzed all angles and aspects of their other arguments and showed how what Valtorta wrote is not only free of error in faith and morals, but is consistent with Catholic theology and Scripture, and how their arguments are without foundation and an invalid and insufficient argument to reject Valtorta or to portray it as contradicting Scripture or being historically inaccurate.

Refutation of Their Third Failed Attempt to Demonstrate a Contradiction with the Canonized Gospels

The Resistance Dominicans made a list in which they attempted to demonstrate a contradiction between Valtorta’s work and the canonized Gospels. Here is their third listed item:

One can note numerous contradictions with the Gospel, for example: Our Lady gets angry, cries out and becomes “almost” delirious after the death of her Son;

Prof. Leo A. Brodeur, M.A., LèsL., Ph.D., H.Sc.D., wrote:118

Let us return to the alleged dogmatic or moral errors which some opponents of the Poem of the Man-God claim to find in it. The alleged errors result from the opponents’ own doing: they rarely present complete quotations, they mutilate them; they wrench the quotations out of context, when only the context gives them their proper meaning; they sometimes even go so far as to falsify certain texts. Also, the testimony of those opponents often is not credible because of their lack of knowledge in mystical theology, their ignorance of Valtorta’s work, or their prejudice against it. Some have even gone so far as to declare publicly that they had not read it and did not intend to in the least.

If one actually reads what Valtorta wrote with the surrounding context, what she wrote is perfectly acceptable and a reasonable and normal human reaction of a mother who just saw her son tortured to death. Scripture recounts that such mourning was the custom of the times for women in the first century Hebrew culture: “And there followed Him a great multitude of people, and of women, who bewailed and lamented him.” (Luke 23:27) Scripture even relates that Jesus wept over the death of Lazarus. (John 11:35) How much more would Our Lady experience the most tremendous emotions of pain and sorrow upon the death of Her Son, and such an ignominious death! Many canonized saints have experienced similar human reactions to tragedies during their life. Some Scripture scholars think that St. Mary Magdalene got angry with the One she mistook for a gardener when she cried out at the tomb, “Where have you placed him?” (John 20:15); and yet she didn’t suffer even one thousandth the amount that Our Lady did in seeing her Son die, because Mary Magdalene’s love of Our Lord wasn’t even one thousandth the degree of Our Lady's love for Our Lord. The passage in Valtorta is perfectly acceptable and has been approved as acceptable by too many completely orthodox, reputable, balanced, and highly learned theologians to list here while trying to keep this article brief. I believe it is sufficiently evident to anyone who reads the passage in question that it is acceptable, realistic, and a non-problem, just as many world-renowned theologians, among them the greatest Mariologist of the 20th century, Fr. Roschini, affirmed.

As a matter of fact, it is significant that Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M., analyzed the chapter under examination and provided commentary on it. Before we analyze this chapter of Valtorta’s work in further depth, I think it is important to relate what he wrote about this, especially considering that he was a distinguished theologian.

Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M., was a 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. He is one of the three priests who had an audience with Pope Pius XII about the Poem of the Man-God wherein Pope Pius XII commanded him to publish the Poem of the Man-God “just as it is”. Fr. Berti is also the one who supervised the editing and publication of the critical second edition of the Poem and provided the extensive theological and biblical annotations that accompany that edition and all subsequent editions. Fr. Berti wrote in his signed testimony on December 8, 1978: “I read and annotated (by myself from 1960 to 1974; with the help of some confreres from 1974 on) all the Valtorta writings, both edited and unedited.”119

Fr. Berti was an extremely learned and traditional/orthodox scholar who thoroughly analyzed Maria Valtorta’s writings and provided more than 5,675 scholarly footnotes and appendices for her work, including for difficult passages that critics have or could potentially criticize. This averages about 568 footnotes per volume and averages slightly more than one footnote per page throughout the whole 5,264 printed pages. In 1961, the second critical Italian edition of the Poem of the Man-God, published by Knight Michele Pisani's son Emilio Pisani, contained these scholarly footnotes and appendices by Fr. Berti. The subsequent editions, including the current fourth edition released in 2001, have many of these footnotes.

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.”120 In fact, Bishop Williamson, who is at the forefront of the traditional Catholic Resistance, wrote in an article in October 2012, “the seeming doctrinal errors are not difficult to explain, one by one, as is done by a competent theologian in the notes to be found in the Italian edition of the Poem.”121 He is referring to Fr. Berti in this quote of his.

Fr. Berti provided a footnote for the entire chapter entitled “The Burial of Jesus and the Spiritual Distress of Mary” which is the chapter that the Resistance Dominicans are undoubtedly most likely referring to. Here is his footnote:122

That the Virgin Mary, most holy but true Mother of Jesus, intimate Sharer of His destiny, and a distinctly Oriental woman—that she should have grieved and wailed, even in accordance with the style of that time and place, though with the greatest propriety and dignity, is something credible and well founded. See: Luke 23:27 and the antiphon of the Roman Breviary, at Lauds of Holy Saturday: “Mulieres sedentes ad monumentum lamentabantur, flentes Dominum” [“the women sitting at the tomb were bewailing, weeping for the Lord”]. But if someone were still struck by the content and expressions of the Lamentations of Most Holy Mary, as we read them in this Work, let him carefully consider that, as the Experts assure us, the Work is in fullest accord with a long Oriental, Syriac, and Greek homiletic and hymnographic tradition (see Ephrem, 4th century; Anphilochius of Iconium, 4th century; Romano the Lyricist, 6th century), which culminates in the 7th century in the “Weeping of the Virgin”, handed down to us by St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, where a very similar or identical style of lament recurs (theological; with considerations on the past and the present, on goodness and wickedness, etc.), and with very close or identical expressions (sweet, strong, terrible). Of his [St. Germanus’], therefore, one should read attentively the “Oratio in ... Corporis Domini ... sepulturam ...” [“Prayer for ... the burial ... of the Lord’s Body”] in Migne, Patrologia Graeca [Greek Patrology], tome 98, col. 267-278 (243-290). What is affirmed by the Oriental Patristic tradition is also valid for the [Oriental] liturgical [tradition]: we see many of the so-called “staurotheotokia” (praises to the Mother of God at the foot of the Cross) of the Greek liturgy.

Fr. Berti, who was extremely learned, provided very helpful insight. He shows how such lamentation of Our Lady in Valtorta’s work was perfectly in accord with the customs of her race, culture, and time period. As a matter of fact, the fact that Valtorta described Our Lady mourning in this way is not only beautifully indicative of her great love and showcases certain beautiful aspects of the first century Hebrew culture and customs, but it supports the fact that Valtorta was having a true vision of a real historical event because if Valtorta had been trying to make things up to appeal to a modern 20th century audience, she would not have described Our Lady’s lamentations in a way that seems foreign to 20th century modern man who lives 2,000 years later in a whole different culture, continent, and time period. The very fact that the Resistance Dominicans object to her lamentations only shows their academic ignorance, their prejudice, and their bias.

I could go on listing 24 extremely learned clerics or Doctors of Theology/Divinity/Canon Law, seven Members or Consultants of the Holy Office/Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and seven Saints/Blesseds/Venerables/Servants of God (not all of whom honest traditional Catholics would doubt the holiness or learning) who have all publicly praised Valtorta’s writings and recommended their use and affirmed that they are free of errors in faith and morals. All of these renowned theologians fully approved and embraced the written account of Our Lady’s lamentations in the chapter under examination. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of lay faithful and dozens of bishops have also expressed approval and appreciation of the chapter in question. The only ones who would have problems with it are those who are purposefully looking for faults, are highly uneducated in the relevant historical customs under examination, and are oftentimes swayed by personal bias and an ill-disposed, closed mindset. 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.

Speaking of emotions, Paul T.Y. Atworth relates:123

Objection: Valtorta’s books are too emotional.

Answer: Emotions are not wrong, unless they are directed at the wrong object. Tenderness and lofty feelings are proper when one loves God mystically, as can be seen in the Canticle of Canticles. The onus is therefore on critics to: 1. produce examples of misplaced tenderness, feeling, or affection in Valtorta’s writings, 2. make sure the examples are not taken out of context, and 3. explain why they are misplaced according to clear theological and moral principles. As for us, we have never noticed any such misplaced show of emotions. On the contrary, we have found all emotions expressed by Jesus or Mary in praising God or helping their neighbors in Valtorta’s writings to be totally worthy of them. (See also The Poem of the Man-God, vol. 5, p. 947, #4)

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!

So now let’s analyze one of the passages in question.

Here is the account of what Valtorta saw in her vision when Our Lord was let down from the Cross into Our Lady’s arms:124

The left palm is unnailed. The arm falls along the Body, which is now hanging semi-detached.

They tell John to climb up as well, leaving the ladders to the women. And John, after climbing up where Nicodemus was previously, passes Jesus' arm round his neck and holds it so, hanging completely on his shoulder, embraced at the waist by his arm and held by the tips of the fingers not to touch the horrible gash of the left hand, which is almost open. When the feet are unnailed, John has to make a great effort to hold and support the Body of his Master between the cross and his own body.

Mary has already placed Herself at the foot of the cross, sitting with Her back against it, ready to receive Her Jesus in Her lap.

But the unnailing of the right arm is the most difficult operation. Despite all John's efforts, the Body is hanging completely forward and the head of the nail is deeply sunk in the flesh. And as they do not want to make the wound worse, the two compassionate men work hard. At last the nail is seized with the tongs and pulled out gently.

John has been holding Jesus all the time by the armpits, with His head hanging on his shoulder, while Nicodemus and Joseph get hold of Him, one at the thighs, the other at the knees, and they cautiously come down the ladders.

When on the ground, they would like to lay Him on the sheet that they have spread on their mantles. But Mary wants Him. She has opened Her mantle, letting it hang on one side, and She is sitting with Her knees rather apart to form a cradle for Her Jesus.

While the disciples are turning round to give Her Son to Her, the crowned head falls back and the arms hang down towards the ground, and the wounded hands would rub on the soil, if the pity of the pious women did not hold them up to prevent that.

He is now in His Mother's lap… And He looks like a big tired child who is asleep all cuddled up in his mother's lap. Mary is holding Him with Her right arm round the shoulders of Her Son and Her left one stretched over the abdomen to support Him also by the hips.

Jesus' head is resting on His Mother's shoulder. And She calls Him… She calls Him in a heart-rending voice. She then detaches Him from Her shoulder and caresses Him with Her left hand, She takes and stretches out His hands and, before folding them on His dead body, She kisses them and weeps on their wounds. Then She caresses His cheeks, particularly where they are bruised and swollen, She kisses His sunken eyes, His mouth lightly twisted to the right and half-open.

She would like to tidy His hair, as She has tidied His beard encrusted with blood. But in doing so, She touches the thorns. She stings Herself trying to remove that crown, and She wants to do it by Herself, with the only hand which is free, and She rejects everybody saying: « No, no! I will! I will! » and She seems to be holding the tender head of a new-born baby with Her fingers, so delicately does She do it. And when She succeeds in removing the torturing crown, She bends to cure all the scratches of the thorns with Her kisses.

With a trembling hand She parts His ruffled hair, She tidies it and weeps, speaking in a low voice, and with Her fingers She wipes the tears that drop on the cold body covered with blood and She thinks of cleaning it with Her tears and Her veil, which is still round Jesus' loins. And She pulls one end of it towards Herself and She begins to clean and dry the holy limbs with it. And She continually caresses His face, then His hands and His bruised knees and then reverts to drying His Body, on which endless tears are dropping.

And while doing so Her hand touches the gash on His chest. Her little hand, covered with the linen veil, enters almost completely into the large hole of the wound. Mary bends to see in the dim light which has formed, and She sees. She sees the chest torn open and the heart of Her Son. She utters a cry then. A sword seems to be splitting Her heart. She shouts and then throws Herself on Her Son and She seems dead, too.

They succour and console Her. They want to take Her divine Dead Son away from Her and as She shouts: « Where, where shall I put You? In which place, safe and worthy of You? » Joseph, all bent in a respectful bow, his open hand pressed against his chest, says: « Take courage, o Woman! My sepulchre is new and worthy of a great man. I give it to Him. And my friend here, Nicodemus, has already taken the spices to the sepulchre, as he wishes to offer them. But I beg You, as it is getting dark, let us proceed… It is Preparation Day. Be good, o holy Woman! »

Also John and the women beg Her likewise and Mary allows Her Son to be removed from Her lap, and She stands up, distressed, while they envelop Him in a sheet, begging: « Oh! do it gently! »

Nicodemus and John at the shoulders, Joseph at the feet, they lift the Corpse enveloped not only in the sheet, but resting also on the mantles which act as a stretcher, and they set out down the road.

Mary, supported by Her sister-in-law and by the Magdalene, goes down towards the sepulchre, followed by Martha, Mary of Zebedee and Susanna, who have picked up the nails, the tongs, the crown, the sponge and the cane.

On Calvary remain the three crosses, the central one of which is bare and the other two have their living trophies, who are dying.

There is no indication in this passage of Our Lady getting (to quote the Resistance Dominicans) “angry and becoming ‘almost delirious’” in this passage. The way Our Lady responded in the above scene is very reasonable, realistic, and holy.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, the relevant chapter which the Dominicans are most probably referring to is the next chapter, entitled: “The Burial of Jesus and the Spiritual Distress of Mary”. I won’t quote the chapter here for the sake of brevity because it is lengthy, but readers are invited to read the entire chapter in context themselves.

Many renowned theologians have read both of these chapters of Valtorta’s work and affirmed they are perfectly consistent with the canonized Gospels and are not only not against faith or morals, but are remarkably instructive and enlightening, including Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M. (one of the top two Mariologists of the 20th century and Consultant to the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints), Archbishop Carinci (Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites from 1930 to 1960), Blessed Gabriel Allegra, O.F.M. (World-Renowned Scripture scholar and Theologian, whose work had the support and acknowledgement of successive popes from Pius XI to Paul VI), Msgr. Hugo Lattanzi (Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Lateran Pontifical University and Consultant to the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints), Bishop John Venancio (who taught Dogmatic Theology at a Pontifical University in Rome and was Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Portugal, from 1954 to 1972), and many others.

For what it’s worth, I have also carefully read the entire chapter just mentioned, while specifically keeping in mind the specific objections of the Resistance Dominicans. What I read in that chapter only increased my appreciation of what Our Lady had to go through as Co-Redemptrix. What I read only increased my love for Our Lady and my compassion on her sufferings. What I read only deepened my understanding of the sorrows of Jesus and Mary and the heroic virtue they practiced. What I read only increased my faith and love. In all of the human emotions that Our lady experienced, there is no indication other than that they were proper, normal, and without sin, especially when you consider the circumstances. Insofar as Our Lady experienced the emotion of anger, it was not sinful nor expressed in a sinful way in the least. Even Our Lord expressed anger when He overturned the tables of money-changers and the chairs of those that sold doves and “when He had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, He drove them all out of the Temple.” (John 2: 14-15) Would the Resistance Dominicans consider that expression of anger sinful? Or would they consider Jesus whipping them with cords as sinful? Scripture tells us that Jesus wept (John 11:35). Scripture relates that mourning of the type that Our Lady expressed was the custom of the times for women in the first century Hebrew culture: “And there followed Him a great multitude of people, and of women, who bewailed and lamented him.” (Luke 23:27)

There is a dictation of Jesus Christ Himself given at the end of the Poem of the Man-God when He gave the reasons for this work and His concluding remarks. He says some comments that are relevant in our discussion here:125

Jesus says:

« The reasons that have induced Me to enlighten and dictate episodes and words of Mine to Little John [Maria Valtorta] are, in addition to the joy of communicating an exact knowledge of Me to this loving victim-soul, manifold.

But the moving spirit of all of them is My love for the Church, both teaching and militant, and My desire to help souls in their ascent towards perfection. The knowledge of Me helps to ascend. My word is Life.

I mention the main ones:

[Note: I am skipping reasons #1-3 in this present excerpt and jumping to reason #4 below because it is the most relevant for this section]

4. To reinstate in their truth the figures of the Son of Man and of Mary, true children of Adam by flesh and blood, but of an innocent Adam. The children of the Man were to be like Us, if our First Parents had not depreciated their perfect humanity – in the sense of man, that is of a creature in which there is the double nature, spiritual, in the image and likeness of God, and the material nature – as you know they did. Perfect senses, that is, subject to reason even in their great efficiency. In the senses I include both the moral and the corporal ones. Therefore total and perfect love both for Her spouse, to whom She is not attached by sensuality, but only by a tie of spiritual love, and for Her Son. Most loved. Loved with all the perfection of a perfect woman for the child born of Her. That is how Eve should have loved: like Mary: that is, not for what physical enjoyment her son was, but because that son was the son of the Creator and out of obedience accomplished His order to multiply the human race.

And loved with all the ardor of a perfect believer who knows that that Son of Hers, is not figuratively but really the Son of God. To those who consider Mary's love for Jesus too affectionate, I say that they should consider who Mary was: the Woman without sin and therefore without fault in Her love towards God, towards Her relatives, towards Her spouse, towards Her Son, towards Her neighbor; they should consider what the Mother saw in Me besides seeing the Son of Her womb, and finally that they should consider the nationality of Mary. Hebrew race, eastern race, and times very remote from the present ones. So the explanation of certain verbal amplifications, that may seem exaggerated to you, ensues from these elements. The eastern and Hebrew styles are flowery and pompous also when commonly spoken. All the writings of that time and of that race prove it, and in the course of ages the eastern style has not changed very much.

As twenty centuries later you have to examine these pages, when the wickedness of life has killed so much love, would you expect Me to give you a Mary of Nazareth similar to the arid superficial woman of your days? Mary is what She is, and the sweet, pure, loving Girl of Israel, the Spouse of God. The Virgin Mother of God cannot be changed into an excessively morbidly exalted woman, or into a glacially selfish one of your days.

And I tell those, who consider Jesus' love for Mary too affectionate, to consider that in Jesus there was God, and that God One and Trine received His consolation by loving Mary, Who requited Him for the sorrow of the whole human race, and was the means by which God could glory again in His Creation that gives citizens to His Heavens. And finally, let them consider that every love becomes guilty when, and only when, it causes disorder, that is, when it goes against the Will of God and the duty to be fulfilled.

Now consider: did Mary's love do that? Did My love do that? Did She keep Me, through selfish love, from doing all the Will of God? Through a disorderly love for My Mother, did I perhaps repudiate My mission? No. Both loves had but one desire: to accomplish the Will of God for the salvation of the world. And the Mother said all the farewells to Her Son, and the Son said all the farewells to His Mother, handing the Son to the cross of His public teaching and to the Cross of Calvary, handing the Mother to solitude and torture, so that She might be the Co-Redeemer, without taking into account our humanity that felt lacerated and our hearts that were broken with grief. Is that weakness? Is it sentimentalism? It is perfect love, o men, who do not know how to love and who no longer understand love and its voices!

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.

In the passage under question in Valtorta (Our Lady at Our Lord’s Tomb) there is absolutely no contradiction with Scripture, nor have the Resistance Dominicans demonstrated any such contradiction with Scripture or any theological problem or error against faith or morals. To the contrary, we have 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, whom Archbishop Lefebvre called “our model spiritual guide”, and about whom Archbishop Lefebvre said in a homily to the traditional Carmelites of Quievrain on July 21, 1986:

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. [emphasis added]

To the contrary of the Resistance Dominican’s assertion that Valtorta’s work contradicts Scripture in this chapter (which they fail to argue with any valid argument or context), we have 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), who was in charge of investigating causes for pre-Vatican II beatification and canonization, who was conversant in recognizing true and false sanctity and was of distinguished repute, who was master of ceremonies for Pope Leo XIII and a confidant of Pope St. Pius X, and who many prelates considered to have passed away in the odor of sanctity.

This prelate, Archbishop Alfonso Carinci (1862-1963), visited Maria Valtorta three times, said Mass for her, read her writings in depth, wrote many letters back and forth with her (which have been published), and analyzed her case. He praised Maria Valtorta and The Poem of the Man-God (now entitled The Gospel as Revealed to Me), writing in 1952:126

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]

Archbishop Carinci also stated:127

“...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.”

To the contrary of the Resistance Dominican’s assertion that Valtorta’s work contradicts Scripture in this chapter (which they fail to argue with any valid argument or context), we have Fr. Gabriel Roschini’s testimony. Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., was a world-renowned Mariologist, decorated professor and founder of the Marianum Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome, 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:128

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). 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. 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 the crisis in the Church that has broken out during the past 50 years. 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.”129 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).130 Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., in his last book, The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta:131

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! [emphasis added]

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.

For a theologian, such as Fr. Roschini, O.S.M., to be so well-read and so learned as to have written 130 totally orthodox books about Our Lady, and to be a decorated professor at the Marianum Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome (which he founded), an advisor to the Holy Office, and to be called by a Pope “one of the greatest Mariologists who ever lived”, it is not presumptuous to assume that he has probably read every single great work ever written about Our Lady – including Venerable Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God, the revelations of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, the revelations about Our Lady given to St. Bridget of Sweden, and almost every single other major work about Our Lady. Yet – even so – Fr. Roschini declared: “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.” Such a declaration from such a theologian as he carries a lot of weight!

In fact, Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., had personally met Valtorta, but admitted that, at first, 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."132 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.133 Fr. Roschini praised Maria Valtorta’s Poem as the greatest Mariology he has ever read in his life, stating, “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.”134 I think that if Fr. Roschini – again, very likely the greatest and most learned Mariologist of the 20th century – found something objectionable in Maria Valtorta’s writings along the lines of what the Resistance Dominicans claimed, he would have mentioned it in his 395-page book about the Mariology in Maria Valtorta’s writings. But he had only praise for her writings and affirmation that her Mariology is in perfect line with Tradition and true Catholic doctrine.

Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., is easily ten times (if not fifty times) more learned than the Resistance Dominicans in Mariology, and so if the Resistance Dominicans want to say something contrary to the conclusions of Fr. Gabriel Roschini in his 395-page Mariological analysis of Valtorta’s work (including that her Mariology is “in perfect harmony with the Holy Scriptures, the Tradition of the Church, and the Church Magisterium”), then the burden of proof is on them. Until they can irrefutably prove such error in Mariology (which will never happen), what Fr. Roschini affirms stands.

Other renowned theologians and Catholics have also affirmed that Valtorta’s writings are free from error in faith and morals and consistent with what is in the canonized Gospels; in fact, so much so, that she even surpasses most exegetes in resolving many thorny exegetical problems. Earlier in this article, I quoted an excerpt revealing how the traditional-minded priest, Fr. Kevin Fitzpatrick, doctor of theology, wrote to William F. Buckley, Jr., “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.”135

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 1952:136

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. [emphasis added]

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. His Cause was opened in 1984, just eight years after his death; he was elevated to “Venerable” only 10 years later in 1994, and the decree of a miracle and his beatification was approved by the Holy See in 2002. He was finally beatified on September 29, 2012, at the Cathedral of Arcireale, Catania, in Sicilia. Gabriel Allegra is the only biblical scholar of the 20th century who has been beatified. He was an outspoken and avid long-time supporter of Maria Valtorta, and his latter years were spent reading, studying, promoting, and defending the Poem of the Man-God. Here are a number of thought-provoking quotes from this very learned and holy priest:137

"In this work I find so many revelations which are not contrary to, but instead complete, the Gospel narrative... I find in her the charism of prophecy in the proper sense of a voice through which Valtorta exhorts, encourages, and consoles in the Name of God and, at rare times, elucidates the predictions of the Lord. I find in her doctrine: and doctrine such as is sure; it embraces almost all fields of revelation. Hence, it is multiple, immediate, luminous."

"What amazes me more is that Valtorta never falls into theological errors; on the contrary, she renders revealed mysteries easier for the reader, transposing them into a popular and modern language."

"Certain of the Lord's discourses, whose principle subject is only hinted at in the Gospels, are developed in this work with a naturalness, with a linking of thought so logical, so spontaneous, so coherent with the time, the place, and the circumstances, as I have never found in the most famous exegetes..."

"Regarding Valtorta's exegesis, it would be necessary to write a book; here I limit myself to reaffirming that I find no other works of eminent scripture exegetes which complete and clarify the Canonical Gospels so naturally, so spontaneously, with such liveliness as does The Poem of Valtorta."

"The dogmas which the Church continues defending in the course of the ages...are a solemn affirmation of the faith of the Apostles. Through an ineffable charism, Valtorta had been plunged again into the tender, moving, spontaneous faith of the Apostles, especially of St. John."

"As to the Mariology of this work, I know of no other books which possess a Mariology so fascinating and convincing, so firm and so simple, so modern and at the same time so ancient, even while being open to its future advances. On this point the Poem even, or rather above all, enriches our knowledge of the Madonna and irresistibly also our poor love, our languid devotion for Her. In treating the mystery of the Compassion of Mary, it seems to me that Valtorta, by her breadth, depth, and psychological sounding of the Heart of the Virgin, surpasses even St. Bonaventure and St. Bernard." [emphasis added]

In fact, as a result of the findings of my research, I can provide you with the following facts (there are undoubtedly more but these are only the ones I have been able to document so far):

Valtorta Approval List
I think that it is quite obvious to anyone with common sense that if there were such basic/elementary problems and contradictions to Scripture as the Resistance Dominicans were so quick to affirm (without providing any theological analysis, without consideration of the wider context, and without a clear demonstration), all these renowned theologians, bishops, professors, and pious lay faithful would not have fully embraced and praised Valtorta’s work as the facts show they did, including the chapters under examination.

Refutation of Their Groundless Accusation of Sensualities

The Resistance Dominicans wrote:

One can note numerous contradictions with the Gospel, for example: […] and this is not to mention the numerous sensualities which are spread throughout the work.

This is a groundless accusation without any substance or context which has already been thoroughly refuted. For a complete refutation, see the chapter in A Summa & Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta's Extraordinary Work entitled “Analyzing and Refuting Some Critic’s Arguments that it Appeals Too Much to the Sensitivity or Presents a De-Supernaturalized Christ Because it Contains So Many Details of the Human Side of Our Lord’s Life.”

Also see my thorough refutation of Horvat’s anti-Valtorta article here which also refutes her same groundless accusation: How the Orthodoxy of Maria Valtorta’s Work Shines Even More Brightly and Exposing the Methodological and Theological Errors of Marian Horvat: A Complete Refutation of Horvat’s Flawed Anti-Valtorta Article.

In the above-mentioned chapter in my e-book, I identify and comprehensively refute four forms or variations of that argument.

Paul T.Y. Atworth relates concerning one of the four forms of this argument (all of which are addressed thoroughly in the e-book):138

Objection: Valtorta’s books are too emotional.

Answer: Emotions are not wrong, unless they are directed at the wrong object. Tenderness and lofty feelings are proper when one loves God mystically, as can be seen in the Canticle of Canticles. The onus is therefore on critics to: 1. produce examples of misplaced tenderness, feeling, or affection in Valtorta’s writings, 2. make sure the examples are not taken out of context, and 3. explain why they are misplaced according to clear theological and moral principles. As for us, we have never noticed any such misplaced show of emotions. On the contrary, we have found all emotions expressed by Jesus or Mary in praising God or helping their neighbors in Valtorta’s writings to be totally worthy of them. (See also The Poem of the Man-God, vol. 5, p. 947, #4)

About the Full Sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre Wherein He Mentions Valtorta and a Refutation
of Their Isolated Partial Quotation and Incomplete Analysis of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Words
(and a Reference to a Full Analysis)

The Dominicans gave an incomplete quotation from one of the sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre at the end of their article. In my e-book, I give the entire sermon from which they took that isolated quotation and follow up with a full and thorough analysis of it in the chapters of this e-book entitled “An Analysis of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Words About the Poem of the Man-God” and “Archbishop Lefebvre Was Undecided About the Poem of the Man-God, But Pope Pius XII, Saint Padre Pio, and Many Other Saintly World-Renowned Pre-Vatican II Theologians Approved It and Promoted It – What Should Traditional Catholics Think of This?”

In the first above-mentioned chapter, I give the entire sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre, and then fully analyze it. I point out several facts:

1. He did not declare that Maria Valtorta’s writings are not authentic or not from God.

2. He did not presume to forbid reading her writings.

3. He did not make a definitive pronouncement on whether he thought these revelations are valid or not – He remained undecided and merely concluded by putting a question mark on them: “So. I don't know. But I admit that I put a question mark on her revelations.”

4. He discussed how Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle, FSSPX, firmly believed that Maria Valtorta’s revelations are authentic and from God and do a lot of good. It is to be noted that Fr. Barrielle was Archbishop Lefebvre’s confessor and was assigned by Archbishop Lefebvre to be the first spiritual director and a professor of the SSPX Econe seminary. Fr. Barrielle said to the SSPX Econe seminarians: “If you wish to know and love the Sacred Heart of Jesus, read Valtorta!”139 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.”142 This was done with the awareness of Archbishop Lefebvre. Archbishop Lefebvre admits that it may do great good as Fr. Barrielle attests, when, in his sermon, the Archbishop said:

I admit, I read part of it 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.

5. He admitted that he has read parts of it, but not very much of it (at least not very much as compared to those in the Church who have evaluated it in depth and approved it, none the least of which was Pope Pius XII who evaluated the Poem of the Man-God for months, and after evaluating it, ordered it to be published; and other highly learned and renowned theologians, like Fr. Berti, who studied her writings for 34 years; Blessed Gabriel Allegra, who studied her writings for 11 years; and Fr. Roschini, who first published a review and nihil obstat of the first volume of her work as far back as 1946, and completed his most intensive study of her writings in later years, culminating in a 395-page Mariological analysis of her writings which even received the attention of the Sovereign Pontiff at the time via a letter issued by the Vatican Secretary of State).

6. I show the evidence of how the Archbishop did not invest much time in investigating Valtorta’s work, so much so, that, in his sermon, the Archbishop made two verifiably major factual mistakes which thereby invalidate the main premise of his primary concern/objection. I show how there is no conversation between St. Mary Magdalene and the Blessed Virgin Mary at the foot of the Cross in the text of the Poem of the Man-God anywhere like he mistakenly claimed. Absolutely none. You can look it up. There is especially nothing along the lines of what Archbishop Lefebvre was referring to as occurring at the foot of the Cross. I am certain that he made a major mistake and got two characters and two chapters confused, and I am fairly certain that I know which character and chapter he was actually referring to, and in my e-book I show the evidence.

Furthermore, I quote Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M. (world-renowned Mariologist who spent far more time and diligence analyzing Valtorta’s work) 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 wrote specifically about the exact passages that Archbishop Lefebvre mentioned in his talk, and both of these renowned theologians fully approved and affirmed that those passages are free of error in faith or morals, are realistic, and are highly beneficial and instructive to Catholics. In that chapter, I also address all the other comments of the Archbishop in depth.

In the aforementioned chapter entitled, “Archbishop Lefebvre Was Undecided About the Poem of the Man-God, But Pope Pius XII, Saint Padre Pio, and Many Other Saintly World-Renowned Pre-Vatican II Theologians Approved It and Promoted It – What Should Traditional Catholics Think of This?”, I show that even if Archbishop Lefebvre outright condemned the Poem (which he never did), it still would not disprove the Archbishop’s saintliness (for those who consider him a saint), nor would it disprove the divine origin of the Poem and that every Catholic (including traditional Catholics adhering to the SSPX’s or the Resistance's position) are free to read it without fear of anything being against faith or morals or being harmful to their spiritual life.

I also go into details discussing Pope Pius XII’s command to publish the Poem of the Man-God (whose authority supersedes Archbishop Lefebvre’s) and how the Holy Office/CDF has since given permission for it to be published and read by the faithful, Saint Padre Pio’s strong approval of the Poem as documented by a spiritual daughter of his; the documented historical fact that many canonized saints have been erroneous before on very important matters (matters much more important than an opinion about the Poem of the Man-God – the Immaculate Conception being one such example), the fact that holy people and even canonized saints have been known to be misguided about authentic private revelations before, such as St. John Vianney, who strongly doubted the apparitions and messages of Our Lady of La Salette for eight years after hearing some misinformation about it and despite personally interviewing one of the seers himself; and the historical fact that many holy books and writings of canonized saints were put on the Index of Forbidden Books and then later taken off and permitted and/or approved by the Magisterium later on. These arguments and others are given in that chapter.

In fact, I discuss how St. John Vianney strongly doubted the apparitions and messages of Our Lady of La Salette for eight years after hearing some misinformation about it and despite personally interviewing one of the seers himself, and that it wasn’t until eight years later (ten months before his death) that St. John Vianney, inspired by God’s grace, regained faith in the apparition and publicly stated one may believe in it. In the aforementioned chapter of the e-book I also go into the point that Archbishop Lefebvre was a man capable of making mistakes in such matters such as assessing a private revelation (he is fallible), and he was not known to be one flooded with mystical gifts or supernatural instantaneous insights like Saint Padre Pio was, which could have served to prevent an incorrect, inadequately researched analysis of the book (such mystical gifts were not proper to God’s plan for Archbishop Lefebvre’s mission like they were for other saints such as Saint Padre Pio). Saint Padre Pio was gifted with mystical gifts that would enable him to better discern the Poem of the Man-God than Archbishop Lefebvre. Who could deny that Saint Padre Pio was one of the holiest saints of the past few centuries, with a holiness rivaling or exceeding Archbishop Lefebvre? And it is a well-documented fact by numerous trustworthy sources that Saint Padre Pio himself expressly approved the Poem of the Man-God and has had mystical experiences with Maria Valtorta during the time when they were both alive. You can read about this here: Saint Padre Pio and Maria Valtorta.

I urge you to read those aforementioned chapters about Archbishop Lefebvre in the e-book for a complete analysis of Archbishop Lefebvre’s position on the Poem of the Man-God in light of all of the facts. In my opinion, the Resistance Dominican’s quote of the Archbishop is not a concern after considering the facts laid out in the above chapters. For non-traditional Catholics, they don’t hold so much esteem as to what Archbishop Lefebvre thought; but, upon investigating all of the facts, even traditional Catholics shouldn’t be concerned either, in spite of the high esteem they hold him in, especially in light of the fact that world-renowned theologians of the caliber of Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., Archbishop Alfonso Carinci, and Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M., (not to mention people like Fr. Barrielle, FSSPX), have approved Valtorta’s work after thoroughly studying it in depth for years, something which Archbishop Lefebvre never did and admitted he never did.

Furthermore, the Resistance Dominicans fail to mention Fr. Barrielle’s approval of Valtorta’s work and that Archbishop Lefebvre mentioned Fr. Barrielle’s approval in that very same sermon about Valtorta that they quote from. Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle, FSSPX, 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!”142 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.”142 This was done with the awareness of Archbishop Lefebvre.

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

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).” [emphasis added] A photocopy of Archbishop Lefebvre’s handwritten words on this holy card is given below:

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 Valtorta’s 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 have quoted many such theologians in this article, but if you want the full list of those that I have documented so far, see the chapter entitled “Notable Traditional Catholics in Favor of and Against the Poem of the Man-God” in A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work. This list is also helpful: Lists of Bishops, Doctors of Theology/Divinity/Canon Law, Saints/Blesseds/Venerables/Servants of God, University Professors, and Noteworthy Lay Faithful Who Have Approved and Endorsed Valtorta's Work.

Furthermore, these theologians studied Valtorta’s work far more in depth than Archbishop Lefebvre did. In fact, in the aforementioned chapters in my e-book about Archbishop Lefebvre’s sermon, I show how he made several factual, objective errors which demonstrated that his investigation into her writings was rather superficial and that his judgement was invalidated or incomplete due to his objective and obvious confusion of two chapters and scenes. Now as far as those who don’t realize that saints can sometimes make mistakes and who judge everything based on the reputation of holiness of the person in question, it is to be noted that there is evidence that St. Padre Pio encouraged his spiritual daughter to read Valtorta’s books and that St. Padre Pio had mystical experiences with Maria Valtorta during the time when they were both alive, and many consider St. Padre Pio on the same level of holiness or higher than Archbishop Lefebvre.

The following is an exact copy of a letter written by a spiritual daughter of Padre Pio, Rosi Giordani, to Dr. Emilio Pisani, the editor and publisher of Maria Valtorta’s works. Included among the export publishers who receive special recognition each year from the Italian Ministry for Cultural Goods, in 1995, Dr. Pisani's Centro Editoriale Valtortiano (the publisher and worldwide distributor of Maria Valtorta’s writings) was awarded the Culture Prize by the Italian Presidency of the Council of Ministers.143 Dr. Emilio Pisani is the son of Knight Michele Pisani, a renowned Catholic publisher who was knighted a Knight of the Order of St. Gregory the Great by an Apostolic Brief of Pope Pius XII in 1943, upon the recommendation of the Pontifical Priestly Missionary Union.144 In this letter to Dr. Pisani, Rosi Giordani attests to the words of Padre Pio directed to a spiritual daughter of his, ordering her to read Maria Valtorta’s books. This letter is taken from the book published by Dr. Pisani entitled Padre Pio and Maria Valtorta:145

For Dr. Emilio Pisani,
Beloved in Jesus!

My name is Rosi Giordani, a spiritual daughter of Padre Pio. I am from Bologna, but have been living here for many years with my mother, who was born in 1897, like Maria Valtorta. Father has been at rest for twelve years in the cemetery of this town. In 1981 I was present with Mother at the Basilica of the Annunciation in Florence for the celebration of the anniversary of Maria Valtorta’s death. I was with dear Domenico Fiorillo. I embraced Marta and listened to her lovely talk.

I am writing particularly to tell you the following: a spiritual daughter of Padre Pio from the outset, Mrs. Elisa Lucchi, known as Malvina, from Forlì, a year before Padre Pio’s death asked him in Confession, “Father, I have heard mention of Maria Valtorta’s books. Do you advise me to read them?” Padre Pio replied, “I don’t advise you to—I order you to!”

San Giovanni Rotondo
January 7, 1989
Rosi Giordani

St. Padre Pio was one of the holiest saints of the 20th century. His insight into the divine nature of Maria Valtorta’s revelations is certainly most reliable, as he was a mystic who communicated often with Our Lord and Our Lady; he often had instantaneous spiritual insights (such as the ability to read hearts); he was a stigmatist, bilocater, and prophet; he obtained miraculous cures and other miracles for many people; and he had numerous documented mystical experiences with other people, as well as lived in the same country at the same time as Maria Valtorta, who herself testifies that she had mystical experiences with him, and who others testify that they have experienced or witnessed supernatural occurrences connected with Maria Valtorta and him.

Personally, I would take the recommendation of the above saintly mystic and victim soul over Archbishop Lefebvre, who admitted he hardly studied Valtorta’s writings, which is furthermore proven by the fact that he made multiple factual mistakes in his sermon which can be objectively demonstrated as errors and thus shows that he misunderstood things which calls into question his initial judgement (which, by the way, remained undecided about her work).

Furthermore, Pope Pius XII’s command to publish her work after evaluating typewritten manuscripts of her work for months not only has more weight as far the time and level of effort put into analyzing her work (months vs. hardly at all), but also has more weight as far as ecclesiastical authority (the Sovereign Pontiff vs. an archbishop).

I personally believe that Archbishop Lefebvre, if one believes he is already in the Beatific Vision (where souls are enlightened on all truth), would be telling traditional Catholics now to read her work now that He has been enlightened as to the truth of the holiness of the victim soul Maria Valtorta (a holiness St. Padre Pio recognized) and the extraordinary benefit her writings bring to souls.

A Refutation of the Concluding Paragraph of the Resistance Dominicans

The Resistance Dominicans wrote:

Last advice: Rather than read these novels where errors abound, it would be better to read Holy Scripture with good commentary based on the Fathers of the Church, or even good lives of the saints.

I’d rather take advice about this mystic from a cleric who was 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), who was in charge of investigating causes for pre-Vatican II beatification and canonization, who was conversant in recognizing true and false sanctity and was of distinguished repute, who was master of ceremonies for Pope Leo XIII and a confidant of Pope St. Pius X, and who many prelates considered to have passed away in the odor of sanctity. This prelate, Archbishop Alfonso Carinci (1862-1963), visited Maria Valtorta three times, said Mass for her, read her writings in depth, wrote many letters back and forth with her (many of which are published), and analyzed her case. He praised Maria Valtorta and The Poem of the Man-God (now entitled The Gospel as Revealed to Me), writing in 1952:145

“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:147

“...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.”

I would rather take advice from Fr. Gabriel Roschini (top Mariologist of the 20th century), Fr. Berti, O.S.M., Camillo Corsánego (1891-1963), and others of notable repute who actually investigated Valtorta’s work in depth and recommended it wholeheartedly. I would rather trust what St. Padre Pio recommended his spiritual daughter about Valtorta’s work: St. Padre Pio and Maria Valtorta.

I especially don’t trust the Dominican’s analysis and their “advice” since it is obvious that they have a notable level of ignorance on the subject they are writing about and their article is riddled with falsehoods, deficient theology, wrenching of statements out of context with false unsubstantiated insinuations, poor research, ignorance of too many relevant facts, sweeping generalizations, and lack of objectivity. It is readily apparent from their article that they carried out a cursory, non-in-depth investigation into Maria Valtorta’s writings, bringing in unsubstantiated subjective impressions which are contradicted by those of greater learning and authority than them (and by “those of greater learning and authority than them”, I’m also referring to pre-Vatican II, highly learned, trustworthy theologians who have spent hundreds of hours evaluating her writings, some of whom actually met the author in question).

I feel that the whole anti-Valtorta spirit with which the Dominican article is imbued is addressed, exposed, and refuted in the refutations of the anti-Valtorta articles of Horvat and Anselmo de la Cruz that are addressed here: A Refutation of the Anti-Valtorta Articles Posted on Tradition in Action (TraditioninAction.org).

Antonio Socci is a leading Italian journalist, TV show host, author, and public intellectual in Italy. He is well known among many traditional Catholics because of his book The Fourth Secret of Fatima, which is one of the most prominent books about Fatima (in particular, the Third Secret of Fatima) in recent times. Recently, Antonio Socci wrote an article about The Gospel as Revealed to Me / The Poem of the Man-God that was originally published in an Italian newspaper and which he also published on his blog on April 7, 2012, in which he highly praises it, saying:148

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.

Horvat and Anselmo de la Cruz did a far better attempt than the Dominican article in attempting to refute Valtorta, but they failed as well because, objectively, Valtorta’s work is free of error in faith and morals, highly consistent with Scripture, and is tremendously spiritually beneficial for Catholics for generations to come; and their articles (like all the anti-Valtorta articles I’ve come across) are riddled with falsehoods, deficient theology, wrenching of statements out of context with false unsubstantiated insinuations, poor research, ignorance of too many relevant facts, sweeping generalizations, and lack of objectivity. After accounting for the falsehoods and false insinuations which are easily shown as wrong, most of their remaining arguments are based on unsubstantiated subjective impressions which are contradicted by those of greater learning and authority than them.

An Analysis and Refutation of Their Footnote #4

Lastly, the Resistance Dominicans wrote a footnote for their “last advice” sentence that I want to address. Here is the aforementioned sentence which references the footnote: “Last advice: Rather than read these novels where errors abound, it would be better to read Holy Scripture with good commentary based on the Fathers of the Church3, or even good lives of the saints4. Now here is their footnote #4 for the sentence:

4. The lives of the Saints, except in the case of a bad biography, make us remain in the real rather than depart into the imaginary, as is the case of these “visions”. The lives of Saints have what is needed to nourish the imagination, the heart and the intelligence of all Christians, even the most simple. Even today, one can find good illustrated lives of the saints.

Apparently, then, if the Resistance Dominicans are correct, then no one should be reading the scriptural book of the Canticle of Canticles (also known as “The Song of Songs”) in the Holy Bible, because it does not “remain in the real but departs into the imaginary”. Apparently, then, if the Resistance Dominicans are correct, that book of Scripture doesn’t have any value and the Catholic Church made a mistake in including that book in the canon of Scripture.

This statement of the Resistance Dominicans is absurd, unbalanced, is not consistent with the teaching of the Church, and can be easily refuted. It furthermore contains the logical fallacy of the false equivalence which I will get to shortly, but first I want to address something else first.

Fr. Kevin Robinson, FSSPX, wrote:149

The Poem … is really the remedy of sentimentalism in matters of faith. It is no more sensual than the works of St. Ignatius, who encourages the use of all five senses, plus imagination, in his 'Spiritual Exercises'. The Biblical Book 'Canticle of Canticles' could be charged with the same falsehood by the spiritually immature. Valtorta always leads from the senses to the spiritual, the sublime, and the supernatural.

According to the logic of the Resistance Dominicans, one shouldn’t be reading St. John of the Cross’s mystical writings, because it is “imaginary”, and its plot describes a very flowery, imaginary mystical process of the soul’s experiences with God, as explained in this introduction to his Spiritual Canticle:150

Although these canticles resulted from a love flowing out of abundant mystical understanding, they cannot declare fully the understanding or experience. John asks in the Prologue: "Who can describe in writing the understanding he [the Beloved] gives to loving souls in whom He dwells? And who can express with words the experience He imparts to them? Who, finally, can explain the desires He gives them? Certainly, no one can! Not even they who receive these communications." Always, as John explains in stanza 7, there is an "I-don't-know-what" that strives to be articulated, something further to say, something unknown, not yet spoken, a sublime trace of God still uninvestigated but revealed to the mystic. The effort to convey the contents of the experience becomes sheer stammering.

Faced with an inability to make their experience clearly known and at the same time feeling a loving impulse to convey it outwardly, these persons who speak of mysteries and secrets seem to be uttering absurdities. But the apparent absurdities of the poetic images and similes are a more powerful means than rational explanations for expressing the mystical experience; they can suggest so much more about its contents. John, in fact, points out that his is the method of the Holy Spirit who, "unable to express the plenitude of His meaning in ordinary words, utters mysteries in strange figures and likenesses," as for example in the Song of Songs.

In fact the Song of Songs is the principal source of The Spiritual Canticle. In this biblical work John found an expression of his own profound experience, and also found the scenes, images, and words, even though sometimes foreign to his environment, with which to create his own work.

Apparently, the Resistance Dominicans think they know better than St. John of the Cross and the many Popes, theologians, and pious priests and lay faithful who have been reading St. John of the Cross’s “imaginary” works for centuries, with great profit. According to the Resistance Dominicans, all these clerics and faithful shouldn’t have been reading this saint’s works because, in their opinion, they don’t consider it “real” enough and it isn’t worth people’s time (and God shouldn’t have given St. John of the Cross those mystical experiences and have him write them down) because (to quote the Resistance Dominicans) “it departs into the imaginary”.

The Resistance Dominicans categorize Valtorta’s writings as “imaginary” as opposed to “real” like a biography of a saint. This argument is invalid because not only does it presume that Valtorta’s visions are not visions of historical events (whereas many renowned theologians and scientists believe they are historically accurate), but they suggest that, even if it were fiction (like parts of the revelations attributed to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich are and parts of Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God, which was promulgated by multiple Popes, are), there would be no profit to be gained from reading such a work of, allegedly, fiction. There have been thousands of renowned works of Catholic fiction which have been very effective in promoting faith and evangelization. One of the most notable and well known is Venerable Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God, which is loaded with historical errors, but was nevertheless promoted by multiple Popes, imprimatured, and graced with a papal apostolic blessing. On the secular side of things, fans of the devout Catholic Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings would object to the idea that if something is fiction, that it has no value or meaningful symbolism. People who enjoyed legitimately good religious novels or films such as Ben Hur, The Robe, The Great Fisherman, The Silver Chalice, The Spear, would object to the idea that there is no value in such works of fiction and that they should be avoided exclusively in favor of “real” biographies of saints.

This argument of the Resistance Dominicans is invalid from another point of view as well. You can pick up many books and writings of many saints, such as of St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Teresa of Avila, who have written extensively about the benefits and the necessity for Catholics to engage in meditation, where one imagines a spiritual/religious scene, and one paints the environment with one’s imagination, immerses oneself into it, and converses with God, and derives some spiritual benefit from it. In fact, the SSPX is well known for strongly encouraging Catholics to attend their Ignatian retreats where this type of “imaginary” meditation is a major component of the activities of the retreat. The Resistance Dominicans cannot possibly claim that all of these hundreds of personal meditations done each year by retreatants have no “imaginary” aspect to them, and that, consequently, there is no value in them. The testimonies of retreatants would confirm otherwise.

Fr. Kevin Robinson, FSSPX, was correct in calling “spiritually immature” those who try to claim that there is no benefit in using imagination in meditation. He was correct, because imagination is used in St. Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises and in the Word of God (Scripture), especially in the Canticle of Canticles.

In fact, because it is so relevant to the topic at hand, I will include below what I wrote under “Refutation of Argument Form #4” in the chapter of my e-book entitled “Analyzing and Refuting Some Critic’s Arguments that it Appeals Too Much to the Sensitivity or Presents a De-Supernaturalized Christ Because it Contains So Many Details of the Human Side of Our Lord’s Life” (see the e-book for the refutation of the other three variations of this groundless argument).

A few critics claim that the Poem presents a humanized, de-supernaturalized Christ because it gives so many details of the human side of Our Lord’s life (His words, conversations, travels, detailed scenes, etc.) They are concerned that the Poem’s giving so many details of Our Lord’s daily life makes Him too material, and brings us down from the spiritual level of the four Gospels.

That is a legitimate concern to have for a private revelation about which one has little knowledge, or about one which has not been adequately researched yet, but when one researches the Poem of the Man-God in depth, this concern proves to be completely unfounded, and I’ll explain why.

There is a book entitled In the Likeness of Christ (originally published in 1936) written by Rev. Fr. Edward Leen, D.D. (1885-1944, a Holy Ghost Father who earned a Doctorate in Divinity and was an author of several highly acclaimed books in the 1930s and 1940s). His book In the Likeness of Christ is sold by the Society of St. Pius X’s Angelus Press. This book’s whole thesis is centered on the benefits and even the need to understand and contemplate the humanity of Jesus in all of its details. Here is an excerpt from the introduction:151

Now what the soul, eager to advance, and completely won to the ideal of “putting on Christ,” desires above all else to know is, how is this to be done? What practical co-operation is it called on, itself, to furnish, in order that its lofty ambition be gratified? In effecting divine instincts in the soul, the Holy Ghost is principal agent. Results of a divine kind can proceed only from a cause which is, itself, divine. But God deigns to make use of an instrument in carrying out this work of the sanctification of His creatures. That instrument is the Sacred Humanity of Jesus—it is Jesus, as expressed in the whole sum of His earthly experience, active, as well as passive. All know this.

…Few grasp the far-reaching significance of the well-known words of St. Paul: “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever else you do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Cor. 10:31). This is more than a pious exhortation to the cultivation of a right intention; it is the formulation of a profound truth—a truth too little understood. The supernatural life, as has been so often repeated in these recent years, is not something apart from, or beside, much less in opposition to, or destructive of the natural. It is the natural elevated, transmuted, penetrated through and through with a divine leaven. Grace necessarily implies the existence of what it elevates. It presupposes human life, not partially or in some scattered and isolated elements, but in its totality. It is the life of man, as man, that grace sets out to sublimate and refine unto the refinement of God. It is through man’s own life, taken in all its activities and passivities, in its thoughts, views, judgments, decisions, in its deliberate emotions and reactions; in its outward activities as guided by his rational faculties, in all its willed contact with circumstances, with things, with men, and with God; it is through and by means of all this that man is to be wrought to a better, to a divine form.

The instrument of man’s sanctification is, in a subordinate sense, man’s own human life. This conclusion is not in contradiction to, but supplementary to, the statement made above, namely, that the human life of Christ is the instrument of the divinity in the divinization of the human soul. For the work of sanctification consists, precisely, in establishing vital contact between two life experiences—the life experience of Christ and the life experience of the Christian. Everything is in that.

…The first step in the spiritual ways is to aim at developing and cultivating a strong personal admiration for Jesus of Nazareth—Who loves to style Himself the Son of Man. By a psychological law, admiration begets love, and love inspires imitation. He who admires the Man Jesus will feel impelled to imitate Him in His life, His principles, and His actions. It is a matter of common observation that those who look up to and admire other characters tend, insensibly, to shape their thoughts and conduct to the pattern of the thoughts and conduct of such characters. The willing and devoted follower is gradually molded to the form of his chief…In a somewhat similar way, the human character of the Christ gradually forms to its own likeness those who strive to cultivate an enthusiastic admiration for Him.

…The divinity works through the Sacred Humanity and directly gaining the hearts and souls of men can work transforming effects there. Grace reinforces and gives supernatural energy to the natural psychological influence of a Great Personality on its admirers. When one has learnt to admire Jesus, and through that admiration is insensibly drawn to imitate Him, the grace of the Man-God enters into action to make that imitation real and effective, in the inner dispositions of the soul and in the outward forms of conduct.

The Poem of the Man-God reveals these details about Jesus: His activities, thoughts, views, judgments, decisions, deliberate holy emotions and reactions, His outward activities as guided by his rational faculties, His willed contact with circumstances, with things, with men, and with God. Learning from Jesus in this way helps to elevate men to a higher spirituality – to be “divinized” as sons of God. Far from being an obstacle to growth in holiness and progressing on a spiritual level, seeing these details in Christ’s life is an aid – and according to the author of this book – the most perfect aid – to achieve this.

Maria Valtorta reports Jesus said to her:152

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].

Camillo Corsánego (1891-1963) was national president of Catholic Action in Italy, Dean of the Consistorial Lawyers, and a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome, and he wrote:153

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.

It has been said that the Work lowers the adorable Person of the Saviour. Nothing could be more wrong: Christians, I believe, usually after having affirmed faith in Jesus Christ, God and man, always forget to consider the humanity of the Incarnate Word, Whom He is regarded as the true God, but rarely as true Man, frustrating the invitation to many ways of sanctification, which is offered to us by the exemplary human life of the Son of God.

Anyone who reads [even] a limited number of these wonderful pages, literally perfect, if he has a mind free of prejudices, cannot not draw from them the fruits of Christian elevation.

Repeating part of the excerpt from In the Likeness of Christ quoted earlier:154

The instrument of man’s sanctification is, in a subordinate sense, man’s own human life. This conclusion is not in contradiction to, but supplementary to, the statement made above, namely, that the human life of Christ is the instrument of the divinity in the divinization of the human soul. For the work of sanctification consists, precisely, in establishing vital contact between two life experiences—the life experience of Christ and the life experience of the Christian. Everything is in that.

…The first step in the spiritual ways is to aim at developing and cultivating a strong personal admiration for Jesus of Nazareth—Who loves to style Himself the Son of Man. By a psychological law, admiration begets love, and love inspires imitation. He who admires the Man Jesus will feel impelled to imitate Him in His life, His principles, and His actions. It is a matter of common observation that those who look up to and admire other characters tend, insensibly, to shape their thoughts and conduct to the pattern of the thoughts and conduct of such characters. The willing and devoted follower is gradually molded to the form of his chief…In a somewhat similar way, the human character of the Christ gradually forms to its own likeness those who strive to cultivate an enthusiastic admiration for Him.

…The divinity works through the Sacred Humanity and directly gaining the hearts and souls of men can work transforming effects there. Grace reinforces and gives supernatural energy to the natural psychological influence of a Great Personality on its admirers. When one has learnt to admire Jesus, and through that admiration is insensibly drawn to imitate Him, the grace of the Man-God enters into action to make that imitation real and effective, in the inner dispositions of the soul and in the outward forms of conduct.

By studying the life, words, and actions of Jesus during His life, we can better imitate Him and grow in holiness. Jesus gave Maria Valtorta a dictation which explains one of the reasons why He has given these revelations (to serve as a model) and in which He directly answers one of the arguments of some critics that reading details about His life in Maria Valtorta’s works presents a “de-supernaturalized” Christ or a too “humanized” Christ. Jesus says:155

With so many books dealing with Me and which, after so many revisions, changes, and fineries have become unreal, I want to give those who believe in Me a vision brought back to the truth of My mortal days. I am not diminished thereby, on the contrary I am made greater in My humility, which becomes substantial nourishment for you, to teach you to be humble and like Me, as I was a man like you and in My human life I bore the perfection of a God. I was to be your Model, and models must always be perfect.

Fr. Kevin Robinson, FSSPX (Priestly Fraternity of the Society of St. Pius X) wrote:156

…The works of St. Ignatius encourages the use of all five senses, plus imagination, in his 'Spiritual Exercises'. The Biblical Book ‘Canticle of Canticles’ could be charged with the same falsehood by the spiritually immature. [Just like him], Valtorta always leads from the senses to the spiritual, the sublime, and the supernatural.

It is these unprecedented details in Christ’s life (most especially His word – that is, His speeches; and how He responded to other people’s actions and words) which provides such nourishing food and raises our soul towards the supernatural.

John Haffert was a co-founder and the head of the famous Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima, which is a public international association promoting Fatima that once consisted of 25 million members. John Haffert met with Sr. Lucy (the Fatima visionary) and worked with her to develop the “Fatima Pledge” in 1946 that all members had to ascribe to. He was also the editor of Scapular Magazine, which was responsible for helping one million Americans become enrolled in the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima.157 John Haffert was a very significant figure in the Catholic Church from the 1940s until his retirement in 1987. He was a strong advocate of the Poem of the Man-God, and wrote in 1995:158

"I have the 10 volumes of The Poem of the Man-God in Italian and French. It is the most wonderful work I have ever read and I consider it a blessing of God. I'm in my seventies. And in my entire life, among all the books I've read, The Poem of the Man-God is the one that has done me the most good in my spiritual life."

John Haffert also wrote a 17-page booklet about the Poem entitled That Wonderful Poem! which is available online here: That Wonderful Poem! by John M. Haffert.

What is interesting to us in this discussion is what he reports the former Bishop of Fatima said on this subject. In this booklet, John Haffert talks about Bishop John Venancio (Bishop of Fatima from 1954-1972 and learned theologian who taught dogmatic theology at a pontifical university in Rome, and who was the one who provided important evidence about the Third Secret of Fatima).

John Haffert discusses Bishop John Venancio below:159

I happened to be in Rome with the Most Rev. John Venancio, the Bishop of Fatima, when he sought out a special bookstore to purchase the ten volumes of the Italian edition [of the Poem of the Man-God]. It had been recommended by a highly esteemed friend in Paris, the celebrated author-editor, Abbé André Richard.

Years later, after Bishop Venancio retired, whenever I visited him our conversation seemed to turn to the Poem. In his last years the Bishop read from it every day. He must have read all ten volumes over and over. I began to wonder what could be so special about it. The Bishop was widely read and had a sizable library. He had been a professor of dogmatic theology in Rome before becoming the Bishop of Fatima. Yet now, when he had ample time to read anything he wished, he seemed to spend all his time on this one book… Having struggled – like millions before me – with the mystery of the dual nature of Jesus, I said one day to Bishop Venancio, before I myself had begun to read the Poem: "Does it help you to understand Jesus at once as God and man?"

The holy bishop (and let it be remembered he was a learned theologian who had taught dogmatic theology at the university in Rome) seemed to be looking into the Divine Light, as he sighed: "Oh, more and more!"

Most who read the Poem will have this experience. They will discover Jesus. But how... except by those more than 3,000 pages... will they be able to tell others what He is really like?

Contrary to some critics who try to say that the details are a bad thing, Maria Valtorta reports that Jesus said that the details will help souls come to Him, in the following dictation given on January 25, 1944:160

To those few who are so entirely Mine, without reserve, I open the treasures of revelations and contemplations, and give Myself without reserve.

However, Maria, I choose you for the role of making known My Divinity, in its different manifestations, among those who need to be awakened and led to glimpse God.

Remember to be scrupulous to the utmost in repeating what you see. Even a single trifle has value, and it is not yours, but Mine. It is thus not licit for you to hold it back. It would be dishonest and selfish. Remember that you are the reservoir for the Divine Water into which that water is poured, so that all may come to draw from it.

As regards the dictations, you have arrived at the most faithful fidelity. In the contemplations you observe a great deal – but in the haste of writing, and on account of your special conditions in health and surroundings – it happens that you omit some details. You must not do so. Place them at the foot of the page, but write down all of them. This is not a reproach – it is sweet advice from your Master...

The more attentive and precise you are, the more numerous those who come to Me will be, and the greater your present spiritual happiness and your future eternal happiness will be.

Go in peace. Your Lord is with you.

What is written in the Poem helps us to understand the canonical Gospels better, and to love Jesus more. 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 studied Maria Valtorta’s writings in depth. 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."161

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.”162

Souls of good will who read the Poem of the Man-God and give it an honest chance find out how wonderful it is. They learn about Jesus. They grow to love Jesus. They learn about both Jesus’ humanity and His divinity. They become holier.

Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle (the first spiritual director and professor of the SSPX Econe seminary, a confessor of Archbishop Lefebvre, and an expert in St. Ignatius of Loyola’s discernment of spirits) said to the SSPX Econe seminarians: “If you wish to know and love the Sacred Heart of Jesus, read Valtorta!”163

Fr. Kevin Robinson, FSSPX, relates:164

I have read about a 1,000 pages a year of Valtorta for 20 years, since Fr. (now Bishop) Williamson appointed me to run the seminary bookstore. He was led to read it by the great Retreat Master of Econe, Fr. Barrielle.

I have in my office a huge file “pro”, and a small file “con” of the works of Maria Valtorta. I have the 10-volume Italian edition for reference with its many profound footnotes. The pros far outweigh the cons.

The holiest and most learned clergy I know are those who appreciate Valtorta, including two Rome-trained Pre-Vatican II Doctors of Canon Law who only say the Tridentine Mass.

A professor and sculptor friend of Maria Valtorta wrote in 1965: "[her works] have completely transformed my inner life. The knowledge of Christ has become so total as to make the Gospels clear to me and make me live them in everyday life better" (Lorenzo Ferri). All those among our parishioners who have read Valtorta say the same thing.

An article relates:165

The Poem is wholly orthodox, and in fact promotes "traditional values" such as the role of the husband and the wife, children to their parents, obedience and respect due to priests, reverence due to the Eucharist, etc. And while the text presents the life of Jesus horizontally in His day-to-day life, it is also distinctly vertically-oriented as well, always directing the reader's gaze upwards towards sublime spiritual realities, such as Christ's majesty and magnificence as King. There is quite a profound Marian component in the writings as well, which magnify and glorify the deeper Mysteries of the Faith, such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the role of Mary as Queen of Heaven and sharer in Christ's suffering as Co-Redemptrix.

Let us note also that those who opposed the Poem are often those who never actually read it – or, if they have, have only briefly thumbed its pages in cursory fashion. For if they took the time to read it, they would not have tolerated the anonymous letters in L'Osservatore Romano, one of which called the Poem a "mountain of childishness" – a most peculiar claim, since even an atheist can admit that its content is more than merely indiscernible ramblings of a delusional woman. It is a brilliantly written narrative – written in the same tradition of private revelation as Catherine Emmerich or Maria Agreda – that keeps perfect track of Jesus, Mary, and over five-hundred characters, none of whom are in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the words of Fr. Gabriel M. Roschini, who Pope Paul VI praised for his commentary on the Poem:

"I must candidly admit that the Mariology found in Maria Valtorta's writings, whether published or not, has been for me a real discovery. No other Marian writing, not even the sum total of all the writings I have read and studied [he wrote over 130 truly orthodox books about Our Lady] 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."

Fr. Kevin Robinson, FSSPX (Priestly Fraternity of the Society of St. Pius X) wrote:166

If The Poem at times seems sentimental, it is really the remedy of sentimentalism in matters of faith. It is no more sensual than the works of St. Ignatius, who encourages the use of all five senses, plus imagination, in his 'Spiritual Exercises'. Valtorta always leads from the senses to the spiritual, the sublime, and the supernatural.

But there is a certain category of people who are incredulous, obstinate, and of bad will. They don’t want to believe that God would be so good as to give such expansive and detailed revelations about Christ’s life and His Words during His earthly life. Almost always, if it isn’t otherwise due to being misinformed or ignorant about the Poem (which constitutes the vast majority of the critics), it is due to pride or a weak faith. Christ gave a dictation where He discusses this:167

One of the greatest sorrows I have is seeing how rationalism has infiltrated into hearts, even into hearts that say they are Mine. It would be useless to let the other priests share in such a gift [His revelations to Maria Valtorta]. It is precisely among them that one finds those who, while preaching Me and My past miracles, deny My Power, as if I were no longer the Christ, capable of speaking again to souls who languish for lack of My Word; nearly admitting a current incapacity on My part for miracles and for making grace powerful in a heart.

To believe is a sign of purity as well as of faith. To believe is intelligence as well as faith. One who believes with purity and with intelligence distinguishes My Voice and gathers it in.

The others quibble, argue, criticize, deny. And why? Because they live from their heaviness and not from their spirit. They are anchored to the things they have found, and do not consider that these are things that have come from men who have not always seen correctly; and even if they have seen and written correctly, they have written for their own times and have been badly understood by those of the future. They do not consider that I could have something else to say, suitable to the needs of the times, and that I am Master of saying it however and to whomever I please, since I am God and the Eternal Word Who never ceases being the Word of the Father.

Now, I believe it is demonstrated above that the material details of Our Lord’s life helps souls and does not present a humanized, de-supernaturalized Christ because it gives so many details of the human side of Our Lord’s life (His words, conversations, travels, detailed scenes, etc.) Also, the Poem’s giving so many physical details of Our Lord’s daily life in no way brings us down from the spiritual level of the four canonized Gospels. It rather helps our souls to meditate and to know Christ because these details aid us in our meditation of Him. A famous saying goes, “Actions speak louder than words.” In the Poem, we not only hear Christ’s Words to a much greater degree than before, but we see His actions in the context necessary to understand them to a much greater degree than before.

But, you have to realize something (and most critics seem woefully unaware of these facts):

(1) A huge percentage of the Poem of the Man-God is not detailed descriptions of the human side of Christ’s life: His travels, conversations, detailed description of his surroundings and the people present, etc; but a huge percentage of the Poem of the Man-God are speeches that Christ gives. If the other details “bother” you, just read His speeches then! And there is no way that any sane judge can accuse His speeches of being “sentimental” (in a derogatory sense), “focusing too much on material details”, etc. In fact, His speeches are among the loftiest words you will probably read in any spiritual book anywhere. For more details, see the subchapters of this e-book entitled “Proof By the Writing’s Extraordinary Purity, Holiness, Loftiness, and Eminence Among the Writings that Exist in the World” and “Proof by its Knowledge, Depth, and Eminence in the Theological, Exegetical, Mystical, and Mariological Fields (Which Many World-Renowned Trustworthy Theologians Say Exceed Anything They Have Ever Read)”.

(2) The Poem of the Man-God is only about 60% of Maria Valtorta’s total writings. In addition to the approximately 4,200 printed pages of the Poem of the Man-God (a.k.a. The Gospel as Revealed to Me), she wrote a total of over 1900 printed pages published under the title The Notebooks which cover a whole range of topics from visions of the early Church, the Eucharist as the greatest miracle, commentaries on Old Testament prophecies pertaining to our times, mystical theology and the spiritual life, the End Times and the Book of the Apocalypse, along with a tremendous number of other topics. She also wrote 336 printed pages of dictations from her guardian angel of lessons for the 58 Sunday Masses found in the traditional Roman Missal published under the title The Book of Azariah, which are phenomenal words, explanations, and theology. She also has 310 printed pages on a commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans dictated by the Holy Spirit, which are invaluable. All of her other writings outside of the Poem of the Man-God do not cover details of Our Lord’s life as much and are kept on a more “purely spiritual level”, and so if you are one who does not appreciate material details of Our Lord’s life as described in the Poem, read these other works instead then! There is absolutely no way that these other works can ever be accused of being sentimental or being too much focused on non-spiritual details.

Now I just want to address two more possible objections about the details of Christ’s Life as revealed in the Poem.

The first objection might be someone saying, “But the length of Jesus’ speeches are short and simple in the canonized Gospels. Perhaps it is not believable that Maria saw actual visions of what Christ said because He is so much more powerful and detailed in His speeches in the Poem as compared to His speeches in the canonized Gospels.”

Jesus addresses this objection in a dictation which He gave to Maria Valtorta:168

I know the objection by many: “Jesus spoke simply.” In the parables I spoke simply because I was addressing crowds of common folk. But when I spoke to cultured minds—Israelite or Roman or Greek—I spoke as was most appropriate for perfect Wisdom.

My words, moreover, in the versions of the Evangelists, just two of them were Apostles—and if one observes closely, they are the two Gospels most clearly mirroring Me, for Luke’s, good stylistically, may be better termed the Gospel of My Mother and My Childhood, abundantly relating details in relation thereto which the others do not narrate, rather than the Gospel of My public life, being more an echo of the others rather than a new light, as is that of John, the perfect Evangelist of the Light who is Christ the God-Man—the versions, I was saying, of My words were greatly reduced by the Evangelists, to the point of being diminished to a skeleton—more an allusion than a version. A fact which deprives them of the stylistic form which I had given them.

The Teacher is in Matthew (see the Sermon on the Mount, the instructions for the Apostles, the praise of the Baptist and the rest of this chapter, the first episode in Chapter 15 and the heavenly sign, [the subject of] divorce in Chapter 19, and chapters 22, 23 and 24). The Teacher is [also] in the luminous Gospel of John, above all, the Apostle in love, fused in charity with his Christ the Light. Compare what this Gospel reveals about Christ the Orator, to what is displayed in this regard by the essential scantiness of Mark’s Gospel—precise in the episodes he had heard from Peter, but reduced to a minimum—and you will see whether I, the Word, used only a very humble style, or whether the power of the Perfect Word did not often flash forward in Me. Yes, it shines out in John, though quite reduced in a few episodes.

Now, if to [Maria Valtorta] I have wanted to grant an increase in knowledge of Me and My teaching, why should this make you incredulous and obstinate? Open up. Open your intellects and hearts, and bless Me for what I have given you.

Jesus addresses another objection:169

When I reveal to you unknown episodes in My public life, I already hear the chorus of difficult doctors saying, “But this fact is not mentioned in the Gospels. How can she say, ‘I saw this?’” I respond to them with the words of the Gospels.

“And Jesus passed through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, and healing all the weakness and illnesses,” Matthew says. (Matthew 4:23, 9:35)

And, in addition: “Go and tell John what you see and hear: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, and the good news is announced to the poor.” (Matthew 11:4-5, Luke 7:22)

And, in addition: “Woe to you, Chorazin; woe to you, Bethsaida – for if in Tyre and Sidon the miracles worked in your midst had taken place, for a long time now they would have been doing penance in sackcloth and ashes... And you, Capernaum – will you be exalted to Heaven? You will descend to hell, for if in Sodom the miracles worked in you had taken place, it might still exist.” (Matthew 11:20-24, Luke 10: 13-15)

And Mark: “... And many people followed Him from Galilee, Judah, ldumaea, and beyond the Jordan. Many people, having heard what He was doing, also came to Him from the surroundings of Tyre and Sidon…” (Mark 3:7-8)

And Luke: “Jesus went through the cities and villages, preaching and announcing the good news and the Kingdom of God, and with Him were the twelve and some women who had been freed from evil spirits and infirmities.” (Luke 8:1-3)

And My John: “After this, Jesus went beyond the Sea of Galilee, and a great crowd followed Him because they saw the miracles worked by Him among the sick.” (John 6:1-2)

And since John was present at all the miracles of whatever nature – which I worked for three years – the beloved one bears Me this unlimited witness: “This is the disciple who has seen these things and has written them. We know that his testimony is true. There are, moreover, other things done by Jesus, and, if they were to be written one by one, I believe the world could not contain the books which would have to be written.” (John 21:24-25)

So? What do the doctors of quibbling say now?

If My goodness – to relieve a woman who loves Me and bears My cross for you... to awaken you from the lethargy in which you are dying – makes known episodes in this ministry, would you like to turn this into a reproach for that goodness?

You won’t indeed want to think that in three years I worked the few miracles narrated? You won’t think that the few women mentioned were the only ones healed, or the few miracles mentioned were the only ones worked? If the shadow of Peter served to heal (Acts 5:14-15), what must My shadow have done? Or My breath? Or My glance? Remember the woman suffering from bleeding: “If I manage to touch the hem of His robe, I shall be healed.” (Matthew 9:20-22, Mark 5:25-29, Luke 8: 43-48) And so it was.

The power of miracles issued from Me continually. I had come to take people to God and open the dikes of Love, closed by the day of sin. Centuries of love expanded like waves over the little world of Palestine. [This was] all God’s love for man, which could finally expand as He desired, to redeem men first with Love, rather than with Blood.

You may ask Me, “But why to her, who is such a poor thing?” I shall answer you when she – whom you disdain and I love – is less exhausted. You would deserve the silence I observed with Herod (Luke 23:8-9). But it is My attempt to redeem you – whom pride makes the hardest to persuade.

Finally, I conclude this section with one last point. The following very learned (and some of them: world-renowned), trustworthy, non-modernist ecclesiastics, theologians, authorities, and scholars would not have approved the Poem of the Man-God after their very careful, in-depth study of it, as they did, if the Poem truly presented a humanized, de-supernaturalized Christ, and makes Him too material, and brings us too far down from the spiritual level of the four Gospels, including:

Pope Pius XII (who, in 1948, ordered it to be published), the Holy Office, 13 years later, in 1961 (and again in 1992) granted permission for the publication of her work, Bishop Roman Danylak, S.T.L., J.U.D. (who issued an official letter of endorsement of the English translation of the Poem of the Man-God in 2001), and Archbishop Soosa Pakiam M. of Trivandrum, India (who granted the imprimatur of the Malayalam translation of the Poem in 1993). It has also received the documented approval of three pre-Vatican II Consultants to the Holy Office in 1951-1952, five pre-Vatican II professors at pontifical universities in Rome, Blessed Gabriel Allegra, O.F.M. (a world-renowned exegete and theologian), Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M. (world-renowned Mariologist, decorated professor and founder of the Marianum Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome, Consultant of the Holy Office, and who wrote over 130 totally orthodox books about Our Lady), and many other cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and priests.

None the least of these was Archbishop Alphonsus Carinci, who was 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). Archbishop Carinci was in charge of investigating causes for beatification and canonization. He was conversant in recognizing true and false sanctity and was of distinguished repute. He 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”.170 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, in 1948, to his papal command to publish it.171 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.172 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.173 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.174

Among the other bishops who officially approve and promote the Poem of the Man-God are: Archbishop Alberto Ramos of Belem, Brazil, who granted the imprimatur to an anthology of the Poem of the Man-God that was published in 1978; Archbishop Nuncio Apostolic Pier Giacomo De Nicolò, who preached about Maria Valtorta and her writings with positive approval for the 50th anniversary of Maria Valtorta’s death in 2011 in the basilica where she is buried; Bishop John Venancio (former Bishop of Fatima and learned theologian who taught dogmatic theology at a pontifical university in Rome and who provided important evidence about the Third Secret of Fatima); Archbishop George Pearce, S.M., D.D.; and seven bishops in India who sent out letters to the translator of the Malayalam translation of the Poem praising and endorsing its translation and dissemination, stating that there is nothing against faith or morals in the Poem (one of them was a cardinal, another one was an archbishop, and the other five were regular bishops – two of whom were later appointed archbishops).

There are also documented eyewitness accounts by several trustworthy sources that Saint Padre Pio approved and encouraged the reading of Maria Valtorta’s works, and that he had mystical experiences with Maria Valtorta during the time when they were both alive (see the chapter of this e-book entitled “Padre Pio and Maria Valtorta” to read about these accounts).

There are also many other trustworthy and well-learned bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and theologians not mentioned above who approve of and endorse the Poem of the Man-God (many of whom approved it prior to Vatican II and the revolution in the Church that broke out after the Council).

In addition to the significant ecclesiastical approval of the Poem – many of whom testify that they are certain that this is an authentic private revelation from God – there are a multitude of experts in a great variety of the secular sciences and arts that attest to the evidence of the divine origin of the Poem, writing authoritatively in their particular field and area of expertise.

Now I want to address what I mentioned earlier in the article: the statement of the Resistance Dominicans contains the logical fallacy of the false equivalence. False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.

There is very strong evidence that Maria Valtorta’s revelations are highly historically accurate, and, therefore, are visions of real, historical events. I invite readers to see my e-book for this evidence. In my e-book, there is a chapter entitled “Proofs of the Supernatural Origin of Maria Valtorta’s Visions Described in Her Work”.

This chapter contains the following subchapters:

Proofs of the Divine Origin of Maria Valtorta's Work
Also, in my e-book there is a chapter entitled “How does the Poem of the Man-God Compare to the Revelations of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich and Venerable Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God?”. This chapter contains four subchapters:

How does Maria Valtorta's Work Compare to the Revelations of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich and Venerable Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God?
These aforementioned chapters show the arguments for why it is only reasonable for informed scholars who have actually properly investigated Valtorta’s work (unlike the Resistance Dominicans) to conclude that her work is highly historically (and even scientifically) accurate. Therefore, there are very strong arguments that her work, is, in fact, not “imaginary” or fiction, but rather based on real, historical events (i.e., non-fiction). In this case, even this aspect of the objection of the Resistance Dominicans falls through and does not apply to Valtorta’s work. That is why I say that they have exercised the logical fallacy of the false equivalence, because they are associating Valtorta’s work with fictional works, whereas, in reality, her work ought to be more associated with non-fiction than fiction. In fact, if you read the chapter in my e-book “How does the Poem of the Man-God Compare to the Revelations of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich and Venerable Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God?”, you will see that Valtorta’s work has proven to be far more scientifically and historically accurate than Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich’s work and Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God, the latter of which was promoted by multiple Popes, imprimatured, and graced with a papal apostolic blessing.

Prof. Leo A. Brodeur, M.A., Lèsl., Ph.D., H.Sc.D., wrote:175

No one should be surprised or worried if scientific or historical errors are found in The Poem of the Man-God, or if she contradicts what other mystics have said. Even if The Poem of the Man-God were full of historical errors, that would be no reason to reject it, as it was approved in 1948 by Pope Pius XII, a doctor in Canon Law.

Now it must be admitted that as a whole, that writing by Valtorta is astonishingly precise even from the viewpoints of archeology, history, and experimental sciences. No one should worry if some small errors have crept in; but wouldn’t the great overall historical and scientific accuracy of the work be an act of condescension by the Lord for our times which attach great importance to science? Maria Valtorta, to all practical purposes an ignoramus without documentation, could never have invented the historical or scientific details in her visions: she would have blundered and many details would have turned out to be false. Since she did not know enough to be able to invent them, she must have received them from another source.

[…] Before such testimonies [of science] it is fitting to conclude that one must not attach too much importance to the historical and scientific details in Valtorta’s work. As a whole they help to establish its authenticity; but that does not prevent that some details may turn out to be wrong. Once its authenticity has been acknowledged, we must rather consider it from the point of view of the mystical and spiritual life. For this work was given essentially to feed the soul and help it to love Jesus and Mary—not primarily to satisfy intellectual curiosity.

Apart from those who have trouble with understanding actual Church teaching on mystical writings, I doubt that any honest and serious Catholic would go so far as to reject Valtorta’s revelations entirely (including for the consideration of its spiritual value) based on apparent historical error, or else he would have to reject every other mystics’ writings in the history of the Church, including Venerable Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God which is loaded with historical errors, but was nevertheless promoted by multiple Popes, imprimatured, and graced with a papal apostolic blessing. There is just too much spiritual value in the Poem to reject it entirely – even if it were filled with 99%+ historical error rather than 99%+ historical accuracy. To reject the Poem’s spiritual value because of several historical errors would be like the atheist who rejects the entire Bible and won’t even consider any of Christ’s saving words and life-changing doctrine because he found one apparent historical error or one apparent contradiction or inconsistency with another book of Scripture. The overwhelming scientific proofs of the divine origin of the Poem in such a diverse number of fields completely overwhelms the insignificance of a few historical errors (if they even can be proven to really be historical errors). For an in-depth treatment, see my e-book. Regarding Maria Valtorta’s work, this Resistance Dominican’s position and advice is a restriction inordinately beyond the current restrictions which the Magisterium in general, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in specific, have put forth. The Resistance Dominicans neglect the historical facts about Pope Pius XII’s command to publish the Poem, the multiple imprimaturs and episcopal endorsements this work has received from numerous bishops, the Holy Office's approval of the publication of the second edition in 1961 according to the testimony of Fr. Berti, and the fact that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has in recent times confirmed it is free of error in faith and morals and has given permission to the publisher to publish it and the faithful to read it. For someone purporting to give an honest and accurate review of the position of the Church on her writings, they fall far short. It shows that they did not do their homework (or selectively ignored certain inconvenient facts which many bishops, theologians, professors, and even journalists recognize, the blatant omission of which could be viewed as a type of academic dishonesty).

It seems that the Resistance Dominicans highly underestimate (or are ignorant of) the tremendous accuracy of Maria Valtorta’s work in numerous scientific fields and in historical accuracy and do not acknowledge or appreciate them. Theologians and scientists (many of whom are more learned than them) have not hesitated to express appreciation of these details. Therefore, I would encourage Catholics, in imitation of Fr. Gabriel Roschini, Archbishop Carinci, and Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle, FSSPX, the latter of whom Archbishop Lefebvre called “our model spiritual guide”, to exercise their legitimate freedom that the Church permits to appreciate Maria’s revelations with a measure of human faith proper for private revelations and to appreciate the tremendous historical accuracy – and above all spiritual richness – which God, in His unparalleled generosity, has provided through this mystic and victim soul.

But what about claimed contradictions with Scripture? There have been numerous contradictions with Scripture indicated in the revelations of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God (which was promoted by multiple Popes, imprimatured, and graced with a papal apostolic blessing); yet, the Magisterium still permitted them to be printed and read by the faithful and they did not take the unbalanced position of the Resistance Dominicans and claim that faithful should not read them. On the other hand, many competent and renowned theologians have affirmed that Valtorta’s work is completely in accord with Sacred Scripture. I have also analyzed just about every major argument and claim of critics attempting to demonstrate contradiction between Valtorta’s work and Scripture and I have either referred to another person’s refutation or wrote one myself which shows that their arguments fail to demonstrate this and are based on errors/falsehoods, methodological and logical fallacies, deficient theology, ignorance of relevant facts, wrenching of statements out of context with false unsubstantiated insinuations, distortions and misrepresentations of the text, unsubstantiated subjective impressions which are contradicted by those of greater learning and authority than the critics, and similar fallacies.

Now, even if Valtorta’s work could be objectively and thoroughly proven to contradict Scripture somewhere in historical or secondary details not related to faith or morals, according to the teaching of the Church, that would be an insufficient reason to reject her visions or writings and to try to prevent other Catholics from reading them. We could spend quite some time listing numerous mystics who have reported words of Christ in historical visions that were permitted or allowed by the Magisterium that I very much doubt the Resistance Dominicans would consider 100% historically accurate (for example, read: A Critical Review of Mary of Agreda's Mystical City of God). So was the Magisterium wrong then in permitting and/or approving these mystical writings? Do the Resistance Dominicans presume to hold a stricter criterion than previous Popes and the Magisterium?

Personally, I will follow the teaching of the Magisterium regarding what is permitted in mystical writings rather than the opinion of the Resistance Dominicans. I will also hold the position of leading pre-Vatican II theologians who approved Maria’s writings and considered them supernatural who are more learned than the Resistance Dominicans, especially in the areas needed to judge mystical writings, and who, furthermore, studied it in much greater depth (not to mention that many of them actually personally knew, investigated, and communicated at length with the mystic in question).

I especially do not trust the Dominicans' analysis and their “advice” since it is obvious that they have a notable level of ignorance on the subject they are writing about and their article is riddled with falsehoods, deficient theology, wrenching of statements out of context with false unsubstantiated insinuations, poor research, ignorance of too many relevant facts, sweeping generalizations, and lack of objectivity. It is readily apparent from their article that they carried out a cursory, non-in-depth investigation into Maria Valtorta’s writings, bringing in unsubstantiated subjective impressions which are contradicted by those of greater learning and authority than them (and by “those of greater learning and authority than them”, I’m also referring to pre-Vatican II, highly learned, trustworthy theologians who have spent hundreds of hours evaluating her writings, some of whom actually met the author in question).

Prof. Leo A. Brodeur, M.A., Lèsl., Ph.D., H.Sc.D., wrote:176

Theologically: Valtorta's writings exude a great, all-encompassing breadth of knowledge and a clear-mindedness and loftiness of concepts worthy of the greatest theologians, of the Church Fathers, and of the greatest mystics… Furthermore, she had never studied philosophy or theology either at school or on her own. The only education she had received was the average education of upper-middle class Italian girls of the early 1900s. How could she have composed her lofty writings?

Spiritually: Valtorta's writings are outstandingly practical, drawing the reader to practice the Faith in everyday life. They are not in the least dry theological textbooks. They bring spirituality alive, they bring it home, to the reader's heart, by showing us Jesus intimately, personally. Many a reader has exclaimed that reading The Poem is like living with Jesus as the apostles did. As depicted in The Poem, His character – the perfect blend of warmth and reason, of mystical outlook and practical attentions, of holiness and love – has helped many a reader to reform a life of sin, to increase love for our Lord, to become holier. Jesus is portrayed in The Poem as in perhaps no other mystical work. It is quite doubtful that Valtorta could have produced such an uplifting portrait on her own, when she was the first to admit her "nothingness" and ascribed everything to Jesus.

Even scientifically: Valtorta's The Poem of the Man-God exhibits an uncanny accuracy with regard to the archeology, botany, geography, geology, mineralogy, and topography of Palestine in Jesus' time, an accuracy commended by various experts in those fields. Yet, given her lack of education and reading in those fields, and given the fact that she never traveled to Palestine, how could she have given accurate descriptions of places she never went to and never read about in any detail?

Finally, from the literary point of view: Valtorta wrote on the spur of the moment, without preliminary plans, without rough drafts. She wrote fast – over 10,000 handwritten pages in three years – with great consistency of thought and purpose, in masterly Italian combining the highest achievements of the Florentine style of the 1930s with the vividness and spontaneity of common folks when they are quoted. Few writers throughout the history of humanity have been that good and that prolific in that short a period of time; perhaps none of these wrote without rough drafts. Yet, she was bedridden and subjected to frequent physiological crises and down-to-earth interruptions by her relatives or neighbors. How then could she have written so well, when most writers crave solitude to be able to write?

When one ponders the theological and spiritual loftiness of Maria Valtorta's The Poem of the Man-God, as well as its scientific and literary remarkableness, in the light of her average education, lack of health, and in the light of her speed, accuracy and greatness of achievement, how could one seriously entertain the thought that she accomplished all that without supernatural help? When one also ponders her personal lifestyle as a generous victim soul who practiced the virtues heroically, when one also ponders the sufferings which she daily offered to the Lord, then with all due respect, how could [anyone] casually dismiss her claims to supernatural visions and dictations without a full-fledged investigation into her case?

I now end this section with an English translation of Antonio Socci’s April 2012 article about Maria Valtorta entitled “A wonderful gift to our generation: ‘The Gospel as it Was Revealed to Me’ by Maria Valtorta”. Antonio Socci is a leading Italian journalist, author, and public intellectual in Italy. He had his own television show, which he hosted, and is a prominent media personality, especially for topics on the Catholic Church. He has regularly held press conferences for cardinals (including Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Bertone).

He is well known among traditional Catholics because of his book The Fourth Secret of Fatima, which is highly read among many traditional Catholic priests and lay faithful and is often available in traditional Catholic bookstores. His book, The Fourth Secret of Fatima, is discussed in the traditional Catholic documentary The Secret Still Silenced.

To see what is said about Antonio Socci and his book in this documentary, click the following timestamped link which is set to automatically jump to this part in the documentary: About Antonio Socci and The Fourth Secret of Fatima.

Antonio Socci also released in 2012 a fictional work in which Maria Valtorta’s writings play a very prominent role. A May 20, 2012, Vatican Insider article discusses this, and is available here: Vatican Insider Article About Antonio Socci's Book Featuring Maria Valtorta's Writings.

Antonio Socci also released in March 2014 a book entitled Tornati dall’Aldila (Returned from the Beyond), where Maria Valtorta’s writings also play a prominent role. The January-June 2014 Bollettino Valtortiano #87 from the Centro Editoriale Valtortiano relates:177

A new book from Antonio Socci, entitled Tornati dall’Aldila [Returned from the Beyond], published by Rizzoli, is being distributed in libraries as we send the present number of our Bulletin to press. Startling for the theme which it treats, and moving because of the experience of life which has inspired it, the book is surprising for its ample citations of the Work of Maria Valtorta. We are grateful to the author for the dedication to Emilio and Claudia Pisani, coinciding [as it does] with the issuing of the book Lettera a Claudia [Letter to Claudia] of Emilio Pisani, published by CEV.

Antonio Socci wrote an article about the Poem of the Man-God that was published in an Italian newspaper and which he also published on his blog on April 7, 2012. It is available online here: Antonio Socci's Valtorta Article.

Here is a translation:178

A wonderful gift to our generation: "The Gospel as it Was Revealed to Me" by Maria Valtorta

April 7, 2012

It’s a paradox, but modern “non-believers” seem literally fascinated by Jesus of Nazareth. Ernst Renan calls Him a man who is incomparable, and great, to such a point that I would not feel like contradicting those who call Him God.”

Another “anti-Christian” intellectual, Paul Louis Couchoud, admitted:

“In the minds of men, in the ideal world that exists inside one’s head, Jesus is immeasurable. His dimensions are beyond comparison; His level of grandeur is hardly conceivable. The history of the West – from the Roman Empire onwards – is ordered around one central fact, one event-generator: the collective representation of Jesus and of His death. Everything else came forth from that, or adapted itself to it. Everything that has been done in the West for so many centuries has been done in the gigantic shadow of the Cross.”

And so much do men greatly desire to learn more, that often writers, filmmakers, and intellectuals give free rein to their imagination in order to fabricate fables about the Gospels; to invent theories, or often lies; and maybe even to produce films, television series, or theatre – usually of a low-level – but which reap a large audience, because – as the Church says – “the whole world seeks His Face.”

The Gospels, in fact, are chronicles that are rather sparse, containing the necessary and essential facts, but leaving much to the imagination. Saint John concludes his own Gospel, in fact, with this: “There are still many other things done by Jesus which, if they were written out one by one, I think that the world itself would not suffice to contain the books that would need to be written.”

Well, if it is true that all would have desired to have been present there, to have seen Jesus of Nazareth – to have seen His Face, “The fairest of the sons of men” – to have listened to Him in some town’s market-square, along some dusty roads ¬¬– to have been present at His tremendous, earth-shattering miracles; then it must be made known to everyone: there exists a work – the only one of its kind in the world; the only one of its kind in history – which fulfills exactly this “impossible” desire.

It was precisely for our very own generation that this exceptional gift was given. It is a work of ten volumes, about 5,000 pages – literally awe-inspiring – where is re-lived, day by day, as though broadcast live, the adventure of Jesus of Nazareth, the God-Man who overturned human history.

It is entitled “The Gospel as it Was Revealed to Me,” and its author is Maria Valtorta.

These pages are the fruit of several years of mystical experiences, in which Jesus literally made those days of two thousand years ago come back to life again for the visionary, just as if she had been there at that time; indeed, even more so because she also sees and hears things in those days that the apostles themselves were not able to see, know, and relate (such as the entire, long path of Judas’s going astray from the beginning, which was known only by Jesus, Who tried in every way and with a love unheard of, for three years, to save him).

But who is Maria Valtorta? She was born on March 14, 1897. Beginning in 1913, the Valtorta family was living in Florence. She was an active member of Catholic Action and, during World War I, was a volunteer nurse.

Still living in Florence, in 1920, [while walking with her mother], a revolutionary struck the back of the young woman, who happened to be there by chance, thus establishing her condition and subsequent immobility.

In fact, after various painful experiences from April 1, 1934, until her death on October 12, 1961, she spent twenty-seven-and-a-half years “nailed” to her bed: a “Calvary,” which she lived out with heroic faith.

For this reason, fifty years after her death, the number of those who await the opening of her beatification process is ever increasing. Valtorta was a lady of strong character – greatly reasonable and practical, in no way inclined towards fantastical suggestions – who never desired nor sought after mystical experiences.

The supernatural phenomena began in 1943, just when she thought she would not make it anymore and was close to death. On the morning of April 23, Good Friday, Jesus entered into her life and began daily supernatural visits to her, made by means of interior locutions, visions, and dictations, which bound Maria – already suffering on that bed – to an enormous transcription project: approximately fifteen thousand handwritten pages.

From 1944 to 1947 – by means of many successive visions – Maria Valtorta re-lived the whole history of Jesus, relating every episode and even describing smells and the wind. These are exceptional pages, which practically contain all four Gospels and fill in missing periods, solving so many enigmatic points or apparent contradictions.

Reading these pages is not only an extraordinary adventure for the mind since it reveals everything you would want to know and illuminates every truth, but it also changes your heart and changes your life.

Above all, it confirms the veracity of all the dogmas and teachings of the Church, of St. John, St. Paul, and of all the Councils.

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.

A renowned Biblical scholar, [Blessed] Gabriel Allegra, has described it as a masterpiece of world-wide Christian literature.” He also wrote about the “astonishing Scriptural knowledge” of the author who had never studied theology and who only had at her disposal an older, common version of the Bible.

Also significantly emblematic is the judgment which was expressed in 1952 by the Jesuit, Father Augustine Bea, an authority in the field of exegesis, as the Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, (where, several years later, Carlo Maria Martini succeeded him).

Bea was also a prominent personage of the Church because, after having been the confessor of Pope Pius XII, he became a cardinal and was one of the main protagonists of the Second Vatican Council.

Thus, in 1952, he wrote that he had examined an extract of the Work, “…paying particular attention in my reading to the exegetical, historical, archeological, and topographical parts.”

Here is his judgment: “As regards its exegesis, in none of the records I examined have I found errors of any relevance. I was, moreover, very impressed by the fact that the archeological and topographical descriptions were propounded with remarkable exactness.”

All this is humanly inexplicable.

In Maria Valtorta’s Work is found a reconstruction that is so accurate and rich in historical, geographical, and human facts about the Public Life of Jesus, that it is impossible to explain – especially if one considers that it came forth from the pen of a woman who was ignorant of these subjects and of theology, who was not familiar with the Holy Land, and who did not have any books to consult, lying sick and immobilized on a bed in Viareggio, on the Gothic Line, during the war’s most ferocious months.

There are thousands of pages, overflowing with information and with the loftiest reflections and meditations; with geographical descriptions which only today, by going onsite, would be able to be done.

There are hundreds of topographical names and details and of descriptions of places, which were unknown to almost everyone and which only the latest research and archaeological excavations have brought to light. Maria Valtorta’s Work is, in truth, inexplicable by merely human means. Even the literary style is very lofty and profound.

But above all, the Giant – Who runs through these pages and Who fascinates by means of power, goodness, and beauty; Who inspires, by means of words and actions – is precisely that Jesus of Nazareth of Whom the Gospels speak. The world had not seen – nor will ever see – anything comparable.

Antonio Socci

Addressing Their Recommendation of Fr. Herrbach’s Book and Reasons Why His Analysis is Inadequate
and Erroneous, Especially Compared to the Analysis, Writings, and Testimonies of More Qualified,
Trustworthy World-Renowned Theologians Who Have Studied Valtorta's Writings in Depth for Years
and Who Actually Met and Closely Investigated the Author in Question

The Resistance Dominican article says:

For more details, you can consult the book of Fr Herrbach: “Des visions sur l’Évangile” on the website: http://www.clovis-diffusion.com

I would recommend English-speaking and French-speaking Catholics to check out: A Summa & Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work here: http://www.drbo.org/dnl/Maria_Valtorta_Summa_Encyclopedia.pdf

However, perhaps not all of the French-speaking Catholics can read English. In this case, I recommend they check out this informative French website and the books available through it: http://www.maria-valtorta.org/

I also recommend they check out the first French Valtorta conference that took place in Paris on May 28, 2016. You can view videos (in French) of some of conference talks here and here. Titles of some of the talks include “Maria Valtorta, a Gift from God Validated by Science”, “Valtorta: The Best Training for a Priest in Pastoral Care”, “Why Read Valtorta?”, and “Valtorta: The Extraordinary Gift for Our Time”. Also, the second French Valtorta conference took place in the Parish of Notre-Dame d'Auteuil in Paris on May 20, 2017. Over 400 people from all over France attended. You can read more about this conference here: Maria Valtorta Conferences Around the World.

Fr. Yannik Bonnet, D.Sc., is a Doctor of Science from Polytechnique School, which is the most famous school in France for engineers as well as for chairmen in many domains. In France, Polytechnique may be compared to Yale, MIT, or Harvard. In France, D.Sc. is considered a higher doctorate than a Ph.D. Fr. Bonnet was not only a professor, but was for eleven years the director of Ecole Supérieure de Chimie de Lyon (a university for engineers). After being widowed in 1995, he was ordained a priest in 1999, and is now writing in many religious newspapers. Fr. Yannik Bonnet, D.Sc., spoke at the French Maria Valtorta Conference on May 28, 2016, where he gave his testimony about how the work of Maria Valtorta entered into his life and discussed various aspects of her work. He discusses the characters in her work in his talk here: Maria Valtorta / Quelques personnages dans l'oeuvre / Père Yannik Bonnet - 28 mai 2016. He gives his talk “Maria Valtorta: The best training for a pastoral priest” here: Maria Valtorta: La meilleure formation pour un prêtre à la pastorale. Fr. Bonnet also gave a talk at the second French Valtorta Conference on May 20, 2017, and appeared on Radio Notre Dame. Fr. Bonnet and Florian Boucansaud (former professional soccer player) talk about Maria Valtorta on the program “Ecclesia” by Maxime Dalle on Radio Notre Dame on May 19, 2017. You can listen to this show here: Maria Valtorta: Le père Yannik Bonnet et Florian Boucansaud sur Radio Notre Dame.

I personally cannot read French so I cannot investigate Fr. Herrbach’s book directly. However, I am fairly certain that this present refutation of the Resistance Dominicans that I wrote would adequately refute most or all of his arguments, for the following reasons:

1. Some of the arguments listed in the Resistance Dominican’s article (drawn from his book) were already fully developed and articulated in the English anti-Valtorta articles which are discussed and refuted in the following two places:

An Analysis and Refutation of All the Top Anti-Valtorta Articles

A Refutation of the Anti-Valtorta Articles Posted on Tradition in Action (TraditioninAction.org)

In other words, I have found that Valtorta critics like to re-hash (a.k.a. recycle) the same outdated, already-refuted arguments. I have no doubt that some of the arguments in Fr. Herrbach’s book (such as “The sin of Adam and Eve consisted in the use of marriage in a spirit of lust”) have already been articulated by numerous English anti-Valtorta articles, which have been refuted many times over and very thoroughly. In fact, I refuted that particular falsehood/argument so thoroughly here, that I cannot imagine that any arguments Fr. Herrbach could possibly present would overturn the refutation of this falsehood or demonstrate that Valtorta’s work is not completely in line with faith and morals and Catholic theology on this question, as world-renowned theologians have already demonstrated in their published works, who specifically addressed this question at hand.

2. Even though I could not read the full theological argumentation of Fr. Herrbach’s book, it is highly unlikely that what he has written can refute or match the theological analysis of the following:

Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M., was a 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. Fr. Berti is also the one who supervised the editing and publication of the critical second edition of the Poem and provided the extensive theological and biblical annotations that accompany that edition and all subsequent editions (totaling over 5,675 footnotes).

Fr. Berti was an extremely learned and traditional/orthodox scholar who thoroughly analyzed Maria Valtorta’s writings and provided more than 5,675 scholarly footnotes and appendices for her work, including for difficult passages that critics have or could potentially criticize. This averages about 568 footnotes per volume and averages slightly more than one footnote per page throughout the whole 5,264 printed pages. In 1961, the second critical Italian edition of the Poem of the Man-God, published by Knight Michele Pisani's son Emilio Pisani, contained these scholarly footnotes and appendices by Fr. Berti. The subsequent editions, including the current fourth edition released in 2001, have many of these footnotes.

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.”179

Fr. Kevin Robinson, FSSPX, makes a reference to these footnotes:180

I have read about a 1,000 pages a year of Valtorta for 20 years.

I have in my office a huge file “pro”, and a small file “con” of the works of Maria Valtorta. I have the 10-volume Italian edition for reference with its many profound footnotes. The pros far outweigh the cons.

The holiest and most learned clergy I know are those who appreciate Valtorta.

The objections raised so far are meaningless in context. There is only one genuine mistake in all the 20,000 pages (plus) of Valtorta's writings that I have read: On Good Shepherd Sunday, the commentary on the Mass (Book of Azariah) includes the word “Maronite” among the schismatics. The original probably has “Mariavites”, a Polish schismatic sect that St. Pius X condemned.

Fr. Berti, O.S.M., gave a detailed 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. I will just quote an excerpt from the end, which is what is most relevant for what we are looking at now. He stated in his signed testimony written on December 8, 1978, in Rome:181

I knew Maria Valtorta in 1946, and, given the fact that she lived close enough to my mother, I often met with her at least once a month until the year of her death in 1961.

I read and annotated (by myself from 1960 to 1974; with the help of some confreres from 1974 on) all the Valtorta writings, both edited and unedited.

I can certify that Valtorta did not, by her own industry, possess all that vast, profound, clear, and varied learning which is evident in her writings. In fact, she possessed, and at times consulted, only the Catechism of Pius X, and a common popular [Italian] Bible.

Since Maria was a humble and sincere woman, we can accept the explanation which she herself furnished about her learning: attributing it to supernatural visions and dictations, besides her natural skill as a writer. And this is also the opinion of Miss Marta Diciotti who assisted Valtorta for 30 years, and who today receives so many visitors in Valtorta's little room.

Finally, this is also the opinion of the editor, Dr. Emilio Pisani, who hears the written and oral echo of very many readers.

Bishop Williamson wrote, “the seeming doctrinal errors are not difficult to explain, one by one, as is done by a competent theologian in the notes to be found in the Italian edition of the Poem.”182

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. The seeming doctrinal errors in the Poem are not difficult to explain, one by one, with Fr. Berti’s notes and appendices. I have yet to find a single critic of Valtorta who is as learned and experienced as Fr. Berti was (not to mention a critic who has as much authority as Fr. Berti did, as a 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).

I highly doubt that Fr. Herrbach’s qualifications and theological analysis matched the likes of Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M., who studied Valtorta’s work intensely for decades. I particularly highly doubt that Fr. Herrbach’s analysis was objective, correct, valid, and thorough if he proposed the types of arguments that the Resistance Dominicans listed in their article (which they indicate are based on some of the arguments in his book). Some of the things they listed were easily demonstrated to be factual errors and a clear misrepresentation of Valtorta’s text. There is no way that any argumentation of Fr. Herrbach could defend the clear falsehoods and misrepresentation of Valtorta’s text that were listed in the Resistance Dominican anti-Valtorta article, particularly for those objections for which I could find the actual quotation in Valtorta’s work that the objection corresponded to.

Nor have I come to esteem or consider SSPX priests as somehow infallible in investigating topics such as this when you look at the thorough refutation of the unsubstantiated claims and poor research of Fr. Laisney, FSSPX, on this topic, which I thoroughly refute in the subchapter of my e-book entitled “Fr. Francois Laisney, FSSPX: His Comments About the Poem of the Man-God”.

I have discovered that those in the SSPX who oppose the Poem of the Man-God are most likely improperly informed about it, partly either due to having read or heard the objections to it without having read a response to those objections (which can sometimes initially be hard to find in printed form or on the Internet), not having good resources about it or enough time to research it, or otherwise due to an overly cautious and closed attitude toward private revelation in general which tends to hold in disdain and as unnecessary any newly proposed private revelation, which, in some cases, might be ill-advised (for example, to have had such an attitude toward Fatima, Padre Pio, or the Sacred Heart private revelations, would be considered unwise by most, if not all, SSPX priests). I have found that most priests who oppose it have never read it, know hardly anything about it, and just go on hearsay. Those priests who have taken the time to research it and/or who have read it tend to think highly of it and approve it.

I do have my doubts that Fr. Herrbach, as was clearly the case with Fr. Laisney, consulted Fr. Berti’s footnotes, consulted Fr. Gabriel Roschini’s 395-Mariological study of Valtorta’s writings, consulted the theological commentaries of Blessed Gabriel Allegra (world-renowned exegete and theologian), or consulted the types of primary source testimonies documented in books such as Pro e Contro Maria Valtorta. As a matter of fact, I want to briefly list here some of the primary source testimonies and theological commentary by renowned theologians and personages contained in Pro e Contro Maria Valtorta to illustrate what Fr. Laisney and Fr. Herrbach have been neglecting and are ignorant of (scroll down a little if you don’t want to read all of the details of this book and want to skip some of these details):

One of the most important publications about Maria Valtorta and her works is the book entitled Pro e contro Maria Valtorta (For and against Maria Valtorta). The publisher of the Poem, Dr. Emilio Pisani, relates:183

It is undeniable that the diffusion of Maria Valtorta's work (uninterrupted for almost half a century!) has caused both favorable and opposed positions to be recorded: the second group in a clear minority, even if ferocious. So undeniable is this, that we have produced a book entitled Pro e contro Maria Valtorta. In our book, therefore, the positions of both parties are documented, so that the reader could take account of their arguments.

The chapters of this work are the following:

Introductory of Maria Valtorta and her works
The figure and the role of Father Berti
Father Migliorini and the writings of Valtorta
The consent of Pius XII and the veto of the Holy Office
The certificates of 1952 and a petition to Pope Pius XII
A letter from Cardinal Siri
The condemnation of the Index of Forbidden Books
An article by "Catholic Civilization"
The certificates of Father Allegra
Radio
The opinions of some scholars
The dispute between Mir and Gregori
The letter from Cardinal Ratzinger
The book of Gramaglia
The Paolini and a monthly service on "Jesus"
A chapter of the mystical writers
Essays and dissertations
The letter of Mgr. Tettamanzi
Letters of Bishops
The cause of beatification
Appendix: Recollections of Marta Diciotti

This book contains a tremendous number of primary sources invaluable for investigators of Maria Valtorta’s life and writings, including letters, testimonies, and petitions in full of many high-ranking prelates, members of the Roman Curia, cardinals, bishops, and other authorities who all enthusiastically read, studied, approved, and promoted her writings, including (but not limited to):

Archbishop Alphonsus Carinci, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites from 1930 to 1960
Msgr. (later Cardinal) Augustin Bea, S.J. , Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute and Consultant to the Holy Office
Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, Doctor of Theology, Professor at a Major Seminary, President of the Italian Episcopal Conference from 1959-1965
Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., One of the top two Mariologists of the 20th Century, Founder of the Marianum Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome, Professor at the Lateran Pontifical University, Consultant to the Holy Office and the Congregation for the Causes of Saints
Fr. Corrado 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
Msgr. Hugo Lattanzi, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Lateran Pontifical University and Consultant to the Holy Office
Camillo Corsánego, Dean of the Consistorial Lawyers, Professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome, National President of Catholic Action in Italy
Msgr. Angelo Mercati, Prefect of the Vatican Secret Archive from 1925 to 1955
Msgr. Gianfranco Nolli, Noted Biblical Scholar, Director of the Vatican Museum
Blessed Gabriel M. Allegra, O.F.M., World-Renowned Exegete and Theologian, beatified in 2012
Fr. Romualdo Migliorini, O.S.M., Former Apostolic Prefect in South Africa, Spiritual Director of Maria Valtorta from 1942 to 1946
Archbishop (later Cardinal) Angelo Comastri, Licentiate of Sacred Theology, Vicar General of His Holiness to the City of the Vatican. Previously Archbishop of Loreto, Italy
Servant of God George La Pira, University Professor, three-times Mayor of Florence, Now Servant of God
Dr. Nicholas Pende, World-renowned endocrinologist, Consultant to the Sacred Congregation of Rites
Professor Lorenzo Ferri, famous artist and sculptor (and Shroud of Turin scholar)
Msgr. Maurice Raffa, Director of the International Center of Comparison and Synthesis (which he founded in 1940), Member of the Congregation for the Clergy
Professor Vitorio Tredici, Mineralogist, geologist, president of the Italian Metallic Minerals Company, vice-president of the Extractive Industries Corporation, and president of the Italian Potassium Company
Fr. Cornelio Fabro, Ph.D., Philosopher, Doctor of Theology, Professor at four universities
Archbishop Domenico Luca Capozi, O.F.M., Archbishop of Taiyuan, China, from 1946 to 1983
Archbishop Vito Roberti, Archbishop of Caserta, Italy, from 1965 to 1987
Bishop Egidio Gavazzi, Benedictine Abbot and Ordinary (i.e, Bishop) of Subiaco, Italy, from 1964 to 1974
Archbishop Giuliano Agresti, Archbishop of Lucca, Italy (Maria Valtorta’s diocese), from 1973 to 1990
Bishop Aldo Patroni, S.J., Bishop of Calicut, India, from 1948 to 1980
Archbishop H. Pearce, Marist, former Archbishop of Suva, Fiji
Bishop Angelico Melotto, O.F.M., Bishop of Solola, Guatemala, from 1959 to 1986
Archbishop Pietro Santoro, bishop since 1967, Archbishop of Campobasso-Boiano, Italy, from 1979 to 1989
Bishop Roman Danylak, S.T.L., J.U.D., Titular Bishop of Nyssa, issued an official letter of endorsement of the Poem of the Man-God in 2001, affirming it is free of error in faith and morals
Archbishop Giovanni Bulaitis, Titular Archbishop of Narona, Apostolic Nuncio to Albania
Gregorio Penco, Benedictine, best known as a historian
Mario Colpo, S.J.

The book also contains important photocopies of the original signed letters of many of the above clerics and authorities, among them:

• 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.

• On page 74 is a photocopy of the original signed letter of Archbishop Carinci dated January 20, 1949.

• On page 67 is a photocopy of the original signed letter of Msgr. (later Cardinal) Augustin Bea dated January 23, 1952.

• On page 96 is a photocopy of the original signed letter of Fr. Berti dated April 6, 1956.

• On page 83 is a photocopy of the original signed letter of Angelo Mercati dated January 21, 1952 (Mercati died on October 3, 1955).

• On p. 143 is a photocopy of an original diary entry of Blessed Allegra about the Poem (dated August 25-26, 1968)

• On page 84 is a photocopy of the original signed letter of Dr. Nicholas Pende dated January 23, 1952.

• On page 164 is the photocopy of the first side of a letter of Cornelio Fabro to Dr. Emilio Pisani dated December 22, 1979.

• On page 270 is a photocopy of an original signed copy of a letter of Archbishop Giuliano Agresti, Archbishop of Lucca, to Dr. Emilio Pisani thanking him for the receipt of The Notebooks, which he wrote he was “reading with interest.”

The information on the book is the following:

Author: Dr. Emilio Pisani
310 pages, softcover
ISBN-13: 9788879871525

It can be purchased for 18.50 euros from the Centro Editoriale Valtortiano here: Pro e contro Maria Valtorta at Centro Editoriale Valtortiano.

Did Fr. Herrbach consult these important resources and testimonies in his research for his book in which he mentions Maria Valtorta?

I have my doubts. I could consult French-speaking Valtorta readers and ask them to evaluate Fr. Herrbach's book and provide me feedback. If I find anyone interested in investing the time to buy his book to give me this information, then I will update this refutation when I receive this feedback. At that time, it will become clearer whether Fr. Herrbach referred to those primary source testimonies or Fr. Berti’s 5,675 scholarly footnotes and appendices, or Fr. Gabriel Roschini’s 395-page Mariological study of her writings (about which he received a letter from the Sovereign Pontiff at the time he published his book, viewable here).

However, I have already contacted a scholar in France, whom I hold in high esteem, who wrote to me:

“The book of Fr. Herrbach is dated from 1993 and had very little echo in France. As often is the case with writings hostile to Maria Valtorta, its criticisms are very superficial and are often based more on the author’s impressions and sentiments than on an objective, rational analysis. Furthermore, these criticisms (which remind us of those found in the L'Osservatore Romano article) are mere simple assertions, almost never proven with a precise reference to the original text. This spirit is typical of the Pharisees: prompt to criticize and condemn arbitrarily, and persuaded that they alone are “Light” and “Truth”; but they forget about Charity. However, for a true Christian, Truth and Charity are inseparable. Only readers who are naive could let themselves be duped by these peremptory, biased commentaries, which distort the truth to their own advantage.”

Did Fr. Herrbach approach Valtorta’s work with an open mind? Did he question whether the original placement of the first edition of her work on the Index was justified (just like the Holy Office wrongly condemned Padre Pio five times and Pope Pius XI, who reversed the ban on Padre Pio, stated, “I have not been badly disposed toward Padre Pio, but I have been badly informed”)?184

Did Fr. Herrbach properly differentiate the differences between Maria Valtorta’s work and the writings attributed to Anne Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda? Did he do a thorough comparison and contrast similar to what I did in the chapter of my e-book entitled, “How does the Poem of the Man-God Compare to the Revelations of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich and Venerable Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God?”

I once spoke with a French-speaking priest who is familiar with Fr. Herrbach’s book who told me that Fr. Herrbach sort of lumped Valtorta together with Emmerich and Mary of Agreda and tried to argue that these writings as a whole are not trustworthy and should not be read. That seems to me like a deficient analysis and would be equivalent to someone trying to describe the SSPX by lumping sedevecantists and the SSPX together and claim that they are one and the same thing and are both untrustworthy, as people like Michael Voris consistently tend to do. Fr. Herrbach would be the first to differentiate the SSPX position from the sedevecantist position and make important distinctions just as much as I would be quick to differentiate Valtorta’s work from the writings attributed to Emmerich and Mary of Agreda’s work, the latter of which, by the way, was promoted by multiple Popes, imprimatured, and graced with a papal apostolic blessing (in contradiction to Fr. Herrbach’s apparent recommendation to altogether avoid it, as if he knew better than the Magisterium and Popes who promoted it and who granted an apostolic blessing to readers of it).

In the aforementioned chapter of my e-book referenced above, I show how Maria Valtorta’s transcription of her revelations/visions into a written format has been preserved from error to a much higher degree than Anne Catherine Emmerich (whose visions weren’t even written by herself but were written down hastily by Brentano from memory from his conversations with her, and Brentano furthermore ruined the written account by adding other unreliable sources) and Agreda (whose written description of her third and final work – the one we actually have – was rendered unreliable in parts because she was forced to rewrite her visions from memory 18 years after she had her original visions because her previous spiritual directors commanded her to burn her first two, more reliable works). I describe how Valtorta’s transcription of her revelations into a written format has been preserved from error to a very high degree. I also show how Maria Valtorta’s revelations are being proven by science to a degree much greater than most (if not all) the previous mystics of the Church who had historical visions of Jesus and Mary’s life, and how competent scientists and researchers have been increasingly showing how this is true. I also show how, in many respects, Maria Valtorta’s revelations are greater than most previous similar mystics’ revelations (that is, the mystics who have had visions of historical scenes), and how her revelations are especially suited for our time. I also have an in-depth discussion on the issue of real or apparent contradictions between the different mystics.

Did Fr. Herrbach investigate these things? Was he even intellectually open-minded enough to consider the possibility of these things? Did he lump Valtorta, Emmerich, and Agreda together as if they are the same thing and treat them the same way without considering the very different and unique circumstances under which each mystic wrote their writings (which, in truth, made or broke the accuracy of transcribing their visions onto paper)?

Did he consider what Blessed Gabriel Allegra (world-renowned exegete and theologian) wrote here:185

Comparison With Other Works

Whoever starts out to read [the Poem of the Man-God] with an honest mind and with commitment can well see for himself the immense distance that exists between The Poem and the New Testament Apocrypha, especially the Infancy Apocrypha and the Assumption Apocrypha. And he can also notice what distance there is between this work and that of Venerable Catherine Emmerich, Mary of Agreda, etc. In the writings of these latter two visionaries, it is impossible not to sense the influence of third persons, an influence which it seems to me must on the contrary be absolutely excluded from our Poem. To be convinced of this it suffices to make a comparison between the vast and sure doctrine – theological, biblical, geographical, historical, topographical – which crowds every page of the Poem, and the same material in the [other visionary] works mentioned above. I am not going to speak of literary works, because there are none which cover the life of Jesus beginning from the Birth to the Assumption of the Madonna, or at least none known to me. But even if we limit ourselves to the basic plots of the most celebrated ones, like: Ben Hur, The Robe, The Great Fisherman, The Silver Chalice, The Spear..., these could not quite bear comparison with the natural, spontaneous plot welling up from the context of events and characters of so many persons – a veritable crowd! – which forms the mighty framework of the Poem.

Did Fr. Herrbach properly investigate all the evidence about Pope Pius XII’s command to publish Valtorta’s writings that I elaborate in my e-book? Was he even open-minded about it?

Did Fr. Herrbach mention Fr. Barrielle’s strong approval of Valtorta’s work, that he fully believed in its authenticity, and that he promoted Valtorta’s writings for years to SSPX Econe seminarians with the awareness of Archbishop Lefebvre? Or did he fail to mention that potentially inconvenient fact? Does Fr. Herrbach think that Fr. Barrielle, who was called by Archbishop Lefebvre “our model spiritual guide”, and who authored Rules for the Discernment of Spirits in the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola used extensively in all SSPX Ignatian retreats even to this day: does Fr. Herrbach consider that this renowned retreat master with over 40 years of experience was somehow deluded, and yet, he (Fr. Herrbach) was not? Does he consider that the greatest Mariologist of the 20th century, Fr. Gabriel Roschini, was deluded in writing his 395-page Mariological study of Valtorta’s writings, in which he testified, “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”?186 Does Fr. Herrbach think that he was deluded too, and yet he (Fr. Herrbach) was not?

Does Fr. Herrbach think that he has a better grasp of the character of Maria Valtorta, her holiness, or the authenticity of her revelations than Archbishop Carinci? Did Fr. Herrbach perform the things that Archbishop Carinci did? (which will be briefly outlined below)

One of the greatest testimonies possible regarding the assessment of Maria Valtorta, this private revelation, and the discernment of spirits is indeed Archbishop Carinci. Who better to evaluate Maria Valtorta and her revelations than the pre-Vatican II priest in her day who was in charge of assessing causes of saints? Who is this? This priest would be the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (which was later renamed the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in 1969). This Secretary was well versed in the discernment of spirits and regularly looked into the lives of claimant visionaries and mystics, and had the training, experience, and the grace of state to tell the true from the false. Who was this Secretary? Archbishop Alphonsus Carinci.

Archbishop Carinci was Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites from 1930 to 1960. He 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 1952:187

“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:188

“...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.”

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 1948.189 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.190 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.191 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.192

Prof. Leo A. Brodeur, M.A., Lèsl., Ph.D., H.Sc.D., relates more details about Archbishop Carinci:193

We could list several Church personalities who highly esteemed Valtorta’s work. Let us mention only Archbishop Alphonso Carinci, Secretary of the Congregation of Rites, where he was in charge of the causes of beatification. He was also the confidant of Pope Pius XII. Born in 1862, Most Rev. Carinci outlived Maria Valtorta (1897-1961), whom he knew. He was over 100 years old when he died. He began reading some of her writings before 1948, and corresponded with her. Three times he traveled from Rome to Viareggio and visited her: in April 1948, June 1952, and January 1958. In 1952, since Valtorta was paraplegic and bedridden, he said Mass, with two Servite priests, in her bedroom. He wore the ornaments for a great feast, having borrowed them from the Santissima Annunziata basilica in Florence. Marta Diciotti, Maria Valtorta’s homemaker, knew Most Rev. Carinci, and said that he “entertained no doubts as to Maria Valtorta and her writings.” Diciotti says that he used to comfort Valtorta with these words: “He is the Master. He is the Author.” And Diciotti explains: “He used to say ‘the Author’ and write ‘the Author’ with a capital A.” Such is the witness of a great archbishop, who knew in depth the discernment of spirits, since its role is fundamental in the beatification procedures.

It is to be noted that Archbishop Carinci died in 1961 at over 100 years old. Archbishop Carinci was in charge of investigating causes for pre-Vatican II beatification and canonization. He was Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites from 1930 to 1960 and of distinguished repute. Therefore, for him to outright tell Maria Valtorta that Jesus Christ is the Author of her works, after he studied her writings in depth and visited her in person multiple times, is an extremely powerful testimony to traditional Catholics! And he didn’t just do a superficial examination of her and her writings. A book entitled Lettere a Mons. Carinci (Letters to Archbishop Carinci) has 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.

Does Fr. Herrbach have even one hundredth of the level of credibility in writing about the authenticity of Valtorta’s work that Archbishop Carinci had? Did Fr. Herrbach write dozens of letters to the mystic in question? Did Fr. Herrbach meet her? Did Fr. Herrbach investigate her case and did he have the grace of state and the commission of the Church at the time to do so?

Did Fr. Herrbach consult these other primary sources? (listed below):

An important book available in Italian is Lettere a Mons. Carinci (Letters to Archbishop Carinci). This 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.

The information on the book Lettere a Mons. Carinci is the following:

Author: Maria Valtorta
144 pages, softcover
ISBN-13: 9788879871402

It can be purchased for 13 euros from the Centro Editoriale Valtortiano here: Lettere a Mons. Carinci at Centro Editoriale Valtortiano.

A noteworthy book available in Italian is Una vita con Maria Valtorta: Testimonianze di Marta Diciotti (A Life with Maria Valtorta: Testimonials of Marta Diciotti). It is the testimony of Marta Diciotti on Maria Valtorta’ life. Marta Diciotti was Maria Valtorta’s live-in companion, caretaker, and close friend for 26 years. After Maria Valtorta’s death, she received visitors into Maria Valtorta’s room until the late 1990s. She passed away on February 5, 2001.

The information on the book is the following:

Author: Marta Diciotti
528 pages
ISBN-13: 9788879870443
Publication Date: 1987

It can be purchased for 18 euros from the Centro Editoriale Valtortiano here: Una vita con Maria Valtorta: Testimonianze di Marta Diciotti at Centro Editoriale Valtortiano.

Another book available in Italian is Lettere a Padre Migliorini (Letters to Father Migliorini). This is a collection of letters that Maria Valtorta and Fr. Migliorini exchanged between October 29, 1942 and October 6, 1952. Fr. Romualdo Migliorini, O.S.M., was Maria Valtorta’s spiritual director from 1942 to 1946. He was the one who commanded her to write her autobiography in late 1942, and guided her when her visions and dictations began in 1943. He also remained her spiritual director and typed thousands of pages of Maria Valtorta’s writings before he was recalled to Rome in 1946 by his superiors.

He was an Italian who had been a parish priest in Canada and a missionary to Africa. Pope Pius XII appointed him Apostolic Prefect in South Africa before he returned to Italy in 1939. 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 Fr. Berti to publish the Poem of the Man-God “just as it is”. Fr. Migliorini passed away in 1953. These letters are most insightful and helpful in better understanding Maria Valtorta and the supernatural events of her life.

English translations of 14 of her letters are available online here: Letters of Maria Valtorta to Romualdo Migliorini, O.S.M.

The information on the book Lettere a Padre Migliorini is the following:

Author: Maria Valtorta and Fr. Romualdo Migliorini, O.S.M.
200 pages, softcover
ISBN-13: 9788879871693

It can be purchased for 16 euros from the Centro Editoriale Valtortiano here: Lettere a Padre Migliorini at Centro Editoriale Valtortiano.

Another important book available in Italian is Ricordi di donne che conobbero Maria Valtorta (Memories of Women Who Knew Maria Valtorta). This is a collection of testimonies of people who knew Maria Valtorta, among them Marta Diciotti, neighbors, a cousin, and two religious sisters who were nurses with Maria Valtorta.

The information on the book is the following:

Author: Various
288 pages, softcover
ISBN-13: 9788879870405

It can be purchased for 17 euros from the Centro Editoriale Valtortiano here: Ricordi di donne che conobbero Maria Valtorta at Centro Editoriale Valtortiano.

Another important book available in Italian and released in 2014 is Lettera a Claudia (Letter to Claudia). This book answers dozens of questions that Dr. Emilio Pisani and his wife Claudia have received over the years from Valtorta readers from around the world. In Centro Editoriale Valtortiano’s Bollettino Valtortiano #87 (which is available here), they list 27 questions that are answered in this book, including many things relevant to readers and researchers of Maria Valtorta’s writings. The information on the book is the following:

Author: Dr. Emilio Pisani
160 pages, hardcover
ISBN-13: 9788879872041

It can be purchased for 15 euros from the Centro Editoriale Valtortiano here: Lettera a Claudia at Centro Editoriale Valtortiano.

Blessed Gabriel Allegra 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. His Cause was opened in 1984, just eight years after his death; he was elevated to “Venerable” only 10 years later in 1994, and the decree of a miracle and his beatification was approved by the Holy See in 2002. He was finally beatified on September 29, 2012, at the Cathedral of Arcireale, Catania, in Sicilia. Gabriel Allegra is the only biblical scholar of the 20th century who has been beatified. He was an outspoken and avid long-time supporter of Maria Valtorta, and his latter years were spent reading, studying, promoting, and defending the Poem of the Man-God.

Many of the writings of Blessed Gabriel Allegra have been translated into English and are available here: Blessed Gabriel Allegra's Critique, Notes, and Letters on Maria Valtorta's Poem of the Man-God.

Did Fr. Herrbach consult the critique of this world-renowned exegete and theologian who had been studying Valtorta’s writings in depth for many years (11 years to be exact)? Did he consult the other primary sources listed above?

You see, based on what I was told by the priest I talked to who was familiar with Fr. Herrbach’s book, I suspect that the answer to most of the above questions I’ve asked over the course of the many paragraphs above is “no”. If this is the case, then I consider Fr. Herrbach’s book and study to be inadequate, inconclusive, untrustworthy, unsubstantial, and most likely erroneous, especially if it contained the type of weak and erroneous arguments that the Resistance Dominicans listed in their article which I refuted (which they say are all ideas drawn directly from Fr. Herrbach’s book since they say “for more details, consult the book of Fr. Herrbach”). I also suspect that it is possible that Fr. Herrbach has adopted the same spirit/attitude that a certain percentage of SSPX priests have adopted in being overly suspicious of anything that was not explicitly approved prior to Vatican II (although arguably Valtorta’s work was approved in some form prior to Vatican II by the fact that a traditional Pope commanded her work to be published “just as it is”)? How can I know that Fr. Herrbach hasn’t fallen into this type of overly suspicious, close-minded attitude that some of the priests of his religious order have fallen into?

Was Fr. Herrbach aware that a spiritual daughter of St. Padre Pio’s reports that he commanded one of his spiritual daughters to read Valtorta’s work when he was asked about it and that multiple people report witnessing mystical phenomena that occurred between Maria Valtorta and St. Padre Pio during the time when they were both alive?

Why should I put any stock in Fr. Herrbach’s analysis when I have:

• Fr. Corrado Berti (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), who spent decades studying Valtorta’s work and provided more than more than 5,675 scholarly footnotes and appendices for her work, including for difficult passages that critics have or could potentially criticize.

• Fr. Gabriel Roschini (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) who studied Valtorta’s work for years and wrote a 395-page Mariological study of Valtorta’s writings that even received the praise of the Vatican at the time of its publication. Note that he reviewed the first volume of Valtorta’s work and wrote a nihil obstat for it as far back as 1946. His Mariological study of all of her writings was published in 1973. He passed away in 1977.

• Msgr. Hugo Lattanzi, dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Lateran Pontifical University, and Consultant to the Holy Office, who approved the Poem in 1952 after studying it, stating: “The author...could not have written such an abundant amount of material...without being under the influence of a supernatural power.”194

I could go on listing 24 extremely learned clerics or Doctors of Theology/Divinity/Canon Law, seven Members or Consultants of the Holy Office/Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and seven Saints/Blesseds/Venerables/Servants of God (not all of whom SSPX priests would doubt their holiness or learning) who have all publicly praised Valtorta’s writings and recommended their use and affirmed that they are free of errors in faith and morals.

Why should any traditional Catholic trust what Fr. Herrbach says? Because he’s a SSPX priest? To be frank, as proven by Fr. Laisney’s highly flawed analysis of Valtorta, that is not a sufficient credential. A theologian is only as good as his ability to stick to objective facts, do correct methodological reasoning, remove personal subjective bias from his analysis, and consult all the best resources available. I highly doubt that Fr. Herrbach can compete, in these areas, with the likes of Fr. Roschini, Fr. Berti, Blessed Allegra, etc., who all studied her writings for years: specifically, Fr. Berti studied her writings for 34 years; Blessed Allegra studied her writings for 11 years; and Fr. Roschini first published a review and nihil obstat of the first volume of her work as far back as 1946, and completed his most intensive study of her writings in later years, culminating in a 395-page Mariological analysis of her writings.

If Fr. Herrbach's arguments are anything like the Resistance Dominican article which I just refuted (which it appears they are, since they refer to his book for more details), I don’t hold out much hope for his analysis.

However, all things said, if I could obtain an English translation of his work, I would be willing to consider his arguments with an open mind. I would expect no less from him. In the meantime, I will have to rely on French-speaking Valtorta researchers to possibly review his book and provide feedback. Also, in the meantime, I refer people interested in Valtorta not only to read this present refutation of arguments based on his book, but also to consult the books (especially those of primary sources) and English translations of testimonies and writings of renowned theologians listed above before blindly trusting and following Fr. Herrbach’s book.

Note that I’m not criticizing Fr. Herrbach’s good intentions. I’m just giving people a reality check and de-mystifying the mistaken idea that he might have a high degree of credibility and authority on this private revelation which he does not in actuality possess, especially in light of the evidence suggesting the very little time and diligence he put into researching Maria Valtorta and her writings compared to other authorities who have invested far more time and have far greater credentials for analyzing this mystic and her mystical writings.

References

1. The Poem of the Man-God. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. 2008. Volume 1, Page XI in the Preface. The preface is also viewable online at Maria-Valtorta.net:
http://maria-valtorta.net/poem_man_god_preface.html
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. p. 6. ISBN-13: 9788879870863.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 2 in the Text

3. 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 3 in the Text

4. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 1, Page X in the Preface. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 4 in the Text

5. Una vita con Maria Valtorta: Testimonianze di Marta Diciotti [A Life with Maria Valtorta: Testimonials of Marta Diciotti]. By Marta Diciotti. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. 1987. Short synopsis of pp. 104-105. ISBN-13: 9788879870443.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 5 in the Text

6. Una vita con Maria Valtorta: Testimonianze di Marta Diciotti [A Life with Maria Valtorta: Testimonials of Marta Diciotti]. Short synopsis of p. 183. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 6 in the Text

7. For more information, see the below two books:

Lettere a Madre Teresa Maria – vol. primo [Letters to Mother Teresa Maria – First Volume]. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. ISBN-13: 9788879871754. Maria Valtorta and Mother Maria Teresa of St. Joseph (1900-1985), a cloistered Carmelite nun, exchanged many letters. Volume 1 contains letters from December 1945 to December 1946.

Lettere a Madre Teresa Maria – vol. second [Letters to Mother Teresa Maria – Second Volume]. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. ISBN-13: 9788879871778. Maria Valtorta and Mother Maria Teresa of St. Joseph (1900-1985), a cloistered Carmelite nun, exchanged many letters. Volume 2 contains letters of the years 1947 to 1957.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 7 in the Text

8. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 1, Page X in the Preface. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 8 in the Text

9. The Editor, Dr. Pisani, relates in the preface of The Poem of the Man-God, “Maria began a slow process of withdrawal into a kind of psychological isolation which started perhaps in 1956.” Since Maria Valtorta was born on March 14, 1897, she turned 59 years old in 1956 when her Alzheimer's-like symptoms began. She died at the age of 64 ½ years on October 12, 1961. 59 years/64.5 years = 91.5%
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 9 in the Text

10. The Book of Azariah. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. June 9, 1946. p. 135. ISBN-13: 9788879870139.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 10 in the Text

11. In Response to Various Questions Regarding "The Poem of the Man-God”. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 11 in the Text

12. A Brief History of Events. Maria-Valtorta.net.
http://www.maria-valtorta.net/index.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 12 in the Text

13. 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.html
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 13 in the Text

14. A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 14 in the Text

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

16. 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.html
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 16 in the Text

17. A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 17 in the Text

18. Fireworks: Sunrise of Truth Encyclopedia, Vol. 1. p. 94. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 18 in the Text

19. 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.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 19 in the Text

20. 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 20 in the Text

21. Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council (1513).
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 17 in the Text

22. 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 22 in the Text

23. Fireworks: Sunrise of Truth Encyclopedia, Vol. 1. p. 19, 79. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 23 in the Text

24. 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/
A full English translation of Socci’s article is viewable here:
http://www.valtorta.org.au/Socci.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 24 in the Text

25. Bishop Johanan-Mariam Cazenave in the Preface to L’Énigme Valtorta (The Valtorta Enigma), a book by Jean-François Lavère, RSI Publishers, 2012, page 16. An English translation of this preface is available online here:
http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/The_Valtorta_Enigma_Preface.pdf
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 25 in the Text

26. A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 26 in the Text

27. In Defense of the Poem. By The Most Rev. Roman Danylak. Original article published in A Call to Peace, August/September 1992, Vol. 3, No. 4, published monthly by the Mir-A-Call Center, 1515 N. Town East Blvd. – Suite 138, Mesquite, TX 75150.
http://www.SacredHeartofJesus.ca/MariaValtorta/inDefense.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/20150512182741/http://www.sacredheartofjesus.ca/MariaValtorta/inDefense.htm
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 27 in the Text

28. Fireworks: Sunrise of Truth Encyclopedia, Vol. 1. p. 106. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 28 in the Text

29. Pro e contro Maria Valtorta (5th Edition). By Dr. Emilio Pisani. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. 2008. pp. 263-265. ISBN-13: 9788879871528.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 29 in the Text

30. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 30 in the Text

31. The placement of a work on the Index was not an infallible act, and, contrary to popular belief, was not always done because a book had an error against faith or morals or was obscene. Other reasons for why books were placed on the Index of Forbidden books were for disciplinary reasons, or simply because a book requiring prior Church approval before publishing was published without prior approval (not necessarily because of harmful content), or because it was judged that the book might be dangerous for groups of people at that time in history (and when the conditions changed such that such dangers were no longer present, these books could be removed from the Index). During the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII, the pontiff revised the Index of Forbidden Books and dropped about a thousand books from it. He also overhauled the rules at that time, something done by Popes multiple times during the history of the Index, with the last one being the abolishment of the Index by Pope Paul VI in 1966.

In the case of the first edition of Maria Valtorta’s main work, The Poem of the Man-God, it is clear from the explanatory letter which accompanied the notification of its placement on the Index that the reason for its placement on the Index was not due to any errors against faith or morals, but because of a disciplinary matter due to allegedly grave disobedience by an unspecified person (presumably Fr. Berti).

Because the placement of the first edition of The Poem of the Man-God on the Index was not due to any errors against faith or morals, the reasons for why it was placed on the Index were deemed by the Holy Office in 1961 as no longer applicable and they approved its publication. In more recent times, in a letter dated May 6, 1992 (Prot. N. 324-92), addressed to Dr. Emilio Pisani (the publisher of Maria Valtorta’s works), Monsignor Dionigi Tettamanzi, secretary to the Italian Episcopal Conference, gave permission for the work to continue to be published for the “true good of readers and in the spirit of the genuine service to the faith of the Church”. Dr. Pisani relates concerning this letter, “Our comment immediately points to the conclusion that the Work of Maria Valtorta does not contain errors or inaccuracies concerning faith and morals; otherwise Monsignor Tettamanzi would have asked the Publisher to correct or eliminate such specific errors or inaccuracies ‘for the true good of readers.’” Note that in each country, it was the secretary of the episcopal conference who transmitted the official position of the Church on such works.

These points may help illustrate the above facts more clearly:

1. Normally, in the days that the Index was maintained, after the first edition of a work had been condemned due to an error against faith or morals, the approval of the second edition of that work did not automatically reverse the condemnation of the first edition: that statement of normality assumes the normal functioning of the index used for its purpose of forbidding the reading of something heretical or immoral. If the condemnation of the first edition of something had been validly done because of proven heresy or immorality, there is nothing that could ever be done afterwards to exonerate that first edition from condemnation.

2. In the case of Valtorta’s Work, however, it has been demonstrated that the putting on the Index of its first edition was not done for heresy or immorality, because even the article in the Osservatore Romano purporting to explain why the work had been put on the Index failed to list even one heresy or one passage that promoted immorality. The end of the article revealed the real reason for the putting on the Index: it was a “punishment” due to allegedly grave disobedience. However, the article did not tell the whole story nor did they even mention a name of who was supposedly disobedient. The facts are that Fr. Berti chose to obey the order of Pope Pius XII who had commanded him to publish the work in 1948. The two officials in 1949 called him to a private meeting the year after the Pope had commanded him (in front of two other eyewitnesses) to publish it. They refused to let him speak so that he could tell them the Pontiff’s command to publish it. The Pope had higher authority and jurisdiction than these two officials. He was given contradictory orders and so he obeyed the orders of the highest authority (the Pope). Even in that meeting with those two officials, besides silencing him, they tried to get him to hand over the typescripts and manuscripts of the work to them so that they could bury them forever. Fr. Berti testified that Msgr. Pepe even verbally admitted that this was his intention, when the latter exclaimed, “Here they will remain as in a tomb.” But, even if Fr. Berti had been guilty of disobedience, the putting on the Index of the work on merely the grounds of disobedience, even grave disobedience, would not have been because of any error against faith or morals and thus is easily overturned by subsequent authorities in the Holy Office. When all of the facts (especially concerning Pope Pius XII’s command to publish the work) are brought to light, even the pretext of punishment for alleged disobedience could not justify the putting of the first edition on the Index, but even this question is a moot point at this point in history because the work has since been permitted for publication.

3. Now, what is very interesting is that the text of the first edition was not modified in any substantial way in the second, third, or fourth editions of the work. The only changes were fixes of very minor typographical mistakes or misreadings of very secondary words that had no theological or moral impact on the text. The second edition did see the addition of many footnotes and some appendices, but the underlying text was not changed as far as the theological or moral meaning went.

4. The second edition was approved for publication, which meant that the Holy Office did not consider that it contained any theological or moral errors in either the underlying text (which was substantially the same as in the first edition) or the added footnotes or appendices.

5. Because the text of the second edition contained all the contents of the first edition with no alterations that might have impacted the Faith or moral contents of the work, that means that if the text of the second edition was approved for publication, the text of the first edition was implicitly approved by the officials who approved the second edition.

6. Thus the approval of the second edition, in the particular case of Valtorta’s work, amounted to an implicit discreditation of the placement of the first edition on the Index.

7. For those who claim the placement of the first edition on the Index was due to a demonstrated error against faith or morals (which a careful examination of the explanatory letter shows it was not), were it not for the fact that no change in wording between the first and second editions of the work had an impact on its Faith and moral meaning, then one could not say that the approval of the second edition had implicitly reversed the alleged condemnation due to faith or morals of the first edition. Had there really been heresy or immorality in the first edition, then the second edition would not have escaped condemnation, because no changes had been made to the passages that would have been heretical or immoral. But because no changes with a theological or moral impact were made and the second (and later in 1992, even a newer than second) edition was approved for publication, then the first one, logically, should have been approved for publication as well (if the true reason for its placement on the Index was because of errors against faith or morals). The only other possible reasons why the first edition could have been placed on the Index would be due to disciplinary reasons, publication without prior required permission to publish (which it had in Pope Pius XII), or because it was judged that the book might be dangerous for groups of people at that time in history. By allowing publication of the second edition, these reasons are no longer considered an issue. Thus, regardless of the reason that the first edition was placed on the Index, the placement of the first edition on the Index of Forbidden Books was implicitly repealed by those who approved the second and subsequent editions.

For more details, see:
A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work. By Stephen Austin. SubChapter: The Position of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Holy Office).
http://www.drbo.org/dnl/Maria_Valtorta_Summa_Encyclopedia.pdf
• In Response to Various Questions Regarding "The Poem of the Man-God”. By Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.D. April 15, 2006.
http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/2006/04/in-response-to-various-questions-regarding-qthe-poem-of-the-man-godq/
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 31 in the Text

32. 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 32 in the Text

33. Condemnations of 1210-1277. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 33 in the Text

34. In Defense of the City of God: Part Two. Daily Catholic.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Jun/jun17tim.htm
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 34 in the Text

35. The Roman Index of Forbidden Books (3rd Edition). By Francis S. Betten, S.J. Published by B. Herder: St. Louis, MO. 1912. p. 18. Available online here:
http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/Francis%20S.%20Betten,%20S.J.%20-%20The%20Roman%20Index%20of%20Forbidden%20Books.pdf
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 35 in the Text

36. The Roman Index of Forbidden Books (3rd Edition). p. 12. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 36 in the Text

37. A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 37 in the Text

38. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 38 in the Text

39. Pro e contro Maria Valtorta (5th Edition). By Dr. Emilio Pisani. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. 2008. pp. 263-265. ISBN-13: 9788879871528.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 39 in the Text

40. Poem of the Man-God, Vol. 1 by Maria Valtorta - Reading Length. Reading Length. 2015-2016. Accessed online July 2016.
http://www.readinglength.com/book.php?isbn=B0011D1H0C&query=The+Poem+of+the+Man-God
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 40 in the Text

41. Average American watches 5 hours of TV per day, report shows. By David Hinckley. New York Daily News. March 5, 2014. Accessed online July 2016.
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/average-american-watches-5-hours-tv-day-article-1.1711954
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 41 in the Text

42. In Response to Various Questions Regarding "The Poem of the Man-God”. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 42 in the Text

43. Gabriel Roschini. Wikipedia. Accessed online July 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Roschini
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 43 in the Text

44. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 44 in the Text

45. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. Page XIV in the Foreword. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 45 in the Text

46. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. pp. 8-9. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 46 in the Text

47. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. Foreword. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 47 in the Text

48. 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 48 in the Text

49. 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 49 in the Text

50. 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 50 in the Text

51. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 51 in the Text

52. The Holy Shroud and the Visions of Maria Valtorta. pp. 218-219. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 52 in the Text

53. A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 53 in the Text

54. 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 54 in the Text

55. 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 55 in the Text

56. An Introduction to Maria Valtorta and Her Epic Narrative The Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 56 in the Text

57. 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 57 in the Text

58. The Holy Shroud and the Visions of Maria Valtorta. pp. 218-219. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 58 in the Text

59. 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 59 in the Text

60. Blessed Padre Pio: A Man of the XXth Century Who Suffered for the Church and from the Church. By Father Dominique Boulet. November 1999. Society of St. Pius X District of Canada.
http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Nov1999/PadrePioNov99.htm
Note: The original URL above became dead in 2013, but an archive of it can still be viewed here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101118083947/http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Nov1999/PadrePioNov99.htm
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 60 in the Text

61. Common Questions and Misconceptions. Maria-Valtorta.net.
http://www.maria-valtorta.net/common_questions.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 61 in the Text

62. Condemnations of 1210-1277. Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condemnations_of_1210%E2%80%931277
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 62 in the Text

63. In Defense of the City of God: Part Two. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 63 in the Text

64. The Roman Index of Forbidden Books (3rd Edition). p. 12. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 64 in the Text

65. Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 65 in the Text

66. The Sources of the Testimony of Fr. Giraudo’s Words: The Official Signed Testimony of Fr. Corrado M. Berti, O.S.M., Bishop Roman Danylak’s Letter, and an Official Publication of Dr. Emilio Pisani. All of these sources are given below:

A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit. 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

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. 92. 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
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 66 in the Text

67. A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 67 in the Text

68. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. Appreciation by Pope Paul VI and Translation. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 68 in the Text

69. A Brief History of Events. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 69 in the Text

70. Bishop Roman Danylak Letter of Endorsement. June 24, 2001.
http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/Bishop-Danylak-Valtorta-Endorsement.pdf
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 70 in the Text

71. In Defense of the Poem. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 71 in the Text

72. 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 72 in the Text

73. 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 73 in the Text

74. Maria Valtorta. Angelqueen Forums. Fr. Kevin Robinson’s Comments about the Poem of the Man-God. Posted on April 25, 2006, and April 28, 2006.
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/valtorta.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/20150912200311/http://jloughnan.tripod.com/valtorta.htm
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 74 in the Text

75. Common Questions and Misconceptions. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 75 in the Text

76. The Holy Shroud and the Visions of Maria Valtorta. pp. 219-220. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 76 in the Text

77. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. Footnote #137 on pp. 277-278. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 77 in the Text

78. Original Sin: A Compilation and Commentary by Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M. English translation of: Il Poema Dell’Uomo-Dio (Second Italian Edition). Centro Editoriale Valtortiano srl. Viale Piscicelli, 89/91, 03036 Isola del Liri (FR), Italia. 1986. Volume 1, Appendix, pp. 309-314.
http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/OriginalSin.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 78 in the Text

79. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 1, Chapter 3, pp. 14-16; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 1, Chapter 3, pp. 20-21.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 79 in the Text

80. The Notebooks: 1943. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. November 28, 1943. p. 516. ISBN-13: 9788879870320.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 80 in the Text

81. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 1, Chapter 9, pp. 50-51; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 1, Chapter 9, pp. 61-64.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 81 in the Text

82. The Notebooks: 1943. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. July 18, 1943. p. 177. ISBN-13: 9788879870320. Translation improved by Br. Chrys Castel, OCSO, upon investigating the original Italian.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 82 in the Text

83. 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 83 in the Text

84. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. Foreword. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 84 in the Text

85. The Holy Shroud and the Visions of Maria Valtorta. pp. 219-220. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 85 in the Text

86. The Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life. By Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. B. Herder Book Company, St. Louis, Missouri. 1949. Endnote 298.
This endnote is also available online here:
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/lagrange/saviour/mother.shtml#sdendnote298sym
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 86 in the Text

87. True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. By St. Louis de Montfort. #24-25. This book is available in printed form and at many places online, such as:
http://www.jesus-passion.com/TrueDevotion.htm#TREATISE%20ON%20TRUE%20DEVOTION
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 87 in the Text

88. Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum. By Pope St. Pius X. February 2, 1904.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_02021904_ad-diem-illum-laetissimum.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 88 in the Text

89. Our Lady co-redemptrix. By Linda O’Brien, FTI. Catholic Exchange. May 25, 2007. Accessed online July 2016.
http://catholicexchange.com/our-lady-co-redemptrix
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 89 in the Text

90. St. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, vol. 3, ch. 22, n. 4; PG 7, 959.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 90 in the Text

91. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. p. 16, pp. 21-25. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 91 in the Text

92. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 5, Chapter 514, p. 598; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 9, Chapter 600, p. 505.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 92 in the Text

93. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 93 in the Text

94. Apologia Pro Maria Valtorta. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 94 in the Text

95. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 5, Chapter 514, p. 598; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 9, Chapter 600, p. 505.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 95 in the Text

96. The Acts of Peter from "The Apocryphal New Testament". M.R. James-Translation and Notes. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1924.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actspeter.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 96 in the Text

97. Pro e contro Maria Valtorta (5th Edition). By Dr. Emilio Pisani. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. 2008. pp. 86-89. ISBN-13: 9788879871528.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 97 in the Text

98. 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 98 in the Text

99. Introduction to The Spiritual Canticle. Catholic Treasury.
http://www.catholictreasury.info/books/spiritual_canticle/cn_1.php
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 99 in the Text

100. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 5, Chapter 605, p. 619; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 10, Chapter 609, p. 136.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 100 in the Text

101. Did Jesus Drink the Wine Mixture?. Southwest Radio Ministries.
https://www.swrc.com/jesus-and-wine.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 101 in the Text

102. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 5, Chapter 609, p. 669; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 10, Chapter 613, pp. 198-199.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 102 in the Text

103. The Holy Shroud and the Visions of Maria Valtorta. pp. 219-220. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 101 in the Text

104. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 5, Chapter 605, pp. 615, 619-621; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 10, Chapter 609, pp. 131-132, 137-139.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 102 in the Text

105. True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. By St. Louis de Montfort. #5-7, 12. This book is available in printed form and at many places online, such as:
http://www.jesus-passion.com/TrueDevotion.htm#TREATISE%20ON%20TRUE%20DEVOTION
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 103 in the Text

106. The Notebooks: 1943. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. December 8, 1943. pp. 556-557. ISBN-13: 9788879870320.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 104 in the Text

107. 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 105 in the Text

108. The Notebooks: 1945-1950. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. September 30, 1947. pp. 422-423. ISBN-13: 9788879870887.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 106 in the Text

109. The Notebooks: 1944. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. August 20, 1944. pp. 531-533. ISBN-13: 978879870429.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 107 in the Text

110. 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 108 in the Text

111. 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 109 in the Text

112. True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. By St. Louis de Montfort. #4, 5. This book is available in printed form and at many places online, such as:
http://www.jesus-passion.com/TrueDevotion.htm#TREATISE%20ON%20TRUE%20DEVOTION
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 110 in the Text

113. Bollettino Valtortiano. No. 29, January-June 1984. pp. 114-116. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 111 in the Text

114. 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 112 in the Text

115. 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 113 in the Text

116. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 114 in the Text

117. A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 115 in the Text

118. The Holy Shroud and the Visions of Maria Valtorta. pp. 219-220. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 116 in the Text

119. A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 117 in the Text

120. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 118 in the Text

121. Home Reading: Eleison Comments. Number CCLXXV (275). By Bishop Richard Williamson. October 20, 2012.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 119 in the Text

122. Il Poema Dell’Uomo-Dio (Second Italian Edition). Centro Editoriale Valtortiano srl. Viale Piscicelli, 89/91, 03036 Isola del Liri (FR), Italia. 1986. Volume 9, Chapter 30, p. 374, Footnote 3.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 120 in the Text

123. The Valtorta Newsletter. No. 5, Summer 1991. Maria Valtorta Research Center. 31, King St. West, #212, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada, J1H 1N5. p. 4.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 121 in the Text

124. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 5, Chapter 605, pp. 626-628; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 10, Chapter 609, pp. 145-148.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 122 in the Text

125. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 5, Last Chapter, pp. 946-952; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 10, Chapter 652, pp. 541-553.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 123 in the Text

126. 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 124 in the Text

127. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 125 in the Text

128. Gabriel Roschini. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 126 in the Text

129. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 127 in the Text

130. 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 128 in the Text

131. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. Foreword. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 129 in the Text

132. An Introduction to Maria Valtorta and Her Epic Narrative The Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 130 in the Text

133. 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 131 in the Text

134. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. Foreword. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 132 in the Text

135. William F. Buckley Jr’s Fascination with Italian Mystic Maria Valtorta. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 133 in the Text

136. 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 134 in the Text

137. This contains excerpts from two sources:

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

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 135 in the Text

138. The Valtorta Newsletter. No. 5, Summer 1991. p. 4. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 136 in the Text

139. 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 137 in the Text

140. 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 138 in the Text

141. 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 139 in the Text

142. 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 140 in the Text

143. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano (CEV). Centro Editoriale Valtortiano srl. Viale Piscicelli, 89/91, 03036 Isola del Liri (FR), Italia.
http://www.mariavaltorta.com/index.php/eng/centroeditorialevaltortiano-eng/
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 141 in the Text

144. Fireworks: Sunrise of Truth Encyclopedia, Vol. 1. p. 90. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 142 in the Text

145. Padre Pio and Maria Valtorta. By Dr. Emilio Pisani. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. 1999. p. 68. ISBN-13: 978-8879870719.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 143 in the Text

146. 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 144 in the Text

147. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 145 in the Text

148. A wonderful gift to our generation: "The Gospel as was revealed to me" by Maria Valtorta. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 146 in the Text

149. Apologia Pro Maria Valtorta. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 147 in the Text

150. Introduction to The Spiritual Canticle. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 148 in the Text

151. In the Likeness of Christ. By Fr. Edward Leen. Sarto House: Kansas City, MO. Distributed by Angelus Press. Originally published in 1936. Reprinted in 2000. pp. 2-7. ISBN-13: 9780963903280.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 149 in the Text

152. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 4, Chapter 538, pp. 827-828; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 8, Chapter 540, pp. 369-371.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 150 in the Text

153. 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 151 in the Text

154. In the Likeness of Christ. pp. 4-7. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 152 in the Text

155. The Poem of the Man-God, Volume 1, Chapter 44, p. 238; The Gospel as Revealed to Me, Volume 1, Chapter 44, p. 283.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 153 in the Text

156. Apologia Pro Maria Valtorta. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 154 in the Text

157. John Haffert. Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Haffert
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 155 in the Text

158. The Poem of the Man-God Authoritative Testimonials. Valtorta Publishing.
http://valtorta.org/the_poem_of_the_man_god_reviews_and_critiques.asp
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 156 in the Text

159. That Wonderful Poem! By John M. Haffert. This booklet is available for purchase from the 101 Foundation here:
http://www.101foundation.com/catalog/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=232
This booklet is also completely viewable online here:
http://www.valtorta.org.au/Poem.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 157 in the Text

160. The Notebooks: 1944. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. January 25, 1944. pp. 112-113. ISBN-13: 978879870429.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 158 in the Text

161. 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 159 in the Text

162. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 160 in the Text

163. 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 161 in the Text

164. Maria Valtorta. Angelqueen Forums. Comment by Fr. Kevin Robinson, FSSPX. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 162 in the Text

165. Common Questions and Misconceptions. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 163 in the Text

166. Apologia Pro Maria Valtorta. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 164 in the Text

167. The Notebooks: 1943. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. July 18, 1943. p. 177. ISBN-13: 9788879870320. Translation improved by Br. Chrys Castel, OCSO, upon investigating the original Italian.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 165 in the Text

168. The Notebooks: 1945-1950. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. September 30, 1947. pp. 422-423. ISBN-13: 9788879870887.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 166 in the Text

169. The Notebooks: 1944. By Maria Valtorta. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. August 20, 1944. pp. 531-533. ISBN-13: 978879870429.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 167 in the Text

170. The Holy Shroud and the Visions of Maria Valtorta. pp. 218-219. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 168 in the Text

171. A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 169 in the Text

172. 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 170 in the Text

173. 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 171 in the Text

174. An Introduction to Maria Valtorta and Her Epic Narrative The Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 172 in the Text

175. The Holy Shroud and the Visions of Maria Valtorta. p. 217, 219. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 173 in the Text

176. The Valtorta Newsletter. No. 7, Summer 1993. Maria Valtorta Research Center. 31, King St. West, #212, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada, J1H 1N5. pp. 5-6. Also quoted online here:
http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/Chrchval.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 174 in the Text

177. Bollettino Valtortiano. No. 87, January-June 2014. p. 4. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. Viale Piscicelli, 89/91, 03036 Isola del Liri (FR), Italia. The latest Bollettino Valtortiano bulletins are available online here: http://issuu.com/bollettinovaltortiano
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 175 in the Text

178. A wonderful gift to our generation: "The Gospel as was revealed to me" by Maria Valtorta. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 176 in the Text

179. A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 177 in the Text

180. Maria Valtorta. Angelqueen Forums. Comment by Fr. Kevin Robinson, FSSPX. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 178 in the Text

181. A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 179 in the Text

182. Home Reading: Eleison Comments. Number CCLXXV (275). By Bishop Richard Williamson. October 20, 2012.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 180 in the Text

183. A Reply to the Saint Anthony Messenger. By Dr. Emilio Pisani. Originally published in: Bollettino Valtortiano. January-June 1999. Edizioni Pisani / Centro Editoriale Valtortiano srl. Viale Piscicelli, 89/91, 03036 Isola del Liri (FR), Italia.
http://www.bardstown.com/~brchrys/StAntony.html
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 181 in the Text

184. Common Questions and Misconceptions. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 182 in the Text

185. Bollettino Valtortiano. No. 29, January-June 1984. pp. 114-116. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 183 in the Text

186. The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta. Foreword. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 184 in the Text

187. 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 185 in the Text <

188. ibid.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 186 in the Text

189. A Testimony on Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 187 in the Text

190. 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 188 in the Text

191. 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 189 in the Text

192. An Introduction to Maria Valtorta and Her Epic Narrative The Poem of the Man-God. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 190 in the Text

193. The Holy Shroud and the Visions of Maria Valtorta. pp. 218-219. Op. cit.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 191 in the Text

194. Pro e contro Maria Valtorta (5th Edition). By Dr. Emilio Pisani. Centro Editoriale Valtortiano. 2008. pp. 80-82. ISBN-13: 9788879871528.
Click Here to Jump Back to Footnote 192 in the Text

 Back to top



Maria Valtorta Readers' Group Home