I would not waste a full report on this garbage if it were not that people still believe in it and put faith that these are true and believable revelations from Our Lord. So, without further ado, let’s get on with the report of the Satanic origin of this awful text.
In the Poem we will consider the most extreme example of APING GOD that can be produced. In order to understand this aping of God, we must first see who this seer is aping.
Anne Catherine Emmerich was born on the feast of the Birth of Mary in 1774 and died in 1824. From the earliest moments of her life she began to see visions of the entire history of the world from creation to the end of the world. She especially saw the entire life of Christ and Mary. In the later part of her life a man came, who she called “the pilgrim”, and began writing down all that her visions. She could not read or write. After her death “the pilgrim” compiled them into four large volumes on the Life of Christ, another volume on the life of Mary, and two volumes on Catherine’s life.
In order to put His signature on these writings, God performed through Catherine miracles almost everyday of her life. She carried the marks of Christ on her body [the stigmata] most of her life. She could read the souls of those who visited her. She could distinguish true and false relics. Cures were a common daily occurrence. After her death, investigations were made into some of her claims that seemed impossible. For instance, Catherine claimed to have seen the house John built for Mary in Ephesus. She described the house in every detail, even to the measurements and location.
Interesting to note (and we mention this often, since we have a special devotion to the True Crucifixion) is the description of the crucifixion of Christ by Emmerich, which is the exact same as Therese Neumann. Read her account of the death of Christ and compare it to the Poem:
“Jesus was now stretched on the cross by the executioners. He had lain Himself upon it; but they pushed Him lower down into the hollow places, rudely drew His right hand to the hole for the nail in the right arm of the cross and tied His wrist fast. One knelt on His sacred breast and held the closing HAND flat; another placed the long, thick nail, which had been filed to a sharp point, upon the PALM OF HIS SACRED HAND, and struck furious blows with the iron hammer.
“A sweet, clear, spasmodic cry of anguish broke from the Lord’s lips, and His blood spurted out upon the arms of the executioners. The muscles and ligaments of THE HAND had been torn by the THREE-EDGED NAIL, driven into the narrow hole.
“After nailing Our Lord’s right hand, the crucifiers found that His left, which also was fastened to the cross-piece, did not reach to the hole made for the nail, for they had bored a good two inches from the finger tips. They consequently unbound Jesus’ arm from the cross, wound cords around it and, with their feet supported firmly against the cross, pulled it forward until the hand reached the hole. Now, kneeling on the arm and breast of the Lord, they fastened the arm again on the beam, and hammered the second nail through the left HAND.”
Remember, God does not contradict Himself, and His true seers will not contradict each other.
In 1891, sixty-seven years after her death, Fathers Poullin and Yung went to Ephesus to check her claims. In exactly the spot south of Ephesus up in the mountains, the priests found the ruins of the house. The local people called the ruins “Panaya Kapulu”, the House of the Holy Virgin. Today it has been completely restored and has become a major shrine. Since Catherine Emmerich, Pope Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Pius XII have endorsed this shrine.
The evidence in favor of Catherine Emmerich is overwhelming: miracles, stigmata, prophecy that came to pass, fidelity to the doctrine of the Faith, heroic obedience to her superiors, humility, suffering, and above all, a faith in her Church above her visions.
God brought her into the world at a time of the French Revolution and the age of reason over faith, an age where the Bible was being attached by evolutionists, and the “new” theologians were calling the Scriptures only fables..
I am not ignorant of the differences between Emmerich and Mary Agreda. However, these differences are understandable, since each saw visions and interpreted them in her own way. Mary Agreda’s life of the Blessed Virgin was from a Spiritual point of view [like John], and Emmerich’s life of Christ and Mary was from a physical viewpoint [like Luke].
There is also the problem of two different languages and different translators. However, the differences are minor and have no meaning in faith and morals. This is not the case with the “Poem”.
The Aping of God
“The Poem of the Man-God” has exactly the same objective as Catherine Emmerich’s “The Life of Christ” except that instead of four large volumes it is fifteen large volumes. Every reason for the one work is found in the other work. The layouts of the two works are the same. But one thing is very, very different. Everything in “The Poem of the Man-God” contradicts “The Life of Christ”. Both cannot be from God. One has to be inspired by Satan in order to diffuse and confuse the other.
These two writings are so opposite to each other that the title is very appropriate. Christ is God made man [God-Man]; not man made God [Man-God]. Man-God is heresy.
Maria Valtorta was born on March 14, 1897 [123 years after Catherine Emmerich]. She and her mother did not get along. Her mother spoiled two marriage attempts by Maria, and in Maria’s own description was oppressive and irreligious. Maria did not do well in school [failing in mathematics], but was a gifted writer. She started her writings the year her mother died in 1943 and continued them everyday until her death in 1961. In eighteen years she wrote fifteen thousand pages–15,000.
No miracles happened during her life. No heroic virtue can be found. No unusual sanctity has been observed. No signature of God can be found.
The first, most glaring thing we noticed in reading “The Poem of the Man-God” is the conversation of Christ and Mary. When you read the Bible, you cannot help but notice that every single word of Christ has great meaning for the salvation of souls. Never did He speak a single word of “idle conversation”. In fact, Scripture and Doctrine call “idle conversation” a sin of omission and sloth. Father Mitch Pacwa, S.J. said the books make Jesus and Mary sound like chatterboxes.
We were unable to find anything that was worthy of quoting. Several of our friends that we use to test books found that they could not even hold their concentration on them for over five minutes.
Every page contradicts the works of Emmerich, and in some cases the meaning of the Bible, itself. Over ten seers have given the date of Mary’s birth as September 8th. But Maria gives a date of August 24th. None of the day-to-day life of Christ’s childhood resemble anything like that of Catherine. The impression one receives in these writings is that Christ does not know anything, since He is always asking questions about people’s lives, or their reasons for doing things. This is a Nestorian and Arian heresy. Although Jesus was totally man, with the intellect of man, He also always had the infused knowledge of Christ [His Divinity]. He does not call the publican down out of the tree by name without a divine knowledge.
The Christ of the “Poem” also fails to correct the sins of His followers in many cases. This is a sin for us, why not for Him? To admonish the sinner?
The “Poem” also states that Christ was nailed in the wrist on one hand and in the hand on the other. This does not agree with Emmerich or Neumann as we pointed out. God does not contradict God in anything.
Sense of God
This is not very scientific, but worth a comment. Whenever we read the Bible, the lives of the saints, or true messages from Heaven, we feel the power of the words as if grace pours out of them. There are no such feelings in reading “The Poem of the Man-God”.
The Poem of the Man-God is not worthy of comment if it were not for the fact that one of the largest Catholic Book Chains, The Daughters of St. Paul, “Pauline Books” chose to take out the works of Catherine Emmerich and put in its place this abortion of the word of God. We wonder why they had to remove the word “Catholic” from the name of their book stores. No, we do not wonder. We know!
The use of “screwdrivers” (Book 1 pp. 195, 223) is the blunder of blunders for a book said to be dictated by Jesus and Mary. Screws were not even invented at the time of Christ.
Book 1 pp. 7 claims Mary can be called the second-born of the Father. Christ was not born. He was begotten from all eternity. There is a big difference. Mary was conceived in the mind of the Father from all eternity, but She was born in the normal manner. She cannot be called the second-born. Page 30 claims Eve’s temptation consisted in arousing her sexual desires as the serpent sensuously caressed her. Eve’s sin was not sexual. It was pride leading to editing the commandments of God, and then to disobedience. Concupiscence is the result, not the cause. Valtorta calls Mary second to Peter with regards to ecclesiastical hierarchy in Book 4, pp. 240. The hierarchy of the Church are servants of Jesus and Mary. Mary could never be a servant, and therefore, could never be in the hierarchy.
“Poem” Condemned By Rome
Father Romuald Migliorini, O.S.M. typed Valtorta’s hand written manuscripts. Father Corrado Berti brought then to Father Augustin Bea, spiritual director of Pope Pius XII, and later Cardinal. Father Bea said that he did not find any errors in the parts that he read. From this, Father Berti went out into the world claiming that Pope Pius XII gave “Supreme Pontifical Imprimatur”. How much truth is there to this? First, a “nihil obstat” is required before any Imprimatur. Second, an Imprimatur must be in writing. Third, an Imprimatur must be re-issued for every language used. And fourth, in less then a year, 1949, Rome condemned the books, and ordered Father Berti to give up very copy he had and to sign an agreement not to publish. In spite of his signed promise, Father Berti published the books.
Again on December 16, 1959 the books were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books signed by Pope John XXII. Losservatore Romano printed the condemnation on January 6, 1960 with the heading, “A Badly Fictionalized Life of Jesus”.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in answer to questions, again reminded the world that the “Poem” has always been condemned. He went on to say in 1985:
“After the dissolution of the Index, when some people thought the printing and distribution of the work was permitted, they were reminded again in L’Osservatore Romano (June 15, 1966) that ‘The Index retains its moral force despite its dissolution.”
In 1993 Cardinal Ratzinger said the books cannot be considered supernatural in origin. He said that the best that could be said of them is that they were a badly fictionalized life of Jesus.
Caritas of Birmingham, the American promoters of “The Poem” wrote a pleading letter to Cardinal Ratzinger on July 21, 1992 [more on that later]. Cardinal Ratzinger felt that the Bishop of Birmingham, Alabama should answer the letter, and in 1993 Bishop Raymond J. Boland restated that they cannot be considered supernatural in origin.”
Rome condemned the books in 1949, 1959, 1960,1985, twice in 1993. What more do people want?
Index of Forbidden Books
Before we look into the publisher of the “Poem”, something must be said about the “Index” and the fact that it was dissolved. In the Catholic Directory published by the Daughters of Saint Paul, it states that although the index has been dissolved it is not necessary that a book be listed in the Index to be forbidden. In goes on to list twelve classes of publications that are forbidden by general law.
Class #5 states: “Books on visions and other supernatural phenomena published without approval.” In Class #6 “Books that attack Catholic dogma or the hierarchy or defend errors condemned by the Holy See.” Class #11 states, “Books propagation false indulgences.” Class #12 lists, “Printed images of Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, the angels, saints, or other servants of God.”
It must be noted that the Index was not done away with because it is no longer needed. It was forced to dissolve because of the invention of the computer, and the change from thousands of books to millions of books. There was and is no way Rome can keep up with the proliferation of Religious material today.
It must also be stated that the decree of December 29, 1966 by Pope Paul VI (abrogating Cannons 1399 and 2318) only applies to private revelation that has not yet received a declaration of the Church.
The same applies to the decree of Pope Urban VIII. Pope Urban stated “if it proves to be false”. How is it proved to be false unless we believe that the Church has the power to bind and loose? If we do not believe the Church can condemn and it be binding, how can it be proved to be false? But just before the new year of 1997 Rome made it very clear:
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
- Regarding the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, the Congregation states:
- The Interpretation given by some individuals to a Decision approved by Paul VI on 14 October 1966 and promulgated on 15 November of that year, in virtue of which writings and messages resulting from alleged revelations could be freely circulated in the Church, is absolutely groundless. This decision actually referred to the “abolition of the Index of Forbidden Books” and determined that — after the relevant censures were lifted — the moral obligation still remained of not circulating or reading those writings which endanger faith and morals.
- In should be recalled however that with regard to the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, canon 623 #1 of the current Code remains in force: “the Pastors of the Church have the … right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgement”.
- Alleged supernatural revelations and writings concerning them are submitted in first instance to the judgement of the diocesan Bishop, and , in particular cases, to the judgement of the Episcopal Conference and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
CARITAS OF BIRMINGHAM
Caritas is a community. It is also the publisher of the “Poem” and is located right next to Mother Angelica’s EWTN radio and television broadcasting stations. They also have a information center in Medjugorje called “Caritas’. Since there also is an arm of the Vatican called “Caritas” used to give food and relief to areas in need, many think that Caritas is part of the Vatican. It is not. It was founded by a millionaire, who went to Medjugorje and came back to found a community of believers and to promote the “Poem”. He has his own airplane and makes trips to Medjugorje at his slightest whim. The community prays in the field everyday, in spite of the fact that a Church is right across the street. This is because one of the seers of Medjugorje has a vision on that spot. It seems the “spot” is more holy than the Body and Blood of Christ in the Church across the street. According to one of our researchers, who was at one time high up in the New Age Movement, Caritas is reaping in New Age theology. She spent a great deal of time with them, and has a report to be printed soon. Terry Colafrancesco of Caritas wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger on July 21, 1002. We have a copy of this letter. The reason we have a copy is that he published the letter.
In his letter he claims to be a community in the making and to have a mailing list of over 100,000 people in the USA alone not counting 65 foreign countries. “Our work”, he writes, “is the implementation of Our Lady’s plan given in Medjugorje.” After five condemnations of the “Poem”, he states his reason for writing is the “gray area”, since “I am a close, personal friend of Marije Pavlovic, one of the visionaries in Medjugorje, and there is no question that she spoke to Our Lady and asked Her if one could read the Poem of the Man God. Our Lady answered that it was acceptable to read. Marija’s statement cannot be ignored.”
In other words, there is a gray area because the Church condemned a book that “Our Lady” recommends. How could the Cardinal, responsible for the protection of the faith of the entire world go against the wishes of Our Lady? Or another way of putting it is, “Let us put our faith in private revelation and not in the teaching authority of the Church”.
Cardinal Ratzinger did not think the letter worthy of a personal response, since Caritas was under the theological jurisdiction of the Bishop of Birmingham. It is Bishop Boland’s responsibility to see to it that his children keep the faith and obey the Church. However, his letter of response was so ambiguous and stupid that it caused more confusion than help. He left Caritas the impression that if they did not claim any supernatural influence in the “Poem” it could be sold as simply the imagination of the writer, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Church. This is fine, if you overlook that fact that the book states on every page, “Jesus said = Jesus told me – Mary said – Mary told me that, etc.” Even if these references were removed, everyone knows private revelation is claimed. They continue to publish the books as they were written.
SPECIFIC CRITIQUE OF BOOKS
Let us look at some of the writings of Valtorta. The poem refers to a baby as an “it” on page 23 of book #1, and an angel as an “it” on page 38. On page 40 Mary asks her mother if it would be right to be a sinner out of love for God, so that God could forgive you. No comment needed. On page 85 Mary claims to have consecrated Herself to virginity. One consecrates oneself to God, one vows virginity. We do not think Mary would make such a theological mistake. On page 89, it is claimed that Adam and Eve had an infinite gift of grace. Only God is infinite in anything positive, and even in the negative (infinitely bad), the negative is controlled by God. On Page 358 Jesus claims that He asks the Father not to lead Him into temptation, as if God could sin.
On page 128 Mary claimed that Joseph “never erred” meaning never sinned. Only Mary is without original or actual sin. To give those who never read the “Poem” an idea of the stupidity, let us quote one passage on page 166:
“The Child was about to fall asleep. He seemed a little restless, as if He had teething trouble, or some other minor pain of childhood.”
Mary sings: “All the sparkling angels – that in Heaven be. Form a wreath around You, innocent Child – enraptured by Your face. But You’re crying for Your Mummy – Mummy, Mummy, Mum. The sky will soon be red – and dawn will soon be back, and Mummy had no rest – to ensure You do not cry —“
On pages 196, 197, 201, 202, 204, and 209 it is claimed that Jesus learned from Joseph and Mary. And on pages 309. 310, and 311 He even asks to be taught things. God does not learn from anyone as He states on page 216 of the same book. This contradiction is not as important as the bottom line of the entire set of books. The man made god, as the title indicates, has one primary demonic purpose, to show Christ as an ignorant “mere human” being as Nestorian believed and was condemned for believing in the Council of Ephesus.
Again, I apologize for wasting so many words on a useless fictionalized account of Jesus’ life but this was from necessity as some people still (I do not know why) believe in this (*word retracted*).