The
Church teaches that Jesus is the only-begotten of
the Father, yet Maria Valtorta writes in The Poem of the
Man-God, that Mary is the
“second-born” of the Father. Is this the smoking-gun heresy that
proves that the Poem
is a nothing more than a bad novel?
In
the very first chapter of The Poem of the Man-God by Maria
Valtorta, the Lord asks her to write the following: “Mary can be
called the second-born of the Father because, owing to the perfection
granted to Her and preserved by Her, and to her dignity of Spouse and
Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, She comes second after the Son of
the Father and second in His eternal thought, which ab aetorno
took delight in her.”
Yet,
in the beginning of the Gospel of St. John, the evangelist says of
Jesus “And we saw his glory – glory as of the only begotten of
the Father – full of grace and truth” [John 1:14.] In three
other places in his gospel, John calls Jesus the “only begotten
Son.” [John 1:18; 3:16; 3:18.] In the Nicene Creed, recited at
Mass, we say that we believe “...in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the
only-begotten Son of God.” And in the Gloria at Mass, we pray “O
Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son.”
If
Jesus is the only-begotten of the Father, how can Mary be called the
second-born of the Father? Would not this be a heresy? This is in
fact what Anselmo de la Cruz affirms in an article available on the
Internet Here. “This is a heresy, since Our Lord Jesus Christ is
the one and only begotten Son of the Father, consubstantial with Him,
as taught in the Credo:
“I believe in Jesus Christ His only Son.” […] “There can be
no “second-begotten” of the Father, which would make Mary equal
to the one and only Son. If Christ is the only Son, it is understood
that a second cannot exist.”
Fr.
Mitch Pacwa, of EWTN, also weighs in on this. He writes Here that
the Poem “oddly claims, ‘Mary can be called the
'second-born' of the Father...’ Her explanation limits the meaning,
avoiding evidence of an authentic heresy; but it does not take away
the basic impression that she wants to construct a new mariology,
which simply goes beyond the limits of propriety."
So
it may not be an authentic heresy to Fr. Pacwa, but it is definitely
“odd” and lacks “propriety” to claim that Mary is the
second-born.
For
Valtorta critic Sandra Miesel, almost everything about the Poem
is wrong or bad. Thus she mockingly writes
Here: “Mary, whom Jesus calls ‘the Second-Born of the Father,’
and ‘second to Peter with regard to ecclesiastical hierarchy’
preens over her unique exemption from ‘the torture of generating.’
” No explanation is given as to what is erroneous with these
quotes. Evidently she feels that none is needed, since her snide
mockery [of the Blessed Virgin, no less] should be considered as
proof enough that the Poem
is guilty of what she terms “blatant and offensive defects.”
In
sum, is the designation of Mary in the Poem as the second-born
of the Father, an authentic heresy, an odd claim lacking propriety,
or is it offensive? How can it be reconciled with the belief of the
Church that Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God?
If
one is reading the Poem as a product of the imagination and
thought of the person of Maria Valtorta, one is probably not inclined
to explore a possible deeper meaning in what is written. However, if
the reader believes that the Poem is the supernatural work of
Jesus, with Valtorta only an instrument or spokesperson, than one
would be open to thinking further about what is written.
And
thinking further about Mary being the second-born and Jesus as the
first-born, one sees that this is in relation to their existence as
human beings. Thus, in his humanity Jesus is first-born of all
creation in the Thought of the Father, and Mary is God’s second
delight, owing to her “perfection” and “dignity.” But Jesus
has not only his humanity but also his divinity! And it is in his
divinity that he is the only-begotten Son of the Father.
Our
Lord is thus the only-begotten in his divinity as “God of God,
light of light, true God of true God.” However, in his humanity he
is the first-born (Primogenito), and in terms of her humanity, Mary
is the second-born (secondogenita).
This
solution to the dilemma may even seem quite obvious and simple, but
evidently not for those who are blinded by their resistance, both to
Maria Valtorta and the Poem.
As made clear in her published Notebooks, Maria
suffered exceedingly during most
of her life, including while she was writing the Poem;
she offered her pains as a victim soul for the salvation of others.
The
three authors cited above are so entrenched in their bias that they
are willing to publish articles critical of her and the Poem.
They consider the Poem
as merely a human work, and not as supernatural, which it is.
Therefore what is written in the Poem is
viewed one-dimensionally, superficially, and negatively. Even if they
mean well, the net result of their articles is to discourage
Catholics from reading it.
If
they were open to the possibility that the Lord is the actual author
of the work, they might think twice before describing it with such
labels as “heresy,” “odd,” lacking “propriety,” or
“offensive.” Unfortunately their skepticism is a veil covering
their perception of the Poem, which
impedes them from knowing its supernatural origin.
“But
we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden,
which God ordained before the world, unto our glory: Which none of
the princes of this world knew; for if they had known it, they would
never have crucified the Lord of glory. [1 Corinthians 2: 7-8.]
View
my web page Here.
Our
Lord explained to the mystic and victim soul Maria Valtorta that He
wants each day of the week dedicated to a specific intention, for
which our sufferings, pains and prayers should be offered.
“And
let us look at the major groups for which suffering is needed. The
ones for which I, too, suffered in the Passion. The Priesthood,
the despairing, sinners, idolaters, and the souls waiting to return
to God – that is, for you, the souls being purged; for Me, at that
time, the just in Limbo.”
Sunday,
Monday and Tuesday,
the first three days of the week, should be dedicated to the
Priesthood. “In the Priesthood I include all
the
consecrated of every kind and category” The Priesthood is
necessary for the life
of the spirit,
for the flock
of the faithful. Priests
provide
the vital elements for souls, just like the four elements needed for
life on earth – light, water, air, and fire. But many of these
consecrated
clerics
become weaker and weaker, like stems lacking the vital elements, and
unwilling to absorb them to give them to the flock. So what mission
do many actually perform? “The one I entrusted to the Priesthood?
No. The mission of their gain and of dispersing what I have gathered
together. Oh, just a wisp keeps me from striking them […]
It
is
painful for me, the eternal Pontiff, to see that my
priestly army is full of sluggards and deserters.”
But
the best ones [the good clerics], those who were “...better than
you in faith, hope, and charity, sacrifice, chastity, and detachment
from all that was not Me…why have you struck and crucified these on
one of ‘your’ crosses? They were already on mine and remained
there willingly, for your sake as well.” You have not even wanted
to suffer “…the salutary humiliation of seeing yourselves
surpassed in heroism by these faithful servants of mine, whom I clasp
to my heart because through them the Light and the Word have been
conserved on earth, stars shining over the centuries during their
parabola, so that Heaven will always shine on men and they can find
it and say ‘God is there.’” [Although
written in the 20th
century, this
could prophetically refer to the
faithful “canceled priests” of the 21st
century.]
On
Wednesday
we
should pray and suffer for the despairing. “They
are brothers and sisters. No one should be so much of a brother or
sister for you as someone who is poor, alone, and sick. And those
despairing are poor, with the greatest poverty. They have lost
everything
in losing hope in God. They are alone. There is no solitude more real
than this. […] They are sick. An illness which produces death. Real
death. It is necessary to heal them, restore them to God, and make
them rich with God.”
On
Thursday
we should offer our prayers and afflictions for the many idolaters.
“For Me, idolatry is the worship of anything which is not the true
God.” In addition to the savages, there are “…many of the
civilized who, while knowing that there is one Triune God, worship a
thousand idols ranging from their self to the self of one of their
peers and along this way have many altars and false gods named
‘money,’ ‘power,’ ‘sensuality,’ ‘rationalistic
knowledge,’ and so on.”
[…]
“I thus include in the intentions for Thursday all
those who must know the Most Holy Name of God and my own…and those
who are ‘Christians’ but not Catholics. The Church is one: the
Church of Rome. […] On a distant Thursday evening, with the wound
of betrayal in my heart…I prayed for those who, through the heresy
of a wretch, would separate from the living trunk of the Roman
Church, that they might once again be one with it and thus with Me
and with the Father; finally I prayed for all men because I was dying
for them all. […] Pray, then, for these, who are not in Me or who
have gone out through the errors of their forebears or through the
error of their minds, made proud by the semblance of knowledge they
possess.”
Let
Friday
be dedicated to the souls in Purgatory. Suffer and offer every
Friday so that the angels of the Lord can say to many of these
spirits, “Come and possess God.”
“I
know […] the rejoicing which carried off the just in a whirlwind of
love when I appeared on a far-off Friday and said ‘The wait is
over. Come and possess God.’ […] The blessed are the gems born of
the Blood which I shed to the last drop on Good Friday. To open the
kingdom for a soul and introduce it into blessedness is to give Me
back what is mine.
Justice, then, and love for Me.”
On
Saturday,
pray and suffer with Mother Mary for the conversion of sinners. “Let
every Saturday of yours be a band of thorns surrounding your heart,
so that it will be covered with roses to offer Mary.” You place a
rose at Her
feet for every sinner who returns to God, “…a rose with which She
wipes away the tears flowing from her eyes since I made her the
Mother of the human race, so hostile to Me.”
Now
for you, the week is over, without an hour of freedom to think of
yourself. “I’ll take care of you. The Mother and I. And while
you do what you can, with difficulty, in spite of your good will, the
Mother and I act for your sake [...] for We love you and see that you
love us.”
From
The
Notebooks, 1944,
by Maria Valtorta, pp. 324-329.
Courtesy
of Pope Francis, we have a new term to describe the movement to
protect the Tridentine Mass and the traditional teachings of the
Church: “restorationism.” To quote from a June 14, 2022, article
from the Catholic News Agency, written by Hannah Brockhaus: “There
are many “restorers” in the United States who do not accept the
Second Vatican Council, Pope Francis said in an interview published
on Tuesday. Speaking to the editors of Jesuit journals, he criticized
what he called “restorationism” in the Church, which he defined
as the failure to accept Vatican II, the ecumenical council held from
1962 to 1965.” Link Here.
Quite
providentially, I recently came across a web page which purports show
the differences between the "old" Church and that of the Vatican II
Church. Based on a book written in 1966, shortly after the close of
the Council, the sixteen documents it issued are summarized according
to their consequences, in terms of the Church of the future vs. the
Church of the past.
Of
course the True Church can never be a Church of the past, since it
endures until the end of the ages, even if at times only in the
hearts of the faithful – surviving through good popes and enigmatic
popes, true councils and false councils. Always
in its essence One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
At
any rate the web site I came across is an apologia for the council,
as evidenced by a statement on its home page: “Those participating
in or who lived through the time of the Council felt a profound,
exhilarating sense of renewal and virtually experienced a new
Pentecost.” The particular part of the site of interest in this
post is their page entitled “The Sixteen Documents and their
Consequences.” Link Here.
Some
of their accusations against the Church of the “past” border on
the sensational. For the Vatican II document entitled Declaration on
Non-Christian Religions, they assert this of the Church of the past:
“Past
: Catholic missions formerly took an almost purely negative stand
against the world religions. They were seen only from the viewpoint
of conversion. The stand was even stronger in the case of the
Moslems, who were considered militant enemies of the Church, and the
Jews, who were considered an obdurate people. The Catholic attitude
was permeated by an anti-Semitic strain without which there might
have been no persecution of the Jews by the Nazis.”
So
it was the fault of the pre-Vatican
II Church
that caused Hitler to invoke the holocaust! Regarding the negative
stand regarding Muslims, explain why they are not militants to the families of these
newest martyrs: “Nigeria Suspects Islamic State of Killing 40 in
Catholic Church.” Link Here.
Most
of their arguments favoring the great new Church of the future, were
rebutted thoroughly in the classic: In
the Murky Waters of Vatican II,
by Atila S. Guimarães. See my review of the book Here.
View
my Catholic books Here.
