Can Mary be called the second-born of the Father?

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.