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 20^th 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 20^th 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

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 20^th/21^st 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.